| Subject: If this is an "either-or" question, that rhetorical device is awfully familiar. Still, I'll answer it. |
Author:
obitchecker
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: Mon, May 25, 2009 1:21:56
In reply to:
Mercedes (so ARE you or AREN'T you in favor of the Project for the New American Century?)
's message, "Obitchecker, it is mainly the same thing--but there are MISSING PARAGRAPHS!" on Mon, May 25, 2009 10:51:44
No, and mainly because the idea that all the rest of the world wants democracy and would quickly accept it IS naive.
But let me understand what you are saying here. Tell me if I'm wrong:
"If you DON'T agree with the PNAC, well, then, you should be coming over to MY side and realizing that EVERYTHING I am saying about the EVIL intentions of all these EVIL people is just plain THE TRUTH and that I am RIGHT about EVERYTHING I say about them. If you do not agree with me about EVERYTHING I say about the PNAC and that ALL who signed it were not just misguided but totally EVIL then you are one of THE ENEMY and you are in fact FOR the PNAC."
Sorry, but I'm not falling for that. There is much I disagree with in the PNAC. But you're interpretation of it goes way off the deep end. And this kind of "all or nothing" argument is the very kind of thinking that in fact has lead to our involvement in so many of the wars we have had in the first place.
For instance:
"Are you for or against Communism? Well, Communists have MURDERED hundreds of thousands, indeed MILLIONS, of their OWN PEOPLE, and EVERY country that has gone Communist has been ENSLAVED and the people have lost ALL their freedom and been under TYRANNY. Are you for Communism? Well, if you do not see Communism for what it is, A TOTAL, ABSOLUTE EVIL that has made it its ANNOUNCED GOAL to OVERTHROW all other DEMOCRATICALLY elected systems of government, then YOU are part of the PROBLEM, and YOU are NO BETTER than the COMMUNISTS are, and YOU are as EVIL as THEY are."
Hadn't we heard this, or variations of it, many times in the past?
Or, for that matter:
"Saddam Hussein has MURDERED many thousands of HIS OWN PEOPLE and GASSED to death ethnic minorities. He has BRUTALLY KILLED people merely for the crime of OPPOSING HIM. He FORCIBALLY tried to ANNEX another SOVEREIGN NATION....ONLY for the purpose of ANNEXING IT. He has FORCIBLY removed people Like the Marsh Arabs from land they have regarded as theirs for YEARS and DESTROYED their land. Do YOU support Saddam Hussein? Or do YOU support MURDER, GASSING, and FORCIBLE ANNEXATION, and FORCED RELOCATION. If YOU do NOT see why such a monster MUST be removed from power NOW, then YOU are as GUILTY as HE is."
Do I need to go on? All or nothing! No in-between! You're either with us or against us! You either agree that THEY are all evil and WE are all in the right, or you are no better than they are, and are the ENEMY!
We have heard this kind of talk many times before. And it is not an approach that can be applied in the real world.
Mercedes, I am not with the Project for the New American Century. But I am not with you on this, either. I do not find them to be "absolute evil" or that they are out to destroy our separation of powers and destroy the UN. They go way obverboard in their assumptions, yes. They make a rosy assumption about the world's readiness to accept democracy, and about America having some natural role as world's leader. But you go way overboard in your interpretations.
Also, while I think it is naive to expect people everywhere to just embrace democracy because we think it's best, promoting democracy is actually contradictory to trying to control the world, as people in other countries can well vote for things we don't like. So the idea that we're trying to become the world's dictator by promoting democracy doesn't make a lot of sense.
I think, in fact, that the better argument to use against our involvement in other countries is the old one, that if it doesn't affect us, we shouldn't get involved, and stick to our own affairs rather than worry about or send our soldiers to die for the rest of the world.
But because this sounds like we don't care about the rest of the world, many people who regard themselves as caring people hate to use it, and instead feel it necessary to mask this understandable feeling with one that feels more "moral", by declaring that it is the people in control of America, who want to worry about the rest of the world, who are in fact the "evil" ones, even more evil than those foreign dictators who murder their own people. That makes us feel more moral than saying "it's none of our concern how many people get killed over there" or "I don't want my son dying for some far away country that didn't attack us, no matter how horrible life is for the people in that country".
But those latter feelings are perfectly understandable. Why not just say, "What happens to people in Iraq no way affects us here. Therefore, no matter what kind of things Saddam Hussein had done to his own people, it's not our concern, and I don't want my son dying to try to make things better for people half a world away that are not even a part of our country."
That feeling is perfectly human, and certainly many feel it. But to some, it feels "selfish" or morally neutral. It doesn't feel as good as saying "it's the people who want us to fight over there who are the evil ones", and distorting the facts and arguments accordingly so that you may argue that.
Mercedes, a word about ALL CAPS. When used in writing, they really are just the equivalent of shouting. (Yes, I used them here where I was paraphrasing your arguments or other "either-or" arguments). Excessive use of them comes across as trying to "shout down" disagreement. Your points can be made without them. Italics can be used for stressing particular words. But I cannot take someone who excessively uses all caps seriously.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 