----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 12:03 AM Subject: RE: US out of UN?
> 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. This is a nation that > has, from its beginning, honored diversity and criticism. Inspired largely > by Milton's argument that truth emerges from vigorous, open debate, > Jefferson and his pals created a kind of freedom never before seen. When we > allow winning the disputes to become more important than making the best > choices, we've abandoned a foundation of our freedom. 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. I went back and reread your origional post on the anti anti-war criticism and I think it was written in a way that works against what you are advocating here. In short, it contributed to the very incivility you are opposing. I live in a very conservative neighborhood, and I don't see any stifling of the debate on the advisability of going to war in Iraq. Indeed, I see a lot of thoughtful discussion on the matter. I also see high profile folks on both sides of the issue demonizing their opponents. Yet, your post didn't discuss this, but wrote about a condition that I just haven't seen. We have one instance in a mall over the whole US that has become a high profile issue. It turns out that this was not a simple case, it was a stupid attempt by a security guard to stop ongoing commotion in the mall. There are also cases in which professors gave assignments to write anti-war letters. That, too, was rare. There were cases where school officials who were anti-war treated military families poorly, that was also rare but true. In short, there are indeed idiots who are treating people who are on one side of the issue or another poorly; but these idiots are in the low minority. The other question is the nature of the debate. Even though I advocated containment over invasion, I have to agree that the administration has put forth much more reasonable arguements than the anti-war demonstrators. The latter have made ad honimin attacks and have made ridiculous arguements about the war being fought to enrich Bush's oil patch buddies. In talking with anti-war people I am very frustrated by the lack of appreciation of the other side of the issue: it is simply a matter of the US being a bully for no good reason. So, my critique of your post is that it had nothing to do with civility, but was an attack on those who think that invading Iraq is the best option available. If you wanted to write a post on civility, it would have been far better to first criticize the lack of civility of those people who advocated positions closer to your own prejudices, and then go and criticize those who advocate positions further from your viewpoint. If you actually support Bush, then it should have been stated up front. But criticizing one side in a debate for stifling the debate while offering no real evidence that they are doing so sounds more like an attempt to stir things up than promote civil disagreement. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
