posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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?
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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 ]
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
