This is topic How can bright people ask rhetorical questions they obviously know the answers to? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
Hopefully this saves me from having to post in the other thread...
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
What do you mean?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Why would you assume the other thread was a rhetorical question?
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Do you think you are trying to send some sort of message here?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, David, I think the answer is that Bob honestly doesn't know the answer to his question.
I'll admit that I don't know how otherwise sensible, moral people -- including you and my mother -- can defend Bush based on his record. It all boils down to a sense of priorities, I suppose, but it's genuinely difficult for me to understand how our priorities can be that different.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
^^^^^^
Indeed. But at least *I* have the excuse of being Canadian. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Bah! Damn Canadians get away with everything.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
I guess you can blame our memes, Tom. And, for the record, I'm no Bush cheerleader... I voted for him, but would've liked a third, moderate choice (Kerry was not to my taste at all).
Anyway, I still think Bob, after having been around people who think differently from him long enough, would understand that the reason moral, hard-working people support Bush despite his flaws is that his flaws aren't in areas they are particulary concerned about. All of us accept that our leaders will have flaws, I think, as long as they aren't screwed up in the things we believe really matter. And that, Tom, is so self-evident that I have to believe that Bob is being disingenuous in asking, as if to imply that it ISN'T terribly moral or pro-hard work to support Bush.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:the reason moral, hard-working people support Bush despite his flaws is that his flaws aren't in areas they are particulary concerned about.
But what is baffling to me, and I suspect Bob, is why aren't issues like torture, holding prisoners without trial, illegal propaganda, violations of international law, and lieing to the public important to you?
What is it that you see as so important that it would compensate for such critical moral failings?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
How is it that issues like the life of tiny children and murder aren't important to pro-choice people?
Do you see how framing the question this way is not conducive to discussion?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
The jury is still out on if fetuses are human beings, but no one is denying that there are no WMD, or that people are being illegaly kidnapped and tortured.
Do you see a difference?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Of course. One is directly about 1.3 million deaths a year, and the other isn't.
Not what you meant, is it?
The underlying assessment of the situations cited in the questions about Bush is not shared by the people who supported (or voted, or whatever) him. Either they disagree with your characterization of the facts, or his culpability, or think other things were more important. Just as people who oppose granting the protection of the criminal law to unborn children don't accept my characterization of the status of unborn children.
Dagonee
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
So the question would become, if people with opposing views differ on the underlying meanings, how can we ever come to a compromise? Can we?
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Dagonee, I cant really tell from your posts whether you are pro-life or not, but you seem to be on the conservative side of things, maybe in the middle somewhere. As such, you dont really seem to be defending Bush, more defending the reasoning of people who voted for him. Is this the case?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Dagonee is great at defending positions he doesn't agree with from unfair attacks.
This, though, is not one of those times. He is pretty solidly pro-life.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
"All of us accept that our leaders will have flaws, I think, as long as they aren't screwed up in the things we believe really matter." David, I think that one of the reasons Bob and Tom are so baffled is that they cant imagine strangers, never mind people they love and respect, dont believe that the things the Bush administration has done really matter. War really matters. Lying really matters. Respect for others really matters. I think it's safe to say the Bush administration has screwed up pretty badly on all of these issues. Yet intelligent, sensitive people still voted for him. I dont get it either.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So the question would become, if people with opposing views differ on the underlying meanings, how can we ever come to a compromise? Can we?
Not really - I think we come to compromises here. But NOT by asking questions which assume the very premises that truly underly the dispute. There are probably a million or more permutations on the different issues Bob brought up in his thread.
quote:I cant really tell from your posts whether you are pro-life or not, but you seem to be on the conservative side of things, maybe in the middle somewhere. As such, you dont really seem to be defending Bush, more defending the reasoning of people who voted for him. Is this the case?
As MPH said, I am very soldily pro-life. Also, I am not defending Bush. I gave that up a long time ago here. I do attempt to correct misrepresentations of his record from time to time.
Here, though, I'm not even defending the people who voted for him. Rather, I am questioning the manner in which people are presenting their assumptions and acting "baffled" that people don't see the world in the way they see it.
It's patronizing at best. I know, because I have to stop myself from doing it every time we discuss abortion.
Dagonee
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Me neither. I'm frustrated. Not to mention helpless. Just what can be done about this? Nothing. I have no power.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Syn, do you mean about the actual issues or the level of discourse here at Hatrack?
