|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 10/18/2007 : 09:21:48 [Permalink]
|
Whoops! Looks like I took too long posting my above replies, and missed these two:Originally posted by Gorgo
Originally posted by marfknox
You know, this could actually be an interesting conversation if it could get going. |
We've had lots of these conversations here, but it generally gets stopped by some sacred cows. Something I was trying to address in my first post. We don't want to talk about certain things in certain ways, because it might offend someone's sacred cows.
As the OP shows, it's not important whether a statement is false or true, it's only important that it be non-offensive. |
I hope I have adequately addressed this mischaracterization above.| Am I guilty of criminal behavior for having paid my taxes which support the Iraq war? |
Well, we are coerced into paying taxes, but why is it really all that different from funding any criminal enterprise? |
That is part of the question in my original post: do you honestly feel that everybody who pays taxes is "funding [a] criminal enterprise?" If so, there is a lot we can argue about, the first of which is this:
Why aren't you in jail for tax evasion, like Thoreau? Do you instead choose to sacrifice your personal values for comfortable living? If you honestly think you're endorsing murder, don't you think the only honorable thing to do is stop? |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 09:23:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
We've had lots of these conversations here, but it generally gets stopped by some sacred cows... As the OP shows, it's not important whether a statement is false or true, it's only important that it be non-offensive.
|
But, Gorgo, the exact opposite has happened here. Rather than a remark perceived as offensive being a "conversation stopper," Boron was trying to use it as a conversation starter. Far from trying to squelch dissent, Boron was inviting you to expand upon your views. But after being asked to speak, you're complaining about not being able to speak. Why do you think it is that you could so radically misperceive what has transpired?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 09:38:32 [Permalink]
|
If you honestly think you're endorsing murder, don't you think the only honorable thing to do is stop?
|
There are a lot of reasons, maybe all irrational rationalizations. I didn't say that I honestly think I'm endorsing murder anyway. I do wonder. I'm no hero here, and don't think I said I was. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 09:41:46 [Permalink]
|
Far from trying to squelch dissent, Boron was inviting you to expand upon your views.
|
That's fine. I was asking him to clarify whatever point he was making, and I was called on the carpet for it. SO, I answered what I thought his question was. Why is that a problem?
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 10/18/2007 09:44:10 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 09:46:43 [Permalink]
|
| I hope I have adequately addressed this mischaracterization above. |
So far, you haven't. Nor have you told what you mean when you tell me that it's not your decision to be offended. Whose decision is it? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 09:58:10 [Permalink]
|
| Clearly there is "some question" about the legality of US military actions in Iraq, since we are still there and nobody is going to jail for it (you could make an argument for the individuals who have committed torture or murder, but they are not responsible for the actual invasion). If, as you seem to assume, there was no question that US actions in Iraq are illegal, there would be stronger repercussions. |
non sequitur.
That's like saying my neighbor's grass can't be too long, because if it were, he would cut it.
Do only guilty people go to jail, and are only innocent people free from repercussions?
Who is going to arrest George Bush? You? What difference would it make if you did? Would that change anything, do you think? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 10:53:51 [Permalink]
|
| Well, we are coerced into paying taxes, but why is it really all that different from funding any criminal enterprise? |
I brought up that more extreme example to make a point. How directly responsible someone is for wrongdoing is significant. Even if someone plays some kind of role, the total context of their part in the matter needs to be considered. If someone joins the military with open eyes, they hope they will only be given just ordered, but if they are wise (which unfortunately most young people who join the military aren't yet) they also realize the possibility of being ordered to engage in military activities for political or other unjust purposes. There are orders which are clearly illegal and unethical and that soldiers have a responsibility to refuse (such as being ordered to torture someone for fun or to kill people who don't pose an immediate threat.) These are immediate, close-up things. The classic example of the Nazi whose job it is to turn on the gas – that person doesn't get to successfully use the excuse "I was only following orders."
But the farther we get from the direct wrong action – such as when our tax money gets filtered into something shady or unjust, or when we are one tiny part of a whole complex military action that is being poorly executed and was founded on false pretenses – the harder it is to figure out how much responsibility we have as individuals, and what the right action for ourselves is. I would equally respect a soldier who refuses to serve any longer in Iraq as I would a soldier who accepts their immediate duties that are not directly unjust. The only one I don't respect is the one who doesn't bother thinking at all and who acts and thinks as if they are a cog in a machine rather than a thinking human being capable of right and wrong action.
So the question remains, how responsible for the wrongs of the war is any one American soldier? Personally I think the legal responsibly should fall on the highest leadership. Even though I don't think he'd ever be tried, I honestly regard Bush and many others in his administration as guilty of treason. They have lied for personal gain, and as a consequence of those lies, US security is weaker and many people have lost their lives. But what is going on is so complex and much still is unknown, and soldiers much lower in the military hierarchy can't be expected to know everything going on. They simply don't have the time, credentials, resources, etc. to be responsible for the big picture. (Edited to add: mostly importantly they also don't have the power to do anything about it!)
