Re: OT: Condolences

These are YOUR justifications? All of them? I realize that good can
come from evil and all that, and that "we have good people, harding
working people .... working hard" in Iraq but Macciavelli offered some
short words for when results drive the methods. Seriously, I find it
hard to accept that you (or anyone except those embracing a strange
version of human responsibility to each other) believe any one of the
following justies the invasion of a sovereign nation:

-a failed assassination plot/attempt
-it's all about the oil
-crony-contracts
-restarting the Kuwaiti war to "finish the job" that, as a country, we
completed over 15 years ago
-harboring terrorists when the intent to invade was established prior
to the awful event that provided the language supporting the invasion
in the first place

Brian, reasonable people do disagree as to the justification for Iraq.
Picking any one of the above as you invited is not reasonable
justification for what we are doing. I invited you to put it out there
on the table, and perhaps the best (I mean it) argument comes in your
last paragraphs where you invoke the slippery-slope arguement.
Paraphrased: if we don't take care of this now, wait until later, then
we'll all be sorry. That's about the least compelling use of logic
that can be employed. It's not invalid, just last in line in terms of
persuasive ability.

There is nothing deific about any US president, nor should supporting
the troops be coopted by Bush supporters who suggest that criticising
the White House equals criticising soldiers in combat for obeying their
orders. You see complexity everywhere (and who would disagree?) but
demand incontrovertable evidence that went to war based on lies. Not
sure how one ever reaches incontrovertability anyway, when the
reliability of any evidence worth using is more often then not put
through the ringer by parties on both side of the story. What's most
convincing is the totality of the arguement starting from the notion
that, once challenged, leaders of a free society have the obligation to
clear the record, not the other way around. If you reject that, then
you must accept that both sides will challenge the validity of the
strongest evidence. The challenge does nothing to its truth, but it
can cloud the waters enough to prevent anyone from thinking its
incotrovertable. That's why the toughest cases are rearely resolved
with a smoking gun. The absence of one with the mayor's prints all
over it is hardly suprising, which is why the only reasonable thing is
to look for the non-incontrovertable (so to speak) important stuff and
pair it with the more mundain. That's the standard, not "your with us
or ungainst us" or demand for absolute proof.

Anyway, I'm outa here.

-Dan

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What Atheism means to me [...]
    ... In this case the justification isn't based on evidence or anything like that. ... candidate A. You feel that there is no justification to vote for candidate B. But as you get into the voting booth, someone sneaks up on you, holds a gun to your head and tells you to vote for candidate B. You would be perfectly justified in voting for a candidate you feel that there is no justification in voting for. ... Chug a lug and its "Happy but stupid" forever till death do you part. ...
    (uk.philosophy.atheism)
  • Luskin: Judge Wrong To Rule Against IDs Theology
    ... Zachriel wrote: ... We haven't observable evidence even for the existence of a ... this is not a justification to believe such nonsense. ... and they will prey on his superstition to make ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Al-Sadr Pulls Fighters Off Streets (was Re: Just a Reminder!)
    ... He was a brutal dictator for decades but no one ... but you can't use that as sole justification for an action ... Powell having to go before the UN to "present the evidence to the world" ... One justified by an obvious foreign attack and the other by lies. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Re: Memetics - Blank Slate Liberals vs Hobbes
    ... > You mean if we suppose, that there are basic empirical beliefs, that is, ... > person only if he is in cognitive possession of such a reason, ... > with justification the premises from which it follows that the belief is ... > probability of being true on the basis of the evidence, ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Hitchens on religion
    ... have Faith because their beliefs are not justifiable, ... It's another to say that no other sort of evidence ... I accept that you made the decision based on justification - no one's ... you do trust they're true. ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
Loading