Is there no good news in the world? There's precious little in this thread. - Page 5

tracilicious · 04-10-2006, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I do not enjoy disciplining my children. My goal is to not have to discipline them because they make they will make the right (as a parent, I determine right) choices. If I have to discipline them, have I failed in my goal? No. not in the least. I am hopefully moving toward the goal of not having to dicsipline them by disciplining them.

Our goal during the cold war was not to nuke to USSR. Yet we built a tremendous arsenal to ensure we would not have to use them (mutually assured destruction).

It is most certainly possible to have a goal of the elimination of conflict while engaging in conflict itself.

Well, that's a whole 'nother thread altogether, and a fight we definitely do not want to have.

But if the analogy is supposed to say that it's a means to an end, I'm on a whole different plane about it. Just as I do not punish children, as I don't believe that it teaches them anything other than might makes right, I would not support killing as a means of stopping said behavior.

But hey, I'm mostly a pacisifist, so I know we won't agree. I understand your viewpoint, however.

Scrooge McSam · 04-10-2006, 09:33 AM

It makes more sense than saying since I oppose this war that I wish our soldiers dead.

No, Alex, argue away to your heart's content. No matter your bluster, I don't want my neighbor's son dead because he was obligated to fight a war that I don't support. I get no pleasure from the constant tension my co-worker is under because her son might not come home alive. You can ignore the money I've sent to organizations buying body armor for soldiers who have been under-equipped by this cowboy government. I'll keep doing what I'm doing and keep feeling better because I'm at least able to do some good in this awful situation. The only change I'll make is to start ignoring your hot air.

Good day, sir.

Alex · 04-10-2006, 09:51 AM

I'm not saying you want him dead, that if you oppose the war you want our soldiers dead. I'm saying that if you oppose the war then you should find our soldiers being dead preferable to the people on the other side being dead. It is easy to say that you'd prefer that neither end up being dead but that is not based on the reality of it. You can not simultaneously condemn an act and support the success of that act.

It was on the news today that the U.S. Army this morning engaged in a firefight and killed six Iraqi insurgents. If you truly oppose this war and feel that we are unjustly in Iraq and that the whole endeavor is morally wrong, then who should have emerged victorious from that firefight? You don't get to say "I'd prefer that they all put down their guns and then had a beer." That is not the way firefights get resolved. You can wish it but it doesn't remove the moral question from what really happened.

I don't want a single person in Iraq to die today due to battle. But since I do think this war is just if peoplare are going to die despite what I prefer it should be in a way that furthers the goals of the war (meaning it should more be the people on the other side that die). If I felt this war to be unjust I'd still prefer that nobody die, but if they are going to die despite what I prefer then I would feel it should be in a way that further the victory of the opposition.

I'm not saying that anybody wants anybody to die. But to support our troops requires that you hope that they are more successful than the opposition. If you hope that, then you are not truly opposed to the war as it is happening, you just find it to be less than ideal.

I know you consider all of this hot air. But I consider what you're doing an attempt to vaccinate yourself by playing both sides of the coin and not really having to take moral responsibility for what you're supporting.

Unless you are really ok with saying "If push comes to shove I'd prefer that Johnny from next door kill 50 Iraqis unjustly than 50 Iraqis justly kill Johnny." Because that is what supporting Johnny while considering the war to be a moral wrong means.

BarTopDancer · 04-10-2006, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

I'm not saying you want him dead, that if you oppose the war you want our soldiers dead. I'm saying that if you oppose the war then you should find our soldiers being dead preferable to the people on the other side being dead. It is easy to say that you'd prefer that neither end up being dead but that is not based on the reality of it. You can not simultaneously condemn an act and support the success of that act.

I support our troops. I realize that they are doing their job, what they were ordered to do. And while some of them believe that they are fighting for the greater cause, are making a difference, not all of them do.

It is not their fault that they were ordered into another country to fight a war on false intelligence. Heck, even if the intelligence was true it still isn't their fault.

And anyone who knows me knows I do not support this war.

Alex · 04-10-2006, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

It is not their fault that they were ordered into another country to fight a war on false intelligence. Heck, even if the intelligence was true it still isn't their fault.