I also have given up defending Bush. For one thing, he has been elected so I don't really see the point. It would only be giving the other side something to resist.
quote:War really matters.
Yes, that is why we are fighting this one.
quote:Lying really matters.
Every president has had to do what would be considered lying by his opponents.
quote:Respect for others really matters.
O.o Umm, okay. I think there is a difference between conservatives and liberals as to the priorities of who should be shown respect.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
About the actual issues. Just what can be done to make this country really great? Not just talking about how great it is, but living it. How can that happen when they are doing things like talking about cutting disability for people who really need it? Nothing makes a bit of sense. -_-
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:How is it that issues like the life of tiny children and murder aren't important to pro-choice people?
This issue is very important to me, but I think that efforts to reduce poverty among women, improve reproductive education, strengthen familial relations, bolster adoption, improve access to birthcontrol and increase tolerance are far more likely to reduce the abortion rates than criminalizing abortion. I think that 20 years of attempts to criminalize abortion have cost the tax payers millions of dollars and accomplished nothing. That money could have been much better spent on progressive programs to help mothers and educate teenagers. I am pro-life. I simply believe that the progressive agenda is more likely to preserve life than the right wing agenda.
What is more, I care just as much, possibly more, about the lives millions of children who are dieing from the effects of poverty after they are born as I do about the unborn.
Now that I've answered your question, perhaps you can provide more than rhetoric in answer to mine. Why don't you care about the list of crimes under Bush's belt?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
You said exactly what I wanted to say with better words. Because all of those things are exactly what bother me about the abortion debate. If abortions are banned, women will still try to have them. The ones who have enough money could just get one done in another country. The Rabbit
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Yes, that is why we are fighting this one.
Perhaps you could be more specific. Why exactly are we fighting this war? Is it WMD? Is it terrorism? Is it because the Iraqi's will great us joyously dancing in the streets at their liberation?
The truth is that there never a just reason for fighting this war. There never will be.
Every reason the Bush adminstration has given for this war has proven to be a lie. By all objective measures, the Iraqi people are worse off today than they were under Hussein. I suppose that if a new government that respects human rights is eventually established, that will change, but that is still a very big if. It will be decades be for we can even begin to estimate if more death and suffering would have occurred if we had simply done nothing. We will never know whether a peaceful diplomatic approach could have achieved the results with less human cost.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
"Yes, that is why we are fighting this one." Yes, I can understand why you would say that. If someone were to believe that the war in Iraq was based on a genuine need to defend our country and to provide freedom to those oppresed, I can understand why they would find this war acceptable. Kind of. However, I absolutely believe that this war is a frivolous waste of time, money, resources, and human lives. As such, I find it immoral in the extreme, and by extension I find those who started it and those who support it to be immoral. I cant seperate myself from this catogory, because I live here and pay my damn taxes, so I support the structure that has created it.
"Every president has had to do what would be considered lying by his opponents" No. They dont. They are allowed to and even encouraged to by a system that tolerates dishonesty in its leaders. There is no gray matter(literally sometimes) when it comes to lying. The fact that someone could say something like this illustrates just why George Bush is still in office.
"O.o Umm, okay. I think there is a difference between conservatives and liberals as to the priorities of who should be shown respect." Actually, I doubt that. Most liberals want respect for themselves and those they love first, and the rest of humanity can have sloppy seconds. Same with most conservatives. I'm talking about the respect for human life that is so glaringly missing in this war and in the coverage we see of it in the US. Casualties are downplayed, and seen as unavoidable on both sides, US and Iraqi. That this is acceptable at all bespeaks a sad lack of empathy in our society, along with a willingness to accept being lied to rather than facing uncomfortable truths.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This issue is very important to me, but I think that efforts to reduce poverty among women, improve reproductive education, strengthen familial relations, bolster adoption, improve access to birthcontrol and increase tolerance are far more likely to reduce the abortion rates than criminalizing abortion. I think that 20 years of attempts to criminalize abortion have cost the tax payers millions of dollars and accomplished nothing. That money could have been much better spent on progressive programs to help mothers and educate teenagers. I am pro-life. I simply believe that the progressive agenda is more likely to preserve life than the right wing agenda.
