On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 06:14:53AM -0800, Nick Arnett wrote:
> > Erik Reuter wrote
>
> > Can we please, here at least, talk about reality instead of an ivory
> > tower fantasy land?
>
> I don't see anything there but an ad hominem.
Interesting that you see it in others writing, but not in yours.
> > Do you claim regime change in Iraq is a mistake?
>
> I'm not sure how you missed it, but I have said otherwise.
I didn't miss it, as you'll notice I wrote in my message ("I don't
think you do"). But you are making ambiguous statements so I asked for
clarification.
> > ("we're really just lining our own pockets, or we're just plain
> > afraid"?) I don't think you do, but when you make comments
> > like this, it just sounds like you are living in wishy-washy
> > wring-my-hands-and-cry-can't-we-all-just-get-along fantasy land.
>
> That's the opposite of my intention.
Then you are expressing your intention poorly.
> > > When we allow winning the disputes to become more important than
> > > making the best choices, we've abandoned a foundation of our
> > > freedom.
> >
> > False dichotomy. When the debate is about practical choices and
> > reality and responsibility, then truly winning the debate will point
> > out the best choice.
>
> So it doesn't matter how the debate is carried out?
Of course it matters. It is better if the debate is about realistic
choices and consequences, then a real conclusion can come out of
it. Okay, I'll concede that with your fantasy-land version of debating,
it is not a false dichotomy. But with a rational debate, it IS a false
dichotomy.
> I woudl hazard that most of us think it that the more unity behind
> the U.S. decision on war is better than less unity. Doesn't the
> manner in which we talk about the issue have everything to do with
> that?
No, of course not. There are a number of factors affecting unity, of
which whether we refrain from pointing out the likely consequences of
someone's position is only a small part. Besides, better to have less
unity and accomplish something worthwhile than to have complete unity
and accomplish nothing. You will deny it, but you have advocated a
discussion where people do not point out the consequences of the other
people's positions because it might hurt their feelings. While such
"white lies of ommission" may have their place, their place is NOT in a
rational, honest debate. Perhaps if the goal was to win at all costs,
then one might lie in that manner in an attempt to charm the apparently
irrational debater into being persuaded to your side, but personally
I'd rather call a spade a spade and have a rational discussion rather
than trying to trick someone. But then, I'm not a politician or former
journalist.
> I don't think I've called people jackasses and anti-American for their
> positions on this war.
No, just immoral hypocritical fascists, so that's all right then.
> I hope I've refrained entirely from name-calling.
Doh!
> I'm trying to hang onto respect when people who are pro and anti war
> seem to demand that each of us disrepect their opponents.
Well, you're starting to lose my respect.
> > > No, we won't. Only in fiction do we know how things would
> > > have turned out if we acted differently; we will only see
> > > the consequences of what we choose. Any evaluation of the
> > > alternatives will be pure speculation. "History will prove me
> > > right and you wrong" is a refuge of the insecure partisan.
> >
> > And your statement is the refuge of a paranoid delusional.
>
> I'd appreciate if you'd try harder to refrain from name-calling.
I'd appreciate it if you would try harder to refrain from retreating
into a fantasy land and insulting others while pretending to be holier
than thou.
> > So we are immoral for advocating a cause we think is best
>
> Of course not.
You said it.
> Failing to respect those who disagree is not pointing out consequences.
I'd appreciate it if you'd try harder to refrain from calling people who
point out consequences of decisions disrespectful.
> Solution to what? Are you saying that the only thing that matters is
> a "solution" to the Iraqis, and how we arrive at that solution matters
> not?
No.
> That's the end justifying the means, which I reject. I am proposing
> what I believe is a far more viable way to make decisions about how to
> deal with the threat posed by Iraq.
But you aren't making any decisions nor providing support for why your
choices are best. So, your way has NOT been shown to be viable. In fact,
it sounds a lot like "can't we all just get along and everything will
magically be okay" stuff.
> Neither have I. I'm simply aware we're all somewhat narrow-minded,
> but together, we can do far more than we can as a house divided.
I'd appreciate it if you'd try harder to refrain from calling people
narrow-minded.
> That's exactly what I'm talking about. And take a look at my bio if
> you imagine that I haven't accomplished quite a few goals.
You were the one who said it, not me. I'd appreciate it if you'd try
harder to refrain from getting all defensive when I reply to what you
wrote and not to your bio.
> But I never accomplished much of anything lasting by being divisive.
That would be a reasonable argument if we were discussing doing the
sorts of things that you have done in your life. Have you ever deposed a
tyrant and liberated a people?
> > > Somewhere in the compromise between us arises the creativity that
> > > drives success. We need each other to succeed.
> >
> > I don't see you brainstorming creative ideas on how to deal with
> > Saddam. Did I miss it?
>
> And who has? The whole debate has become about whether to go to war
> now or continue inspections.
I have. I racked my brains last year trying to come up with an
alternative to war. I could not. I haven't heard anyone else who has,
although surely many people have tried. That is the point. You claim
that brainstorming will help. Then why aren't you proposing your
alternate solutions that you thought of, or that others thought of?
> > You make this cute argument about creativity and goal-seeking
> > complementing each other, but I see very little creativity from
> > the peaceniks and "undecideds", just a lot of criticism and
> > name-calling.
>
> And just exactly how is that different from those who support war now?
It is different "exactly" because the people who support war propose a
solution to the problem of Saddam, and the others do not. Criticizing a
solution without providing an alternate approach which is feasible and
for which you have strong evidence is worse than useless.
> I'm trying to attack the people who are *failing* to discuss how to
> deal with him.
Then you need to attack yourself, first and foremost.
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