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/18/2007 10:57:20 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 11:57:04 [Permalink]
|
The classic example of the Nazi whose job it is to turn on the gas – that person doesn't get to successfully use the excuse "I was only following orders."
|
But, somehow people who drop bombs on neighborhoods do get to use the excuse.
I don't care about punishment, retribution makes little sense to me.
Bush isn't a traitor, he is doing what presidents have done from the beginning. He's just a little more blatant about it. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 13:59:34 [Permalink]
|
I apologize for taking so long in responding to this one, but here goes:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Offense seemed like a main point of your question. |
Upon review of my original post, I can see where you might have gotten that impression. I had assumed that you had some knowledge of my prior posts and arguments to understand my reasons for asking you to clarify.| I am not totally unconcerned about what people decide to be offended about, but that begs the question. |
Yes, that begs this question: Why do you think people decide do be offended? You don't think somebody can take offense to something without making a conscious decision?| I didn't ask what I thought, nor did I say that it was wrong to be concerned. I asked why you seemed to make it such an important thing. |
I hope you now understand that I don't think it's as important as the validity of the argument. I also hope you understand why it's rude to blow off a request for clarification with a handwave.| I guess I don't get an answer, I just get told that I'm begging some imaginary question, and that I didn't answer your question that I didn't understand. |
If you didn't understand my question, why didn't you ask me to clarify?
Have I adequately answered your question? Do you understand that you were begging the question, and what the question is?| I don't get an answer, but I'm supposed to follow your rules. |
Not my rules. Logic. I think the rules of logic are the best way to communicate and understand; do you agree with me?| Some discussion would be helpful, otherwise you come off as some sort of Grand Inquisitor that I'm supposed to give some great importance. |
I agree completely. I welcome this part of the discussion.
| I didn't say that every war was a violation of international law. Attacking Afghanistan and Iraq are violations of international law. |
Why do you think so? What international laws were violated? Did we attack Afghanistan, or were we invited into their country to assist with their police action?| Certainly, Iraq is more clearly a violation… |
This is far from certain.| …but it is still a violation of the UN Charter to attack other countries. |
Surely there are some exceptions. I am not as familiar with UN Charter than I am with the Geneva Conventions, but I think your statement here is a little too general.| Afghanistan did not bomb New York. Some criminals bombed New York. It was a crime. There was no war. Afghanistan's planes were not headed towards the U.S. |
Exactly. The US military presence in Afghanistan is not an invasion, it's peacekeeping. We're helping them find criminals who have committed crimes on US soil.| Thousands of people have been murdered and great chaos caused for no good reason, and wars of othe |
| Edited by - Boron10 on 10/18/2007 15:19:31 |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 14:29:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
| If you honestly think you're endorsing murder, don't you think the only honorable thing to do is stop? |
There are a lot of reasons, maybe all irrational rationalizations. I didn't say that I honestly think I'm endorsing murder anyway. I do wonder. I'm no hero here, and don't think I said I was. |
This is a great reply. I think I completely understand this, thank you. | Far from trying to squelch dissent, Boron was inviting you to expand upon your views. |
That's fine. I was asking him to clarify whatever point he was making, and I was called on the carpet for it. SO, I answered what I thought his question was. Why is that a problem? |
Your question did not appear to be a request for clarification, as I explained towards the end of this post. Thank you for answering my request for clarification; now we can get on with the real discussion.| I hope I have adequately addressed this mischaracterization above. |
So far, you haven't. Nor have you told what you mean when you tell me that it's not your decision to be offended. Whose decision is it? |
Is it now explained to your satisfaction?
This is a completely separate issue, but why do you think it's anybody's decision to get offended? This is like asking "if God didn't create the universe, then who did?"| Clearly there is "some question" about the legality of US military actions in Iraq, since we are still there and nobody is going to jail for it (you could make an argument for the individuals who have committed torture or murder, but they are not responsible for the actual invasion). If, as you seem to assume, there was no question that US actions in Iraq are illegal, there would be stronger repercussions. |
non sequitur.
That's like saying my neighbor's grass can't be too long, because if it were, he would cut it. |
No, the part of your statement I disagree with most is your presumption that there is no question that US military action in the Middle East is illegal. Of course there's some question! This is one of the fundamental assumptions I am trying to get you to clarify.
If there was no question your neighbor's grass was too long, your neighbor would have it cut, since he knew it was too long. Do you understand?| Do only guilty people go to jail, and are only innocent people free from repercussions? |
As I just pointed out, if there was no question that it was illegal, then the police, judges, and populace would all know and agree that it was illegal; then guilty parties would go to jail. Do you now see the error in your ridiculous assertion that there is no question about it?| Who is going to arrest George Bush? You? |
I am not a police officer.| What difference would it make if you did? Would that change anything, do you think? |
Absolutely. It would change the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces.
