I would have been okay with that. Instead, you simply flat out lied about what other people’s analysis was (“Cheney = bad, therefore speech = bad”) and then left the thread with a “But I guess some folks just need to have an outrage du minute, and this is it. Enjoy!”
That’s making it pretty personal, frankly.
No, that’s not right. He’s just saying that the GC is like anything else in the whole conceivable universe — they can be abused by unscrupulous people. That’s why he draws the contrast between attacking and being captured. While they are killing people, they don’t care about the GC. But when they’re captured, the want to invoke the GC. That’s speaking to the moral character of the killers, not any intrinsic attribute of the GC. It’s no different from saying that a serial rapist doesn’t care about Constitutional rights while he’s banging screaming women, but when he’s in court, he wants every advantage from them he can get. That’s not to disparage the Constitution. It’s just the nature of such things.
The simple answer is no, I went back and reread Cheney’s speech once again and the message is still as clear as glass. There’s no way to interpret it the way you are.
Cheney’s talking about terrorists. He hates terrorists and he wants everyone listening to hate terrorists. He gives a list of bad things the terrorists do that are reasons to hate them: they glorify murder and suicide, they feed on human suffering, they reject tolerance, they deny freedom of conscience, they marginalize women, they hate America, they’re delicate nancy boys, and they don’t stand by the Geneva Conventions. Cheney specifically includes not following the Geneva Conventions in a list of things bad people do.
And he compares this to the way we do things:
See? We’re not like those terrorists. We’re the good guys. We follow a moral compass, we’ve learned the rules, we have military ethics, we live by a code of honor.
Cheney makes it very clear:
Good people = Americans = obey the rules and do the right thing
Bad people = terrorists = don’t obey the rules and don’t follow the Geneva Conventions
Sorry, I’m confused. How is “no” an answer to the question “What have you pointedly changed, from my analogy?”
You haven’t answered my question about “delicate sensibilities” either.
You can engage with my argument or not, but just restating your position over again isn’t going to convince me.
I should have written I changed nothing from your analogy.
I agree that “delicate sensibilities” was intended as a slur. But it was used as a slur against people who don’t follow the Geneva Conventions which shows I’m right and you’re wrong, so I thought it would be rude of me to belabor the point.
And I regret the fact that I have to keep repeating myself. But I can’t think of any way of pointing out the obvious that doesn’t involve pointing out the obvious.
Quite frankly, I agree with John Mace. I haven’t seen any argument made here so far claiming that this speech was critical of the GC that doesn’t boil down to “Cheney = bad, therefore speech = bad”.
Which is clearly incorrect.
In my post #153 I say the only time I mention the business technique is to say that it can assist your competitors. In your example at post #157 you have the CEO say specifically that Spacely Sprockets are the best parts for the product before mentioning one negative aspect. You then go on to point out it would be silly for the audience to take away the message that the CEO thought they should stop using Spacely Sprockets.
That’s correct because you have changed what the speaker does from only mentioning a negative about the thing in question and instead have him specifically praise the thing in question before mentioning one negative, which is precisely what Cheney pointedly did not do.
Cheney makes some vague motherhood statements about honour and duty and how great they are but says nothing about the GC except to point out something negative.
You haven’t answered my question. What percentage of a West Point graduation class would describe themselves as having “delicate sensibilities”?
Princhester, could you respond to my post #162? Thanks.
That is specifically what I have a problem with. He’s not pointing out something intrinsically negative about the GC, but about human nature. Surely, you will concede that humans can (and do) use anything, no matter how positive its potential, in a negative way. There are innumerable examples from people abusing the teachings of Christ for the purpose of harming gays to abusing the theories of Darwin to exterminate races. It is commonplace for people to abuse the Constitution and then demand its protections when they need them. That’s not a statement that the Constitution is negative; rather, it’s a statement that their character is negative.
I actually have several times. But I’ll do it again so you can say I keep repeating myself.
What percentage of West Pointers describe themselves as having “delicate sensibilities”? The answer is none.
Is having “delicate sensibilities” something you want to have? No.
What kind of people have “delicate sensibilities”? Those that don’t follow the Geneva Conventions.
Do you want to be a person who doesn’t follow the Geneva Conventions? Hell, no.
No, what I said was that our company is better than their company because we did something they don’t. You’re the one claiming that’s a call to switch over to what they do.