If you do think of it as "murder" and think that waiting around until the people no longer choose to have their children ripped apart limb from limb or their children's brains vaccumed out is a sufficient response, then you have a strange definition of caring. More likely you don't think of it as murder, and so you haven't actually answered my question. And I don't blame you - that's why I haven't answered your question.
Because it's loaded, assumes unproven facts and conclusions, based on arguable assumptions, and clearly not aimed at eliciting information.
quote:What is more, I care just as much, possibly more, about the lives millions of children who are dieing from the effects of poverty after they are born as I do about the unborn.
There's no possibly about it: you clearly care more about those children, since your willing to reduce the number so killed by allowing them to be killed a couple of months or years earlier. And, of course, caring for children already born isn't unique to those willing to allow them to be killed before they are born.
quote:Now that I've answered your question, perhaps you can provide more than rhetoric in answer to mine. Why don't you care about the list of crimes under Bush's belt?
You didn't answer my question, and the assumption that they are crimes is exactly the reason I won't answer yours.
Do you still beat your dog?
Dagonee
[ January 19, 2005, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yes. But he's picked up a copy of Chess Strategy for the New Master, and I'm afear'd that my title is in jeopardy.
[ January 19, 2005, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
At first I thought that CT was posting in the wrong thread... Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
(Was that a joke at Dag's expense? Say not so. )
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It was an extremely funny joke, but I don't see how it was at my expense. Were I to actually advocate asking such questions, it might be, but probably not even then.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
My apologies for the lightheartedness in the midst of a toothy discussion. The pun was too much to resist. It was the first sentence I read of his post (as it stuck out at the bottom), and I couldn't hold back.
But I will grovel with abandon if so required.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
That's how I took it, Dag. I read your comment as quite satirical.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No groveling - it deserves a curtain call.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*Dagheading through the day
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It was "afear'd" that moved it from funny to sublime.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Did you note the "New Master" and "my title" subtle extra-level punnage? I was extra-tickled by that part.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I didn't pick up on title, actually. Now it makes "New Master" even funnier.
Well done!
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*bows left, bows right
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:There's no possibly about it: you clearly care more about those children, since your willing to reduce the number so killed by allowing them to be killed a couple of months or years earlier.
Read my post Dag. I am absolutely not willing to reduce the number of children who die after birth by by allowing them to be killed before birth. That is a brutal distortion of my position possible and demonstrates that you made no attempt to understand my point.
I am not waiting around for mothers to stop aborting their unborn children. I am working to eliminate the poverty, ignorance, and intolerance that are the major reasons women seek abortions because I believe that will be a more effective way of stopping these killings than seeking to punish those involved. If you had made even the slightest attempt to understand my position, you would not have responded as you did.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Read my post Dag. I am absolutely not willing to reduce the number of children who die after birth by by allowing them to be killed before birth. That is a brutal distortion of my position possible and demonstrates that you made no attempt to understand my point.
I am not waiting around for mothers to stop aborting their unborn children. I am working to eliminate the poverty, ignorance, and intolerance that are the major reasons women seek abortions because I believe that will be a more effective way of stopping these killings than seeking to punish those involved. If you had made even the slightest attempt to understand my position, you would not have responded as you did.
And you would consider it an acceptable response to stopping 1.3 million murders each year to simply work to make people not want to commit those murders? How about if we told blacks in the South being lynched that we'll deal with the problem through education and social reforms that make white racists less likely to kill blacks?
You're clearly not treating the abortions as MURDERS, which is the entire point of the unfairly loaded question I asked you - to make you see how loaded your own questions about Bush had been.
On the contrary, I think it's clear that you are making no attempt to understand my point here.
Dagonee
[ January 19, 2005, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:How about if we told blacks in the South being lynched that we'll deal with the problem through education and social reforms that make white racists less likely to kill blacks?
Honestly, I think that education and social reforms aimed at stopping future lynchings are far more important than punishing the people responsible for past lynchings.
In an ideal world, I would not be asked to choose between the two but could pursue both. In the real world, we have limited resources and must choose where to focus our efforts.
I don't believe that criminalizing abortions will be very effective at saving the innocents. It will only be effective at punishing some of the mothers and doctors involved in their deaths. As a result, I believe that we should invest our resources in other programs that are more likely to be effective in saving the innocents. From my view, all the time, energy and money that has been spent trying to overturn Roe v Wade, hasn't saved one child and could have been better spent in other ways.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
He's asking if you'd pass a law banning the lynchings.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Honestly, I think that education and social reforms aimed at stopping future lynchings are far more important than punishing the people responsible for past lynchings.