Besides, if doing the right thing wouldn't change anything, do you think it shouldn't be done? | The classic example of the Nazi whose job it is to turn on the gas – that person doesn't get to successfully use the excuse "I was only following orders." |
But, somehow people who drop bombs on neighborhoods do get to use the excuse. |
Who drops bombs on neighborhoods? We have bombs that can target specific floors of buildings, that can go through specific windows. Nobody bombs neighborhoods anymore. People bomb facilities, command posts, leadership offices, military units, etc. Specific targets, not "neighborhoods." If I remember correctly, the last time a neighborhood was bombed was in Vietnam.| I don't care about punishment, retribution makes little sense to me. |
What about rehabilitation? What about rendering a threat harmless by means of separation from society? More importantly, where did that comment come from: what does that have to do with this conversation?| Bush isn't a traitor, he is doing what presidents have done from the beginning. He's just a little more blatant about it. |
Please elaborate. This statement seems so grossly incorrect that I don't even know where to begin arguing it.
Minor edits: moved one word, fixed some spelling, punctuation, etc. |
| Edited by - Boron10 on 10/18/2007 15:23:39 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 17:28:23 [Permalink]
|
Again, you won't answer my question about decisions to be offended, so I'm not sure how to talk to you when you don't allow me to speak to you the only way I know how. Who do you think decides when you get offended? Is it someone else? Is it something that is automatic? Do you get offended about things that you don't know about? Do you get offended by something "offensive" that you misinterpret as non-offensive? Who decides?
http://cesr.org/filestore2/download/523 discusses the illegality of the Iraq war. There are no grey areas here. This is a brutal attack, and a brutal occupation.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 17:31:44 [Permalink]
|
| If there was no question your neighbor's grass was too long, your neighbor would have it cut, since he knew it was too long. Do you understand? |
That's absurd. There are many reasons why a neighbor might know that his grass is longer than even he wants it, but decides not to cut it. His inaction has nothing to do with the length of the grass except helping to ensure that it grows longer. Your thinking here is not logical.
Just because someone does not get arrested does not mean that they did not commit crimes. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 10/18/2007 17:32:42 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 10/18/2007 : 21:29:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Again, you won't answer my question about decisions to be offended... |
I don't agree with your un-admitted premise that one cannot be offended with making a conscious decision. If I haven't answered your question to your satisfaction, it is because your question in unanswerable.| ...so I'm not sure how to talk to you when you don't allow me to speak to you the only way I know how. |
I am having difficulty accepting that somebody as smart as you seem to be is unable to speak without logical fallacy.
After looking it up, I found out I have been using the term "begging the question" incorrectly. Apparently I should have been calling it "fallacy of many questions." I apologize if this has led to any confusion.| Who do you think decides when you get offended? Is it someone else? Is it something that is automatic? |
We are going off topic here, but I would say it's a response to a stimulus and thus could be considered automatic. For the sake of resuming (commencing?) the discussion about crime vs military action, would you accept that answer?| Do you get offended about things that you don't know about? |
I wouldn't think so. Do you?
If I don't know about it, how can it offend me?| Do you get offended by something "offensive" that you misinterpret as non-offensive? |
Again, I wouldn't think so. Do you?
If it seems inoffensive to me, how can it offend me?Why do you insist that somebody has to decide? Do you have perfect control over your emotions? If so, I pity you. You are missing out on a vital portion of the human condition.Your source looks interesting. I will peruse all 17 pages of that document in the next couple of days, when I have a little more time.| This is a brutal attack, and a brutal occupation. |
That is very true. There is a tremendous amount of brutality in the Middle East.| If there was no question your neighbor's grass was too long, your neighbor would have it cut, since he knew it was too long. Do you understand? |
That's absurd. There are many reasons why a neighbor might know that his grass is longer than even he wants it, but decides not to cut it. His inaction has nothing to do with the length of the grass except helping to ensure that it grows longer. Your thinking here is not logical. |
I think we have extended this analogy beyond the point of utility. Please provide an example of something that is unquestionably a crime, but is not punished.| Just because someone does not get arrested does not mean that they did not commit crimes. |
That's true. Do you really think I believe that all criminals are arrested? The article in your link does not cite the bombing of an entire city. It does, however, mention the city of Fallujah, which was the scene of two battles. Your article describes some of the horrible things that result from the realities of war.
I understand that you think all modern warfare is illegal. Please show me a law that is violated, rather than an op-ed piece describing how bad war can be.Yes, there are atrocities in war. The US military systematically investigates any report of wrongdoing.
This article seems to raise some interesting points; I will peruse it soon, too. In the meantime, do you have any objective data about military-endorsed war crimes? It seems the majority of veterans interviewed for this article were intentionally drawn from anti-war groups. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 10/19/2007 : 01:37:35 [Permalink]
|
I said:
so I'm not sure how to talk to you when you don't allow me to speak to you the only way I know how. |
You said:
I am having difficulty accepting that somebody as smart as you seem to be is unable to speak without logical fallacy.
|
You know, the first thing I did when I woke up this morning was to think that was a dumb thing to say. Not only that, it was dumb to keep asking the same question. I should probaly write these things up and look at them the next day again before I post. I did change the question at least after I said that, and I'll get into that in another post. Sorry about both items there. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 10/19/2007 02:10:55 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Crime or Military Action
Topic Locked
