Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>
> --- David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Gautam Mukunda wrote:
> > >
> > > --- David Hobby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Why do you think that Osama bin Laden objects to
> > the
> > > same things about American foreign policy that you
> > do?
> >
> > That's not a fair tactic in an argument.
>
> But that seems to be _your_ argument. If we
> understand why they are angry at us and seek to act in
> such a way as to assuage their anger, they won't
> attack us any more. What you _want_ the US to do
> anyways seems to accord precisely with this.
I thought that you were using "Argumentum ad hominem"
to disparage my views by saying they were shared by Bin Laden.
A brief summary, from:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem
Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the
man"; there are two varieties.
...
A less blatant argumentum ad hominem is to reject a proposition
based on the fact that it was also asserted by some other easily
criticized person. For example:
"Therefore we should close down the church? Hitler and Stalin
would have agreed with you."
> >
> > > In all seriousness, why do you think that his
> > > objection is things that you define as "selfish" -
> > > although others may not, of course. Given what he
> > > supports, and what his supporters support, how
> > does
> > > one follow from the other?
> >
> > Sorry, I can't figure out what you mean here.
> > Clarify?
>
> You keep saying if we didn't act selfishly, they
> wouldn't have us. Why do you think that actions you
> think of as selfish are the ones that make Bin Laden
> and his ilk hate us?
As I said before, the selfish actions of the US are
not the only reason the they hate us. But it certainly is ONE
of them. Let's remove it!
I get the impression that you are willfully
misunderstanding my position, turning it into an easily attacked
straw man. I don't need this.
> > Branding them as "evil" doesn't really help to make
> >
> > things clearer. I render your statement as
> > something on the
> > order of "...people who do bad things do them
> > because they
> > are people who do bad things." Which is vacuous.
>
> No, it just happens to be true. You can and should
> seek to understand motivations, but that doesn't mean
> that you lend motivations moral weight, which is your
> fundamental mistake.
No. I'm not arguing from morals much at all here. What
I'm saying could just as well come from pure pragmatism. We
should take away their rational reasons for hating us. I can
live with being hated for being a "godless infidel", but see no
reason to be hated for behavior that I do not even condone.
> > I am not prepared to defend the right
> > of various
> > corporations to manipulate things to maximize
> > profits.
>
> Which has nothing to do with anything, of course.
> _Again_, why do you think that your particular
> objections to free-market capitalism have anything to
> do with Bin Laden and his supporters?
Yes, the robber barons of the 1900s were technically
part of "free-market capitalism". But then why do you use the
phrase as if it were always a good thing?
---David
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