In an ideal world, I would not be asked to choose between the two but could pursue both. In the real world, we have limited resources and must choose where to focus our efforts.
It's still not treating abortion as murder, which is the entire point of my question. And you still, of course, won't acknowledge that pre-labling Bush's actions as crimes is a ridiculous way to start a meaningful dialog.
quote:From my view, all the time, energy and money that has been spent trying to overturn Roe v Wade, hasn't saved one child and could have been better spent in other ways.
This argument is specious beyond belief. What about the millions spent getting the abortion laws overturned in the first place? What about the millions spent to prevent the overturning of Roe v. Wade?
Dagonee
[ January 19, 2005, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:I don't believe that criminalizing abortions will be very effective at saving the innocents. It will only be effective at punishing some of the mothers and doctors involved in their deaths.
FWIW, in digging for the other abortion thread going on, I found that no women were prosecuted for having abortions -- only abortionists. And not too many of those, even.
The other issue here, of course, is that if you start out disliking Bush and his politics, your conceptual filters are going to turn into evil, Machiavellian plotting what, from a man whose politics and end goals you respected, you might've otherwise seen as being mitigated by different factors.
All I can say is that you've only four more years to endure: hang tough... the pendulum will eventually swing back your way, and then it'll be my turn once more to be shocked and appalled at your supporting of whatever (inevitably) lying, crooked politician those of your philosophical bent elect into office.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
A law is set. To breach it, is a crime. The Geneva Convention is essentially international law (its an international agreement which the US agreed to and signed). Bush breached it, on several occations. Hence, he commited a crime in the international community. It isn't a mischaracterization. Murder is a legal state, right? The intentional killing of a human being is not always murder (in war for example). Thus you cannot characterize abortion as murder until it is made illegal as such in law. Which it is not currently. Thus characterizing Bush's acts, at least some of them, as crimes is based in logical fact. While characterizing abortion as murder is based in opinion.
[ January 19, 2005, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:A law is set. To breach it, is a crime. The Geneva Convention is essentially international law (its an international agreement which the US agreed to and signed). Bush breached it, on several occations. Hence, he commited a crime in the international community. It isn't a mischaracterization.
That certainly hasn't been shown here. There's not even an allegation of scienter, nor an element-by-element analysis of the crimes he supposedly committed. There are only vague accusations based on entire treaties.
Not all laws give rise to criminal liability when violated, and not classifying a particular act as a crime is a long, detailed process.
quote:Murder is a legal state, right?
There is a moral definition of murder as well.
quote:The intentional killing of a human being is not always murder (in war for example). Thus you cannot characterize abortion as murder until it is made illegal as such in law. Which it is not currently. Thus characterizing Bush's acts, at least some of them, as crimes is based in logical fact. While characterizing abortion as murder is based in opinion.
Calling the characterization of Bush's acts "crimes" is hardly logical fact. No one has presented premises or drawn conclusions from them.
All you've done is point out exactly why assuming that the perjorative terms you use to apply the opposition are appropriate is not the way to start a conversation. It might help you score cheap rhetorical points, but only with those that already agree with you.
Dagonee
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Besides which, though I don't actually agree with Bush on this, there are well thought out (if a bit convoluted... along the lines of pro-choice advocate's own rationalizations) excuses for stripping al-Qaeda members of any POW rights, including their not meeting the requirements laid out in the convention for enemy combatants.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
DB -- the problem of course being that large numbers of the detainees were not Al Quaeda members but Taliban members who most definitely were combatants (as in, official reports regarding them talk about being taken in combat situations).
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
For some stupid reason, I feel compelled to comment.
1) If it truly was a rhetorical question, it would be one for which I didn't expect an answer, and no-one else would either.
2) Another thing mystifies me completely. If one reads my posts on this issue, including the very first one in that thread where I was supposedly so insulting to Bush supporters' morality, I made it clear that what I was wondering was related to the PERCEIVED morality of the president. Those who took my statements as an attack on their morality were, in my opinion, just looking for something to be offended by.
3) Those who think I really didn't want an answer to my question are also being a bit thick. I took your suggestion on changing the tenor of my question, David, in part because I wanted to see if I could make up for the insult several of the folks read into my original post.
