quote:That we have screwed up in the past should not be an arguement that it is okay to screw up now.
Yeah, you know, I freaking give up.
I understand that this is frustrating for you. Me, too. I just don't get why, when I am arguing against things I think we shouldn't do - and I think you agree - you would argue against that by bringing up when we have done it before.
What point are you trying to make?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When your argument is that those actions are moving us away from our values, what we've done in the past is relevant to whether we've moved away.
It can be evidence that those really aren't our values, or it can be evidence that the current actions aren't moving us further away because we've already taken that step away from those values.
I think the point Rakeesh is trying to make is that "this moves us away from our values" is a weak argument against the detainee plan.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its not so much that it moves us away from our values... its simply another indicator that our declared values aren't the values we actually govern by.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't know about Rakeesh, but this is what I find immensely frustrating.
That question is explicitly answered in the post immediately preceding yours. I gave two challenges that could be raised against the argument.
I'm not sure if you think you're engaging in Socratic dialog, if you just like rhetorical questions, or what. Whatever your intent, what is coming across to at least some of us is that you simply aren't trying to understand others' positions on this. What is giving that impression is the lack of any indication in your responses that you've digested what we're saying before responding.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It can be evidence that those really aren't our values, or it can be evidence that the current actions aren't moving us further away because we've already taken that step away from those values.
Which?! I am asking which! Is his argument evidence that those aren't our values? Or is the argument that we have moved away from those values in the past, too?
If the first, then we disagree about what our values are. If the second, I disagree that moving away from those values in the past validates us moving away from them now.
Both responses bug you. I am trying. What am I missing?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Its not so much that it moves us away from our values... its simply another indicator that our declared values aren't the values we actually govern by.
And I think that we should actually govern by our declared values.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the second, I disagree that moving away from those values in the past validates us moving away from them now.
No one has said that moving away from them in the past validates us moving away from them now.
Rather, if we moved away in the past and have not moved back, then this won't move us away from them. Because we're already away.
Neither that nor your potential disagreement about what our values are, however, is directly relevant to my answer to your question.*
You asked why he would bring up past actions. I told you. Now, you can discuss both potential attacks on your values proposition. They're certainly arguable propositions. But to keep asking why he's brought them up is what's frustrating. He's brought them up to have someone address those two attacks, and to point out that there are stronger ways to oppose these policies. (Again, that's my impression; I can't speak to Rakeesh's actual intent, but how I've interpreted it.)
*Note, they are both extremely relevant to the issue of our values as they relate to the detention of enemy combatants.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going suggest that while things like suspension of habeus corpus, "rough" interrogation techniques, extradition of prisoners to countries that practice torture, and the like may have occurred in the past, there are two significant differences from most earlier cases of such:
One, a significant portion of the American public is aware of them, and
Two, they are being done in conjunction with the prosecution of a very public series of offensives allegedly being done on behalf of the American people.
Having been made aware of them, and being told that these actions are being taken on their behalf, it behooves the American people to actively state whether they're comfortable with such actions being made in their name.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
