|
Post by Magi on Mar 16, 2003 13:10:04 GMT -5
First off, I'd likw to say that I find this to be a serious debate despite how pathetic the following will sound. I'm sure all of you who live in the US know about this, and I have to say it shows just how stupid our government can be. Once again, past traditions are trying to be changed. First starting with the whole Pledge incident. But now, the tradition under attack is worse than ever. The re-naming of French fries. Yes, you heard me right, French fries. Why are they renaming? That's where it gets stupid. Due to the French not helping us in the war, the government decided to rename French fries to Freedom fries. Out of all the lame shi* they could do, this one really takes the cake. But wait, it gets even better. The change will supposedly only affect school cafeterias on capital hill. I think we should all take a moment and try to predict what the next big change in tradition is. Or maybe a better question to ask is: When is enough enough? When do you think the US went or will go too far?
|
|
Micaiah
RPG Townie
"Brethren We Are Here to Worship.."
Posts: 35
|
Post by Micaiah on Mar 16, 2003 19:19:47 GMT -5
I have to disagree on some of, if not all of what you said.
It is not an attack on tradition. This alteration is not to put the fear of American foodstuffs in the French, or to try and persaude the French to join the war effort simply because their name won't appear on the menus of cafeterias in D.C. It is a mere statement. You could even call it propaganda.
We (The United States) did something of this sort during World War I. We were afraid of running short on food for the troops and the government encouraged families to grow their own crops so that federal food could go to our men in Europe and elsewhere. And what did they call them? Liberty Gardens. This gave the impression that making these gardens would help America to victory.
While the change in World War I was quite a bit more significant and actually DID help the war effort, the current change from French Fries to Freedom Fries is just a mere statement.
It's when someone blows this out of proportion and looses their nerve over something like this that we see...."stupidity at it's best."
|
|
|
Post by PaulC on Mar 16, 2003 22:58:48 GMT -5
Although Magikoopa was somewhat vague in his phrasing, I don't think you quite understand the point of the argument. It is a 'statement', yes - so what? Nobody denies that. The jist of the complaint is that it is a moronic, juveline and arrogant one.
From my thread on patriotism: "The fact that my country's legislative body is renaming its French Fries "Freedom Fries" strikes me as ironic, since what they are in effect protesting with the move is France's exercising of their freedom to disagree with us, to choose whether or not they should send their soldiers to fight and die for this cause. This kind of petty idiocy is what comes from patriotic fervor - the raw hatred some people seem to have for any country that disagrees with our plans, even when not they are not able to support those plans effectively themselves."
It is alarming that the men and women running our country would react to such a complicated and important issue in such a juveline and childish move, motivated only by their own idiotic 'patriotic' sense that anyone who disagrees with our country is EVIL and WRONG. This kind of behavior is part of the reason our country is becoming less and less popular abroad.
|
|
Micaiah
RPG Townie
"Brethren We Are Here to Worship.."
Posts: 35
|
Post by Micaiah on Mar 16, 2003 23:44:33 GMT -5
While I never claimed that this was a step for progression, I don't see it as idiotic either. You seem to want to make it more than the small statement it is when this is nothing majorly promoted by the government.
Last I checked, the government hadn't launched an ad campaign telling us Freedom Fries were the answer.
Let's say you and a friend are walking down a city street at night. A man comes from around a corner and points a gun at your friends head telling him he intends to kill him because he is wearing a white hat. Your friend asks you to help but you tell him you don't want to get involved because you would be putting yourself in avoidable risk. So you walk away and leave your friend to fend for himself.
Does or doesn't your friend have a cause to be angry with you?
Quote " motivated only by their own idiotic 'patriotic' sense that anyone who disagrees with our country is EVIL and WRONG."
If you do not stand up for what's right against what's wrong, then you place yourself with whats wrong. Lord God when liberty is threatened - THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND. This is no time for apathy. And if you claim to advocate freedom, then you'd better be prepared to fight for it.
|
|
|
Post by PaulC on Mar 17, 2003 0:03:24 GMT -5
While I never claimed that this was a step for progression, I don't see it as idiotic either. You seem to want to make it more than the small statement it is when this is nothing majorly promoted by the government. Last I checked, the government hadn't launched an ad campaign telling us Freedom Fries were the answer. I believe propaganda was your word, not mine. I never claimed this was 'majorly promoted' by our government - it is a small gesture, but the thinking behind it is disturbing in its childishness. Let's say you and a friend are walking down a city street at night. A man comes from around a corner and points a gun at your friends head telling him he intends to kill him because he is wearing a white hat. Your friend asks you to help but you tell him you don't want to get involved because you would be putting yourself in avoidable risk. So you walk away and leave your friend to fend for himself. Does or doesn't your friend have a cause to be angry with you? Quote" motivated only by their own idiotic 'patriotic' sense that anyone who disagrees with our country is EVIL and WRONG." If you do not stand up for what's right against what's wrong, then you place yourself with whats wrong. Lord God when liberty is threatened - THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND. This is no time for apathy. And if you claim to advocate freedom, then you'd better be prepared to fight for it. Well, first of all, you're misinterpreting my quote - unless what you're saying is that the French are threatening our liberty and we'd best be prepared to fight them. I was referring to our snipes at the French, not the beating of our war drums. I'm not sure what the analogy is supposed to prove, either, since we're the only ones doing any threatening with guns right now. Your statement about apathy and moral justification is nice and pat, but lacks any backing in reality. Hussein is far less a threat to our 'liberties' than our own president and his efforts to undermine our consitutional protections with legislation like the PATRIOT act. The man was no threat to us the last decade. We have no credible evidence he is capable of an assault on even a neighboring nation - let alone that he is planning to do so. He is submitting to UN inspections and allowing his weaponry to be destroyed even in the face of attack from the US. Under these circumstances, upon what do we base these claims of threat? A 'presidential premonition'? The greatest threat to the peace of the world at this stage is the United States, not a terrified dictator with a demolished army desperately trying to save his own skin. That's not even MENTIONING the obvious hypocrisy in Bush's handling of the situation in North Korea, who HAS nuclear weapons and has threatened to use them on us. As for the idea that we are somehow ethically pure? Clearly, Hussein is a bloody and cruel dictator, but the US does not have a good track record when it comes to regime change. We claim we want to protect the Iraqi people; we say they are starving and suffering under the rule of a madman. It is our sanctions that starve them; it is our war that will kill them in the hundreds of thousands; and if history is any indicator, it will be under our puppet government that they will suffer even more. Frankly, the US government does not care about the Iraqi people or the men who will die fighting. It made no move to save these suffering people during the last decade. Our ethical motivation is a lie designed to mask the true motives behind the attack - the US's imperialist machinations and its desire for oil. The ugliness of war is often masked by seductive and attractive surface 'causes' that hide the desire for power from the top that fuels nearly every one. This one is no different. To sum up? The United States are not 'God's Chosen' to purge the world of 'evil-doers'. We are a people ruled by fallible leaders with often less than noble goals. What freedom do we protect by impressing our military might on other nations, with no provocation, solely for our own gain?