I took a challenging tone for a reason. One that I think is a very good one. That is, all during the campaign and the first term, and even now from the President's own mouth, we kept hearing about how this President is exceptionally moral.
I know that part of the deal there is that running against Clinton's record and the sexual scandals, it was important for the other side to show that they would not be doing "that sort of thing."
Granted. I know how political posturing works.
But there's posturing and then there's believing it.
We've already discussed in other threads whether or not the Evangelical Christian Conservative movement was responsible for getting out more of the vote for Bush and whether or not that put him over the top.
But...and this is important, the pitching of the President as "the moral one" continues to this day. I was sick of it the first time I heard it, and I've spent the PAST four years seemingly being confirmed in my loathing of his actions at nearly every turn. I see most of his Cabinet as also behaving in immoral ways as well.
Where it really matters most to me...of course: human rights, human dignity, fair and balanced justice, conservation of resources, fair distribution of resources and power, equitable and high quality education, oh, heck, on and on and on.
These are big issues to me.
Yes, I realize that if abortion were something I took to be the government's job to stop, that I would view the President as my hero on that issue.
And, if I were really upset by the idea of marriage being anything but the union of one man with one woman, he would be my hero on that issue too. Since I disagree with him on this one, he'll never be my hero, although I do applaud his current stance to no longer pursue a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage.
But those are only two issues, and I see so many more that I ALSO care about. I assume most people also care about more than just a handful of issues.
I also realize that many people probably agree with him on more issues than I do.
But then the question comes up of is he REALLY an exceptionally moral man? Does he deserve to be lionized as such by his supporters?
And then I just get mystified all over again.
I can see supporting him because one agrees with his policies. If there was a candidate out there who really talked my language, I'd support him even if I thought he was seriously flawed in many respects.
Heck, I supported Clinton despite my grave misgivings about a man who would abuse his position of authority with woman after woman and not ever catch on to the fact that it's wrong even if the woman is a consenting adult. I'll leave the adultery question out altogether. His biggest failing in the sex scandal thing was abusing his position of authority. Bosses don't mess with the staff...it's just never a good thing.
But no-one was selling Clinton on his morals.
People ARE selling Bush like he's been stamped "APPROVED" by God.
And that was what my question was all about. On issues of basic morality as taught in the United States of America and every religion I've ever gathered enough information on to make me think I could possibly venture an opinion, and, i thought, by the Conservative movement in this country, George W. Bush and his Administration have engaged in behaviors that are indicative of a fundamentally flawed moral compass.
Whether you think he's a great leader, a possibly good one, or a complete failure, the question of whether he is a moral person working from a set of shared, high-minded, life-affirming principles is an open one.
And I generalized that to ask how individuals who ARE such people can look at his record and still call him moral.
I can't. I never could. At some point, I think it would sink in to others. They might still love having him as a leader, but would they still call him moral?
Instead, it's spawned pages of discussion about how one should ask a question in order to avoid offending Bush supporters, or whether asking the same question about abortion, or Bill Clinton, or whatever, is fair game.
But that's just Hatrack.
I realize that my posting here is showing that I'm also sensitive to offense not necessarily intended by the person posting. And I just want to add one thing to ponder:
I felt that if I asked my question without displaying my biases, my likely later responses would seem like an ambush to those who were sucked in. Why? Because I would challenge each of you on your interpretation of events and not let go of things just because you said "well that's the way I see it."
Knowing that, I felt it WAS better to state my biases.
I never called any of Bush's actions criminal, despite what some have claimed. I do list some things that are factual as best I understand them, along with my interpretation of them. It's not a "when did you stop beating your wife thing" it's a "what about this situation am I not getting? -- here's what I think it means."
I don't call for his impeachment. I don't think he can or should be brought up on charges of treason.
I doubt he will ever be tried on the war crimes charges that are being threatened (or have they now been filed?) by the less than effective or realistic "World Court." I would not relish that event if it did come to pass.
All I want to know is whether this man is behaving in a fashion that people think is moral.
If he hadn't been hyping his morality, using it as a campaign platform, I wouldn't even bring it up.
But he appealed to people's morality and won, in part, based on that perception.
Maybe NONE of you voted for him based on this perception. But I know people who did. I know people who persist in describing him in religious terms.
Frankly, I believe he will go down in history either as the reason why we had to ultimately readjust the checks and balances between our branches of government. Or, he will be remembered in rosy-hued terms because during the next 4 years a miracle happens in the Middle East for which his Administration can take credit.
