On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:52:06AM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
> From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > But it does. As you said, it is trivial to prove, by definition. You
> > have a valid argument about the possible costs, but if you are still
> > opposing a policy that has a high success of removing Saddam, you
> > are therefore pro-Saddam.
>
> No hard feelings, but I have never in my life seen that proposed as a
> logical arguement.
Wrong again!
> The syllogism I see you proposing is:
>
> If you are opposed to a plan that has a very high probability of
> removing X, you are pro-X.
>
> Are you really standing by that statement?
Yes, of course. It is simply accepting the consequences of one's
actions. It's all well and good to say you oppose going to war against
Saddam because you think the costs outweigh the benefits, but in
making such a determination, you need to weigh that you are quite
effectively supporting Saddam. In such a determination, that support
may be outweighed by the costs of opposing him directly, but it is
supporting his power nonetheless.
Just because you say you don't like Saddam, doesn't mean you are
magically released from the responsibility of working towards a goal
that helps him to remain in power longer and with higher probability. As
you have often argued, just saying something ("I'm not racist") does not
make it true.
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
