Re: Debian conference in the US?
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> a tapoté :
> On 25 May 2003 12:20:45 +0200, Mathieu Roy <yeupou@gnu.org> said:
>
> > Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org> a tapoté :
> >> On Sunday 25 May 2003 07:27, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> > > Remember, the rest of the world does *not* owe you and yours a
> >> > > living.
> >> >
> >> > Quite. But if they take delibrate action to hurt _any_
> >> > country, or its economy, they shall have to live with the
> >> > consequences.
> >>
> >> And what is US trying to do to France, right at the moment ?
>
> > I personally think that discussing about nations with Manoj here is
> > a complete waste of time.
>
> > He said that he would follow his leaders whatever they do, because
> > they are american.
>
> This is a lie, really, and bordering on slander.
>
> I do not subscribeto "My nation, right or wrong". Indeeed, I
> lean democrat rather than republican, and I like Gore; I consider the
> election of the current president a disaster that the american people
> have to endure and survive.
>
> > Isn't it clear? He will hate someone that try to harm USA,
>
> Un;less your logic fails you, that is entirely different. The
> ends do not justify the means;
I'm glad to read that. I'm glad of to see that I was wrong about you
but what you previously wrote lead, IMHO, to this kind of confusion.
For instance you wrote:
" _You_ may live in a country where you may be ashamed to defend
your friends and loved ones, but I do not. I do, however, pity you:
If you think that when people express a desire to hurt your
relatives, you need to feel ashamed if you raise a voice in protest,
you really should get the heck out of your country."
Which means basically that you'll support any action of your
government if it implies an aggressive reaction. If your country drop
a H-Bomb on Paris, the fight back will be the expression of a "desire
to hurt your relatives" to stop your government. And supporting your
government in this perspective is clearly a nationalistic approach.
While naturally we care more about our friends and family than to other
people, while there is no shame to defend your friends and loved ones,
it can be a shame if your defense constitute an oppression. To
say it more clearly, Ben Laden dropped an airplane on innocent
people. But if he got so many people happy to die for him, it's also
because the people from where he comes from is very poor (the people,
not the country) and think they are defending their friend and loved
one.
The difference between aggression and defense is frequently
questionable. For instance, if you read Tite-Live (Roman nationalist
from I BC / I AC) you'll read him explaining that the Roman empire was
only a defense, not an aggression in any way.
While I do not think that boycott is often a good choice -it does not
change things frequently-, you have to accept that as a personal choice
(not helping a country leads by people doing things you despise), not
as an aggression on your friends and beloved ones.
> and in any case if the means is punching me in the nose; you should
> expect vigorous defense.
As I said, people are not punching you in the nose but saying 'I do
not like this policy, I cannot contribute'. I personally buy the less
as possible products manufactured by companies known to rape human
rights. By doing that, I'm not trying to harm W**t D*sn** employees
but trying to avoid contributing to harm done in China.
> > without at any moment trying to guess why,
>
> You punch my nose, I am not going to pat you on the back
> because your cause is just. I think most people like to hide behind
> the cloak that they are not punching people in the face, and they are
> hurting an amophous "economy".
>
> Economies are made of the blood, sweat and tears of real live
> people, and they are the hooks on which dreams are hung. When you
> set out to deliberately hurt an economy, you are hurting men, women,
> and children, that live and die in that economic system,
It happened that employees gone on strike to earn some respect and
money to get a decent life. It was breaking an economy made on their
blood and tears, on their very real life.
While breaking economy finally harm people, considering economy before
humans definitely harm people much more.
> > and he will try to harm any other people is someone tell him that
> > it helps USA. His approach is completely nationalistic. You
> > cannot understand him and agree with him until he drops this
> > attitude or until you adopt it.
>
> Considering I am an Indian, this is getting hilarious; the US
> is merely my country of adoption.
Yes. And you would not find any romans (400-50 BC) more conservative
than most homo novus (members of the senate we do not have any father
already senator ; very rare, as in any other oligarchy). Adoption
sometimes push people to be "more royalist than the king" (it's a
French expression, I'm not sure it can be translated literally).
> You are missing the point by a mile. This is not nationalism
> -- this is merely protection of ones own -- you are asking for
> common cause in trying to hurt people I know and love; and I am
> rejecting this common cause vehemently.
Nationalism is merely a concept that determine which people you care
about most. Going on war against Germany in 1914 was for Frenchs a
"protection of ones own" as well - the same goes for Germans.
The problem is the fact that it does not discuss the reason why you go
to war. If the simple fact that someone want to fight you is a reason
for fight, you'll always fight. It does not fix the bug that leads
people to fight. The only way out is to eradicate every others.
> Have you seen US developers try to raise common cause here to
> boycott French products and conferences in France (because of what
> some consider their silly stnace in removing a dictator from power)?
> No? How many of you would consider that unacceptable? Why is is it
> that is accetable to use this form as an attack platform against
> Americans?
I personally do not attack US Americans. I just don't like USA
government and hate much more the French government (but agree on the
Iraq issue - for different reasons anyway) because this government
don't only hurt people on earth but people in my country.
But this is completely OFF-TOPIC - and naturally an personal
statement.
I do not think that people was attacking you and your loved ones by
saying they would not go to USA, or they would prefer another
destination. It was just normal that people explain why they would go
or not.
Regards,
--
Mathieu Roy
Homepage:
http://yeupou.coleumes.org
Not a native english speaker:
http://stock.coleumes.org/doc.php?i=/misc-files/flawed-english
Reply to: