----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:58 AM Subject: Re: Who is the sheriff?
> 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! ROTFLMAO. How can you be sure what I've seen? > > 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. Remember, since this is a generality, it can be falsified by only one statement. Automobile fatalities from drunk driving is a problem. If we get rid of every automobile, we will eliminate these deaths? Do you support this plan, or are you in favor of people being killed by drunk drivers. Personally, since I don't buy this syllogism, I can say "while I certainly don't favor people dying from being killed in automobile accidents involving a drunk driver, the plan involves consequences that are even worse." >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. One, indeed, needs to accept the consequences of one's choice. If the view is that the price of attacking Hussein is too high, then one indeed has to accept the consequences of his staying in power. But, let me turn that around. Gautam favors going in. If we do go in, a number of civilians will be mutaliated and killed. A number of US soldiers will be mutilated and killed. Would you argue that Gautam favors horrendous painful deaths for young innocent children, or US soldiers? I'd argue that he needs to accept these as the consequences of what he favors. If he would say "I'm certainly not in favor of either of these, but the consequences of Hussein staying in power are worse", then I'd accept that as quite rational. (Actually, he has said it among all his posts, I think.) > 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. No, one has to accept the consequences for any action or inaction one takes. If one says the price is too high, then one should be judged by just what price is too high. Taking my drunk driving example again. Deaths per mile driven have gone down significantly over the last 40 years. One reason for this is the reduction in DWI related deaths. Part of that has been the increase in fines for DWI and even jail time for repeated DWI. If someone statated that, while they don't want DWI deaths, they think those penelties are too high, then one might reasonably judge them by their unwillingness to pay this small price for a lower death rate. That judgement would be quite different from the judgement of someone who was unwilling to ban automobiles. Let me give one final example. If France, Germany and Russia had been spending the last 11 years working hard to get the best, tightest sanctions possible and also working to do everything possible to use inspections as a tool to eliminate WMD, then their present position would have some moral weight. As it stands, it doesn't. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
