3 ms·
It is ridiculous to draw a connection between (a) giving a ridiculous reason to persuade my close friend to accept my offer to pay for his dinner, and (b) compe
by dxjones 17y ago
It is ridiculous to draw a connection between (a) giving a ridiculous reason to persuade my close friend to accept my offer to pay for his dinner, and (b) compelling an oppressed population in an occupied territory to accept their fate of continued suffering because, you know, it's been 50 years. My father killed your father, and we've managed to dominate you for half a century, so, you know, give it up. We won.
- robotrout 17y agoI reject your "out of hand" rejection of this idea. If not 50 years, than how many years is the proper number? If the people fighting the conflict were not even born when it started, what exactly are they clinging to? I assume that you would say 200 years is too long for something like this to go on. Pick a number, however ridiculously huge, that you would be comfortable with. Make it 200 years, I don't care. At that point, we can begin a logical discussion of your number. Perhaps after that occurred, I could get you down to 100 years, and you would feel vindicated. Yes? He's picking 50 years. Don't like it? Would you agree to a compromise between 50 and 100? 75 years is rapidly approaching.
- dxjones 17y agoScott Adams write his blog from the perspective of a person in a position of power and influence. Notice that in his anecdote he is the person paying for dinner. Also, he is the person persuading the subjugated to accept their horrible fate ... for an admittedly "ridiculous" reason. Accepting a free dinner is easy to do. Accepting a lifetime of domination from an oppressor is "not the same thing". I wonder if Scott Adams would be so willing to accept a ridiculous justification if he was the one being tormented every day of his life.