I believe his legacy will not be about morals.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:How can bright people ask rhetorical questions they obviously know the answers to?
Shouldn't that question be:
How can bright people ask rhetorical questions to which they obviously know the answers?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Bob, my responses in this thread were aimed directly at someone asking the question in a far more annoying fashion than you did in the other thread.
My whole point is that asking the question the way you did will not elicit the response you want. This is a practical criticism, not a moral one.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Oh...Thanks. I thought it was ALL about ME!!!!
I agreed with your assessment of the "criminality" thing being overboard, by the way. I used to think Bush might legitimately be charged with treason, until I looked up the definition of treason in our laws. Or rather someone posted it and then I looked it up.
He's not behaving in a treasonous fashion.
Some of his actions might be criminal, but it's doubtful that they are. Probably not.
Violating many laws (like the laws governing prisoners access to counsel, or have-his-carcase) don't usually result in charges or incarceration. The person responsible is simply told to knock it off and do the right thing.
It bugs me, however, that the Administration would: a) do it in the first place. It's not like they couldn't figure out that it wasn't strictly legal. b) wait until the courts forced them before they handled the Gitmo prisoners better.
I think the mistreatment of those folks is going to haunt us in a few ways. We've no doubt helped some of them decide that we SHOULD be fought. And a few of those will actually take up arms against us even though they were weren't doing so before. Our treatment of them is also going to be held up as an example of how US soldiers (and citizens) can be treated when captured by our enemies in future conflicts. The problem being that even legitimate governments (and not just scum-sucking terrorists) might be embolded to mistreat our people the way we mistreated these folks because we've now set an international standard.
I think it was short sighted and surrendered the high ground.
And, I think this "war on terror" is both one of control of real estate (and resources) AND one of morality. I think we're too eager to lower our standards of behavior off the battlefield.
On that field, I say we have every right to kill those who are trying to kill us.
Off that field? I think we have to show the world what it means to be a free country ruled by Democratic principles and a set of laws. Not one set for us and one set for outsiders. One set of rules that are superior to any other set ever proposed.
And I think we're not doing that.
I think we're surrending the moral high ground when we should be clearly setting the standard.
And not because we want to impress the enemy, but because we hope to impress those who might, someday, consider supporting or joining the enemy. Impress them that we really are better and don't deserve the hatred.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I don't know if you'll ever get an answer to your question.
Perhaps Bush appears more moral because, the people for whom morality is a primary concern in politics, share many of Bush's goals (abortion bans, gay marriage bans, involvement of religion in politics). The rest of the voters who put civil rights, education, or any number of things above these "morality" concerns aren't the ones who give Bush his moral reputation.
Bush is more moral to those for whom "morality" is most important. My (Democrat) roommates and I were talking about this issue when the post-election speculation was fresh news. They said they hadn't really considered this sort of perceived morality in voting. To them, voting for Kerry was the more "moral" choice, because they felt the most sympathy for the people and groups that the Democratic platform supported. Even though they stood to be much better off financially if Bush was reelected (inheritance tax issues), they voted for a Democrat because they valued women's reproductive rights, the standing of the United States in the world's moral compass, and education more than the "moral" issues that apparently won the election for Bush.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The rest of the voters who put civil rights, education, or any number of things above these "morality" concerns aren't the ones who give Bush his moral reputation.
The issue, then, appears to boil down to whether or not one political group can effectively define "morality" for everyone else
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Sheesh, I was kidding about the treason. Bush is convinced. A zealot, if you will. I don't like his moral values. As Jim Wallis said on the Daily Show yesterday, the Bible has over 3,000 verses on how to treat the poor. How many are devoted to homosexuality? Why is "moral values" interpreted as only pertaining to abortion and gay marriage and not torture of prisoners, war making, poverty, discrimination, etc.? Didn't Jesus say, "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me."?
There are more moral values than just abortion and gay marriage and we would do well to listen to Jim Wallis and start a movement of non "religious right" moral crusade to expand this countries repertoire of values.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
More presuming. The Democratic platform is not the only way to help the poor.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That's the same thing I wonder about...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Kayla, you weren't the only one to mention treason, and I don't think the others were kidding.
I used to think it too.
Thought I'd just mention it.
I think maybe I've gotten off the track by calling it morals. Maybe values is a better and more general term and less loaded with "doctrinal" implications.
