ANST - whiny parasites / slugs ???? ...

[Michael Tucker]

Greetings, all:

Once again, I find myself apologizing for dragging out a thread that should have
died already. But Wolf seems determined not to see my point (which makes no
assertions about "class distinctions") and equally determined to make his (which
*does*). I will make one more attempt to clearly restate my original position.
If this one doesn't work, well so be it...

Wolf, I think we have simply had a misunderstanding that has gotten out of hand.
When I referred to:
> > > > Anyway, all of these "asides" aside, it never fails to amaze me just
> > > > how many "armchair officers" are always willing to discuss an idea to
> > > > death, but are never willing to hold office or steward an event.
> > >

I clearly didn't make the best choice of words. You pointed out, quite
correctly, that I implied that if you didn't hold office or steward an event,
you were somehow "less" than those who had:
> > > sorry, but *everyones* opinion / input is as valid as that of any
> > > officer - high or low  ... being an officer is a personal choice and to
> > > denegrate anyone or their ideas / input simply because they choose not
> > > to be an officer for whatever the reason is not overly honerable
> > >
> >

I acknowledged your point, and sought common ground, when I said:
> > Please forgive me. You are entirely correct in the *specifics* of your
> > statement, though I disagree with its *tone*. What I meant was a reference
> > to those people who are always willing to second-guess, but never willing
> > to do any work. In other words, whiny parasites who do nothing useful for
> > the "body" of our society, but instead feed on the work of others.
> 

Instead, you took offense at my use of the term "whiny parasites", and made an
obvious threat (if not to me personally, then to the society at large):
> you really might be surprised about what some of the "whiny parasites" have
> done, are doing, will do to the body ,
> 

Wolf, as long as we're reconsidering our word choices, I suggest you reconsider
*those* words. Especially in light of the shootings in Colorado, nobody takes
such threats lightly any more. Up to here, we've been discussing philosophy. At
this point, you crossed a line.

Then you go on to say that my choice of "whiny parasite" somehow made a class distinction:
> by the by, "whiny parasite" is even more offensive than the origional "armchair
> officer" comment.  why the need to make these class statements that set one
> segment above / apart from the other.  just becuase some can be an officer
> dosn't make them in any way supewrior to the rank and file.  the attitude that
> it does simple perpetuate the "eliteist snob" attitude than has driven away so
> many over the years and keep so many silenet out on the edges.
> 

I don't understand how you came to the conclusion that I was make a "class
statement". But then you ask a very interesting question:
> who is to choose who is a "parasite" and who is not .. ??? and why is it
> necessary in the first place, why the need of a inferior social class to
> scapegoat the ills of the society on ???.
> 

I'll respond to that question in a moment.

You take more offense at my use of the term "slugs":
> > ...                                                  But there are also, sadly, many
> > "slugs" who seem to live for the "sport" of kicking others into the dirt
> 
> more need to denegrate and insult ???
> 

And throw in some more very personal attacks on my honor, and again imply a
threat that there will somehow be a consequence of making such statements:
> > While this is not a pleasant thought, I find nothing "dishonorable" about
> > stating it. I have publicly clarified my stated opinion concerning this
> > matter;
> 
> the dishonor comes in the insulting of those you find so inferior in order to
> make a point ... when you start making such public class distinctions, you're
> going to find people who find such insults intolerable.
> 

Despite my attempt to apologize and restate my position, you insist that my
views were insulting and denegrating:
> > ... I would appreciate it if you would do likewise concerning my honor.
> 
> i stand by my observations, my opinions, and my words ... find a way to make
> your point without villifying, or insulting those you do not consider your
> equal and i'll reconsider, so far i have seen nothing to change my mind.
> 

Finally, you make this reference to the idea of "class" that runs like a thread
through your entire post:
> i am no better than you ... you are no better than me ... we are *equals*
> 
> 'wolf
> 

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Okay...

Let me put it this way:

Our Society is an all-volunteer organization. Every single thing that happens
for the good of the members, happens by the sweat of some of those members. In
principle, nobody *has* to work all the time. And, in principle, nobody *gets*
to coast all the time.

You made several oblique references to "Animal Farm", a satirical novel about
communism and socialism. Ok, I can go with that.

In many ways, our Society is like a "people's collective farm". We all do what
we can to make the farm a success, and we all get to enjoy the food on the table.

But what do you call a person who never works in the field? (I'm not talking
about an "officer", I'm talking about *any* work. And I'm not talking about
newcomers; they are presumed not to know what work needs to be done, and are
entitled to a "grace period" while they become acclimated to the group.) What if
we all take turns pulling the cart; but every time you look up, the same person
is *riding* in the cart? And what if this person constantly criticizes and
"nit-picks" the work being done by everyone else?

What do you call someone on a "people's collective farm" who never does any work
for the farm, but helps themselves to the food on the table? And, to add insult
to injury, complains about the work done by others, even complaining about
*ideas* for work proposed by others? Even when they, themselves, have *no*
intention of helping to do the work when the time comes?

You can call them what you want; I won't tell you what to think. But I *will*
tell you what *I* call such a person: a "parasite"; a "slug"; a "whiner"; and,
above all, a "thief", stealing their food (in our case, the benefits of our
Society) from the labor of others.

If I feel superior to such a person, it has *nothing* to do with class. It has
*everything* to do with a healthy disgust for thieves and parasites.

You assert that parasites have a right to feed on the body of the organism, and
even have a right to a voice in the organism's decisions.

I assert, on the other hand, that a *healthy* organism has a right to *defend*
itself from parasites, and to ignore their incessant buzzing.

If my words have failed to sway you, then respectfully we must agree to disagree.

Yours,
Michael
(Baron Michael Silverhands)
============================================================================
Go to http://lists.ansteorra.org/lists.html to perform mailing list tasks.