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Mar 17, 2003 0:08:51 GMT -5
As an ethics professor, two students, and myself talked about the war, one student stated quite accurately (who is also in the military) that ethically speaking, the imminent war with Iraq is immoral, and about as justified as turning around and conquering France immediately afterwards, to only rename it "New Texas".
|
|
Micaiah
RPG Townie
"Brethren We Are Here to Worship.."
Posts: 35
|
Post by Micaiah on Mar 17, 2003 0:17:48 GMT -5
Actually Paul, I commend you. You make alot of great points and to be honest I can't pretend to know enough to further debate with you. I will make one more small statement and ask a simple question out of curiosity:
Statement: Whether you were implying that I thought we were "God's Chosen Nation" or not, I am not sure but just so there is no confusion - I absolutely do not.
Question: Out of simple curiosity, what is it that you see as the right solution to the problem at hand?
New Texas? . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! *ahem*
|
|
|
Post by PaulC on Mar 17, 2003 0:29:41 GMT -5
Actually Paul, I commend you. You make alot of great points and to be honest I can't pretend to know enough to further debate with you. I will make one more small statement and ask a simple question out of curiosity: Statement: Whether you were implying that I thought we were "God's Chosen Nation" or not, I am not sure but just so there is no confusion - I absolutely do not. I was just talking about the mentality some people seem to have about the matter, not saying you think that way. Sorry, didn't mean to offend or put words in your mouth. Personally, I would have advocated inspections in Iraq to ensure their capabilities remain limited and focused diplomatically on the situation in North Korea. I think the best thing the United States could do for itself at this point is to stop interfering in the Middle East, set strict fuel efficiency standards on motor vehicles, and sponsor a multi-billion dollar effort to find practical alternative sources of energy. There's no reason for us to spawn more Osamas and create disrest and chaos in that region so we can continue to pollute our environment when we have potential alternatives. But then again, I'm like this crazy hippie radical peacenik or something. Oh well.
|
|
Micaiah
RPG Townie
"Brethren We Are Here to Worship.."
Posts: 35
|
Post by Micaiah on Mar 17, 2003 0:32:14 GMT -5
It could be worse. You could be a crazy hippie radical peacenik or something.
Oh... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Magi on Mar 18, 2003 20:16:36 GMT -5
I have to disagree on some of, if not all of what you said. You could even call it propaganda. Hey, look. This has gone wayyy too far for propaganda. I'm just saying that this is pathetic. And resorting to stuff like this to get people to join a war effort is just stupid. Do you really think people in France right now are crying because we're renaming French fries to freedom fries? I don't think they could really care less.
|
|
|
Post by TheNeanderthal on Mar 19, 2003 2:01:39 GMT -5
The stupidity of this is amazing. I mean... what's the thing with that? They're changing the name of a food because of a country that won't help them? I must say that I agree with you Magikoopa, stupidity at its best.
*Bush, sitting in his office in a dramatic pose.* "I have called for you because I have something very important to say. Change... change the name of the French Fries! Yes!"
|
|
|
Post by Laralon the Mad Looter on Mar 23, 2003 11:53:39 GMT -5
Pure stupidity? Yup.
It's amazing that our very own George Bush would dare to stir up his people any more than before the name change. Just because France is refusing to help, we change the name of one of America's favorite foods to "freedom fries?"
Unfortunately, "freedom fries" is not an extremely good name for golden, salty sticks of fried potato flesh. Dye 'em red, white, and blue, Bush, and you might just get assassinated!
|
|
Ricky-K
RPG Townie
You were afraid to live but now you are afraid to die...
Posts: 210
|
Post by Ricky-K on Mar 23, 2003 15:46:00 GMT -5
next he'll change the flag because France's flag is red white and blue.
|
|
|
Post by Laralon the Mad Looter on Mar 23, 2003 15:57:31 GMT -5
Hmmm...I can imagine that.
|
|
|
Post by TranceRolin on Mar 23, 2003 23:26:32 GMT -5
It's just like what was done during WWII man . . .
All german foods were renamed. Hamburgers were Justice Steaks, Hotdogs were Freedom Dogs, and so forth . . . They even renamed sourkraut. The name was bad enough already, but hey . . . Anything to promote blind propaganda, eh?
|
|