Hmm...I wonder if we could still define a set of values that all Americans would agree define us as a country.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I doubt it, Bob.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Yeah, but if we did that, there would be more presuming about which party does what for each, like Dag said.
Apparently, the Republicans care about such things, they just believe in charities, not government involvement, unless it is as a religious based charity.
Dag, you're presuming I'm a democrat. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, then, non-Republican policies are not the only way to help the poor.
And your summarization of the "Republican" thoughts on helping the poor leaves out an awful lot in the equation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In other words, values is only half the equation in public policy. These allow you to select desired ends and acceptable means, and to weigh the two.
But efficacy is important as well. If policy X doesn't fulfill it's goal, then there's no benefit to the value supposedly advanced by the goal.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Dag, dearest, I only added that part to watch you rise to it. You really need to stop being such a lawyer and learn to talk to people.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Disregard this if it has already been pointed out, but don't bright people frequently ask rhetorical questions to which they know the answer? Is it considered foolish to use questions rhetorically when one already knows the answer? If so, this is something that could have been brought to my attention prior to writing the preceeding sentences.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It's still not treating abortion as murder, which is the entire point of my question.
I beg to differ but that is beside the point. I believe that your original intent was to point out that Bob was begging the question. You attempted to prove this with an analogy to abortion, believing that by using the term "murder" you had dodged the only real question up for debate. I disagreed and provide what at least some people here felt was a cogent response that accepted your defining abortion as murder.
My point was that from my perspective, the question was not simply rhetorical. My views on what should be done about abortion are different from yours because my views about what should be done about murder are different than yours. We have a fundamentally different perspective. I was trying to help you to see the question from my perspective.
I think that this was exactly what Bob was seeking for in the original thread. He was saying, 'Hey I recognize you as moral hard working people but I just can't understand how that is consistent with your support for Bush.' He was, I believe, honestly and sincerely asking you to explain your values and help him to understand a point of view he can't explain.
Personally, I am really baffled by the question Bob asks. I want a cogent answer that would help me to understand why so many people that I consider to be moral decent folks are supporting a man I whose policies I find distressingly immoral. It is not a rhetorical question. I really don't know the answer and I would like to see a response that goes beyond -- 'you phrased that question in a inflammatory way so I won't dignify you with a response.'
PS. If I'm wrong in interpretting your intent Bob, please forgive me. I have been accused of the same crime here at Hatrack from time to time and it always comes as a suprise to me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Rabbit, it is NOT treating it as murder. If it were, we'd need no new laws, because the murder laws would apply. At best, you're expressing the willingness to have a highly discriminatory murder statute that excludes the actual majority of murders in this country.
It's not the same, and your distinctions are exactly the kind of non-issue-addressing going on in response to Bob's question in the other thread.
Which is why it's not productive.
Dagonee
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:But efficacy is important as well. If policy X doesn't fulfill it's goal, then there's no benefit to the value supposedly advanced by the goal.
What do you mean by this?
Recreational cocaine use is illegal. The government spends a lot of money trying to get people to not use cocaine, but people still do. Is there any benifit to spending this money?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In an efficacy analysis, you would ask if more people would use cocaine if it were legal, if the number who would is signifcant enough to justify the cost, and whether there are other benefits (intangible, mostly) that can help offset the cost.
This presumes that there is a value that dictates reducing drug use is a good thing.
Dagonee
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
quote:Shouldn't that question be: How can bright people ask rhetorical questions to which they obviously know the answers?
In certain quarters, in which the prescriptive, pseudo-Latinate rules imposed upon English in previous centuries are infallible and unquestionable, yes. However, for linguists and others aware of the unique (though more German-flavored than Latinate) nature of the English language, it is very normal in our language to drop the relative pronoun at the head of an essential or restricting adjective clause, and when that pronoun is serving as the object of a preposition, to move that preposition to position at the end of the sentence, essentially converting it into the particle of a phrasal verb.
BTW, I don't find Bush any more or less moral than most other politicians. I don't agree with his stances on marriage and many other things. My vote for him had little to do with that, and more to do with Kerry's being a total fuzzy, unknowable factor in this war. With Bush, I knew what I was getting. The more comprehendible of two evils, if you will.
[ January 20, 2005, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: David Bowles ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Forgot to add that Bob's version of this thread's title won't fit in the allotted space.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
The Rabbit
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)