On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 , Nick Arnett wrote:
> Can we please, here at least, acknowledge that there is a range of
> positions one can take?
Can we please, here at least, talk about reality instead of an ivory
tower fantasy land?
> Well, the pragmatic reality of every nation on earth, including ours,
> is that sometimes we support bad guys because they're the best of a
> bunch of bad choices... and sometimes we kid ourselves into thinking
> that's what we're doing when when we're really just lining our own
> pockets, or we're just plain afraid.
Yes, the US has made mistakes in the past, and the past is useful
for learning what works and what does not, but the US has also had
great successes in the past with freedom and democracy and defeating
tyrants and protecting the weak. Do you claim regime change in
Iraq is a mistake? ("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.
> I'm in favor of doing away with the polarizing rhetoric that divides
> us, to take us back to the subject you were responding to.
Or you could accept that there are other things that divide us than
polarizing rhetoric, and instead concentrate on accomplishing something
practical and good.
> 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.
> That's what I hear in the "Everybody who disagrees with me is wrong"
> talk from far too many advocates of war and peace. They've left
> advocacy in the dust.
Interesting. I hear exactly that from you, and not from Gautam. Gautam
is talking about reality and choices and how to achieve them, and
pointing out what he thinks will come of your choices (or lack
thereof). That's advocacy in the real world. You are criticizing
Gautam's (and my) approach of debating the issue, implying that we
should NOT point out the reality of choices and the responsibility of
people who make the choices. You are the one who has "left advocacy in
the dust."
> 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. Of course we
can never have complete certainty, but we can have high probability of
being right, which is what is important. Was World War II wrong? Well,
maybe Hitler could have been defeated at less cost using some other
(unspecified) method, but it is unlikely, and the direct approach DID
work. When there is a clear and direct approach to solving a problem,
and someone claims there is a better but subtle solution, the onus is
on the person with the subtle and complex solution to make the case
for it. Historically, the direct approach often succeeds (which is
one reason why it is thought of as the "direct approach") whereas the
complex, subtle approach rarely does. The conclusion is that, with high
probability, those who opposed going to war against the Nazis were
wrong.
> I believe it is immoral to rend the unity of our national values and
> purpose by insisting that you are right and everyone else is wrong,
> whether you do so in the name of war, peace or fashion design.
So we are immoral for advocating a cause we think is best and pointing
out the consequences of choices that people make? It sounds like you,
too, are a hyprocrite, labeling people immoral and creating disunity of
our national values.
> I fear that the vast majority of people don't even realize there is a
> better way to engage in national and international debate.
And what is this better way to debate than rationally discussing choices
and consequences that are likely to result? It is certainly not this
"I say I don't like it but I don't propose any viable solution and I
oppose your viable solution and I criticize you for discussing likely
consequences of choices" position that you seem to support.
> That's exactly the kind of behavior and language that I referred to
> above. Or even more damaging, since it is based on nothing I've said
> or implied,
It is based on reality. The way to debate it is to come up with an
alternate approach also based on reality, or to explain why your choice
doesn't have the consequences implied. NOT to criticize the person who
points out the consequences of your position.
> I tend to advocate liberal positions (though I don't like being
> labeled), but that doesn't mean I want to live in a community of
> liberals. We'd never decide anything!
I can see that. I consider it a failing. I take some liberal positions
sometimes, but I also try to be goal-oriented and realistic. It is hard
to do, and I don't always succeed, but I haven't given up on decisions
and accomplishing goals.
> Leave me to myself and I'll brainstorm all day, but I might not ever
> ship a product or close a sale. Leave my typical partner alone and
> he'll never come up with an innovative product or strategy.
And some people can be creative AND accomplish goals. Perhaps you should
brainstorm a little on how to do that?
> 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? 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. I would very much like to see a feasible idea to remove
Saddam other than going to war. Fire away :-) if you have such an idea!
> You are not just taking a stand for what you believe in, you are also
> taking a contemptuous stand against anyone who disagrees.
And this is exactly what your rant sounds like. Why not keep the
discussion about how to deal with Saddam, choices and likely
consequences, instead of attacking those of us who are trying to
accomplish something by discussing those things?
> Where is *your* true, strong voice, the one that says, "Here is what
> I believe in," with the courage to let your words stand on their own,
> the man know knows that contempt for those who disagree weakens you?
Where is yours? You keep changing the subject away from how to deal with
Saddam and instead attacking those who are discussing how to deal with
him.
--
"Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