Of course it isn't their fault that they were ordered into another country to fight a war. It is their fault that they are in another country to fight a war. Joining the military does not infantilization you and absolve you of all responsibility for your decisions.

If this is an unjust war, then all right-thinking soldiers should have gone to jail before they'd unjustly commit murder. Now, it doesn't matter whether they think the war is unjust. The vast majority of them do not. What matters is that you think the war unjust and should therefore hold them responsible for their actions. Is there something about American soldiers that makes them immune from personal responsibility? We don't really ever afford that privilege to enemy soldiers who commit acts we think unjust.

Since we're at war with Al Qaeda, do we absolve a failed suicide bomber because he was "just following orders?"

Alex · 04-10-2006, 03:39 PM

And here, to use a historical example is where the hippies actually got it right.

In my view, the Vietnam War was an immoral war. Every American soldier who participated in that war short of threat of death (and really imprisonment was the penatly for refusal) should be ashamed and shamed. So should everybody at home who "supported the troops." The hippies understood that "oppose the war, support the troops" was a paradox. At least all the grunt soldiers in Hitler's army have the excuse that they actually would have been shot for refusal (and yet we still expect them all to feel shame).

Prudence · 04-10-2006, 09:58 AM

I see. So individuals are allowed to select one of only two possible opinions. If they dislike the war, they therefore must hope our soliders die. If they dislike our soldiers dying, they must therefore yee-haw support the war. Well, at least it makes for a neat and orderly world view...

Alex · 04-10-2006, 10:08 AM

I fail to see where I said that. You certainly don't have to cease attempts to bring the war to a conclusion.

But if you support our troops individually in their endeavors then you are also supporting the larger endeavor. That while you want the war to end, until it does it should be successful. Can you think of another activity where you'd claim that you considered an act to be immoral but that you support success of the person doing it? It's nonsensical.

Also, it is completely possible to consider the war to be morally right but to be politically wrong. But I've never heard anybody on the anti-war left (though I have heard it from the anti-war right, which does exist) make that argument so I haven't included it here.

innerSpaceman · 04-10-2006, 01:34 PM

Actually, you have been a little more nuanced than I give you credit for.

I do have a moral pecking order of death that I would prefer. In an unavoidable battle that is going to happen despite my omniscient powers to control who lives or dies, I want Americans to kill insurgents who are indiscriminent Iraqi-and-American killers, and actual freedom-figher rebels to kill Americans.

If there were only two sides in these battles, it would be a little easier to choose preferred death tolls in advance. Frankly, since the result I'd like is for Americans to leave, the American death toll should be lowered. And I'd be willing to have some more true rebels die so that the situation might be considered stable enough for our troops to withdraw. The death vs. result equation is simply not very simple.

scaeagles · 04-10-2006, 01:42 PM

So in one breath you say, WB, that it immoral to use the tax dollars of those who oppose the war to support it and also that it is acceptable and even morally required (based on what I interpret your tone to be) to use the tax dollars of others to pay for welfare, housing, and medicare regardless of how they feel about those programs. It is not my intent to debate those programs now. I just find it interesting that tax dollars for what you support is OK, but not for what you don't support.

04-10-2006, 09:33 AM	#2
Scrooge McSam What? Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,635	It makes more sense than saying since I oppose this war that I wish our soldiers dead. No, Alex, argue away to your heart's content. No matter your bluster, I don't want my neighbor's son dead because he was obligated to fight a war that I don't support. I get no pleasure from the constant tension my co-worker is under because her son might not come home alive. You can ignore the money I've sent to organizations buying body armor for soldiers who have been under-equipped by this cowboy government. I'll keep doing what I'm doing and keep feeling better because I'm at least able to do some good in this awful situation. The only change I'll make is to start ignoring your hot air. Good day, sir.
	Submit to Quotes