And this is where you’re wrong. Cheney didn’t say anything negative about the Geneva Conventions. (Honestly, go back and read it.) He only said negative things about terrorists.
Actually, no, he says that “delicate sensibilities” are directly related to using the GC as a defense. So it’s the exact opposite of what you allege.
Perhaps it’s time to agree to disagree. Or, maybe it’s dessert topping and a floor wax!
NOT SO! What he specifically (and explicitly) includes in that list is that they demand the protections of the Geneva Conventions. The plain text of the quote, if that’s important to you, does not contain the phrase “They do not stand by the Geneva Conventions.”
Earlier, you said
A little OTT, but I won’t quibble with its validity here. All I’ll say about it is: “Sucks to be Dick Cheney then. This is a bed he made, and I don’t see any problem with calling for him to lie in it.”
Sensible advice I’m going to follow.
Little Nemo, please look again at what I actually said “Exactly” to:
That is the part of your post that I agreed with! But when you posted back to me, look at what you thought I had said:
No!!! Cite?
I would also have extreme difficulty with it! I didn’t say it! Cite?
But can you explain why, if Dick Cheney wanted our officers to act like terrorists, he spoke approvingly of the “deepest and most fundamental differences” between our officers and terrorists?
I didn’t say at any time that he wanted our officers to act like terrorists!!! Cite?
Would he have said “you will now face enemies who oppose and despise everything you know to be right, every notion of upright conduct and character, and every belief you consider worth fighting for and living for” if he was encouraging his listeners to abandon those beliefs?
I never said that he was encouraging the West Point Cadets to abandon their beliefs! Cite?
You are either having a great deal of trouble reading at least my posts and correctly interpreting them or you are trolling. I would shoulder part of that responsibility, but even when my post is just one sentence and agrees with you, you misread and twist it.
Disagreeing on interpretation of Cheney’s speech is one thing. Making things up about what I have said is another!
The First Rule of Shovels, my dear fellow.
Sorry to revive this, but I just found Liberal’s specific request to respond to a particular post and it would seem churlish not to do so.
It could be or not. Think about the gun lobby and similar arguments. When they talk about the ability of the unscrupulous to use gun control to their advantage while paying it no heed themselves, they are not doing so to point out the moral character of those who will ignore the rules, it is to suggest those rules should not exist.
Your balanced and insightful views are of course correct. What they have to do with the lesson a bunch of soldiers will take from having one of the leaders of their country mention only one side of the story is what I’m talking about. What positive side of the GC does Cheney mention?
No you haven’t. Point me at the post where you have done so. You have avoided answering the question I asked. You have responded in various ways in relation to my question while not answering it, I accept.
Thanks. So Cheney is saying that insisting on the GC is something that people with sensibilities not like the people he is talking to would do.
Face it, “delicate sensibilities” is a term used, and only used, to slam inappropriately sensitive sensibilities.
Now you’re really tying yourself in knots. What he in fact says is that they are the sensibilities of those who want the GC to apply to them.
What your example actually had the CEO say was “Our employees have always used Spacely Sprockets because we’ve always know sprockets are the best parts for our product and we know that the best parts make the best products” and you go on from there to mock the idea that the employees should take away the message that they should stop using Spacely Sprockets. Your example works precisely because you have the CEO say something directly, undeniably positive about using Spacely Sprockets. What does Cheney say that is directly undeniably positive about the GC? What does he say about it that is positive at all?
Yeah, and when a gun lobbyist says if there are gun control laws outlaws will take advantage he is is only slamming outlaws.
With respect, and as one who makes that argument, I must disagree. Maybe I think differently from most of them, but it’s not about a right to bear arms. Rather, it’s about a right to defend one’s life and other property. Any rule about guns is okay by me so long as it does not prevent citizens from defending themselves against the coercion of their neighbors and the tyranny of their government.
He mentioned their “protections” — ostensibly the whole reason they exist.
Lib, Lib, Lib. Dear oh dear. My point as I’m sure you can see is that when you make out that argument, you are not deriding the unscrupulous, you are deriding inappropriate rules. As you’ve just admitted, you make out the above argument because rules are not okay by you if they do prevent citizens from defending themselves. The details of which rules you would be objecting to, and which not, is irrelevant to the point I made.
So it is an argument you use against certain rules. Not something you say because you are deriding the unscrupulous. So you must accept that Cheney could well have been doing the same.
Whether one considers a protection to be a good or a bad thing depends on what it is protecting. This is a neutral statement.