04-10-2006, 09:51 AM	#3
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I'm not saying you want him dead, that if you oppose the war you want our soldiers dead. I'm saying that if you oppose the war then you should find our soldiers being dead preferable to the people on the other side being dead. It is easy to say that you'd prefer that neither end up being dead but that is not based on the reality of it. You can not simultaneously condemn an act and support the success of that act. It was on the news today that the U.S. Army this morning engaged in a firefight and killed six Iraqi insurgents. If you truly oppose this war and feel that we are unjustly in Iraq and that the whole endeavor is morally wrong, then who should have emerged victorious from that firefight? You don't get to say "I'd prefer that they all put down their guns and then had a beer." That is not the way firefights get resolved. You can wish it but it doesn't remove the moral question from what really happened. I don't want a single person in Iraq to die today due to battle. But since I do think this war is just if peoplare are going to die despite what I prefer it should be in a way that furthers the goals of the war (meaning it should more be the people on the other side that die). If I felt this war to be unjust I'd still prefer that nobody die, but if they are going to die despite what I prefer then I would feel it should be in a way that further the victory of the opposition. I'm not saying that anybody wants anybody to die. But to support our troops requires that you hope that they are more successful than the opposition. If you hope that, then you are not truly opposed to the war as it is happening, you just find it to be less than ideal. I know you consider all of this hot air. But I consider what you're doing an attempt to vaccinate yourself by playing both sides of the coin and not really having to take moral responsibility for what you're supporting. Unless you are really ok with saying "If push comes to shove I'd prefer that Johnny from next door kill 50 Iraqis unjustly than 50 Iraqis justly kill Johnny." Because that is what supporting Johnny while considering the war to be a moral wrong means.
	Submit to Quotes

04-10-2006, 03:39 PM	#6
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	And here, to use a historical example is where the hippies actually got it right. In my view, the Vietnam War was an immoral war. Every American soldier who participated in that war short of threat of death (and really imprisonment was the penatly for refusal) should be ashamed and shamed. So should everybody at home who "supported the troops." The hippies understood that "oppose the war, support the troops" was a paradox. At least all the grunt soldiers in Hitler's army have the excuse that they actually would have been shot for refusal (and yet we still expect them all to feel shame).
	Submit to Quotes

04-10-2006, 09:58 AM	#7
Prudence Beelzeboobs, Esq. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gavel - I haz it Posts: 6,287	I see. So individuals are allowed to select one of only two possible opinions. If they dislike the war, they therefore must hope our soliders die. If they dislike our soldiers dying, they must therefore yee-haw support the war. Well, at least it makes for a neat and orderly world view... __________________ traguna macoities tracorum satis de
	Submit to Quotes

04-10-2006, 10:08 AM	#8
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I fail to see where I said that. You certainly don't have to cease attempts to bring the war to a conclusion. But if you support our troops individually in their endeavors then you are also supporting the larger endeavor. That while you want the war to end, until it does it should be successful. Can you think of another activity where you'd claim that you considered an act to be immoral but that you support success of the person doing it? It's nonsensical. Also, it is completely possible to consider the war to be morally right but to be politically wrong. But I've never heard anybody on the anti-war left (though I have heard it from the anti-war right, which does exist) make that argument so I haven't included it here.
	Submit to Quotes

04-10-2006, 01:34 PM	#9
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Actually, you have been a little more nuanced than I give you credit for. I do have a moral pecking order of death that I would prefer. In an unavoidable battle that is going to happen despite my omniscient powers to control who lives or dies, I want Americans to kill insurgents who are indiscriminent Iraqi-and-American killers, and actual freedom-figher rebels to kill Americans. If there were only two sides in these battles, it would be a little easier to choose preferred death tolls in advance. Frankly, since the result I'd like is for Americans to leave, the American death toll should be lowered. And I'd be willing to have some more true rebels die so that the situation might be considered stable enough for our troops to withdraw. The death vs. result equation is simply not very simple.
	Submit to Quotes

04-10-2006, 01:42 PM	#10
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	So in one breath you say, WB, that it immoral to use the tax dollars of those who oppose the war to support it and also that it is acceptable and even morally required (based on what I interpret your tone to be) to use the tax dollars of others to pay for welfare, housing, and medicare regardless of how they feel about those programs. It is not my intent to debate those programs now. I just find it interesting that tax dollars for what you support is OK, but not for what you don't support.
	Submit to Quotes