[ul][]It wasn’t a “dodge”, as I never voiced an opinion about the OP’s allegations: I merely addressed grienspace in this thread.[]Your gripe with the OP is yours. Why the hell should I defend you, or come to your aid? You’re becoming rather annoying.[/ul]
Apparently, not against the war enough to decide to vote against the party that supported the war.
If you decide that the ETA is more important than your disgruntled-ness against your leaders, and later change your mind because of a bomb… you know the rest. Read my post above about the voters changing their minds based on an event that was not on the government manifesto.
Actually, most of the support the USA got for the damn fool war was obtained by arm twisting. Will you condemn those countries which submitted to the arm twisting by the USA? Will you praise those to stuck to their principles and refused to cooperate or endorse the war in spite of the threats?
That’s why its a dodge. Tu Quoque to be specific
I don’t want you to come to my aid. I want you to enforce the rules of the SDMB regarding the OP’s false attributions.
Admitting something you don’t want to admit is admittedly annoying.
Well, let me kick the question up a notch then:
Same hypothetical, except that the Spanish government announces that it is worried about possible future terrorist attacks on Spain, and it feels that by pulling out of Iraq and changing Spanish foreign policy towards something that is less bothersome to the terrorists, it will lessen the chances of such future attacks on Spain.
Would it be fair to accuse the Spanish of cowardice under such circumstances? Would it be fair to accuse them of anything negative?
I have yet to see physical violence performed/threatened on countries for not going along with the “War on Terror”. Had the US bombed India to force them to go along with the “War on Terror”… Well.
If the Spanish government made a deal with AQ for mutual benifit, then certainly, it is none of my business to complain (I wouldn’t use the term “praise”, but for other reasons"). In this case, it was a violent act by an entity calculated to affect the vote, which it did. It is not comparable to “American arm-twisting”. American arm-twisting (if it could be called that-carrots were involved) was a political affair, and the countries agreed to it because they felt that it would have given them, or their countries, some advantage. If obtaining advantage for your country is not an overwhelming principle to be held in utmost regard, I don’t know what is.
If countries do not wish to cooperate or endorse the war, then more power to them. If they change their mind because of a bomb that kills 200, then certainly, they are weak-willed. If they change their minds when faced with total annihilation, then they are pragmatic.
Your analogy is not apt.
Certainly. If a country believes its policy decision is justified, but retracts from that policy decision because of fear of a terrorist act, it is cowardice. It may also be real politik, but it is cowardice. If you believe in something, but decide not to do it because you might get hurt, you are a coward.
Wha?
90% of Spain was against the war. Originally 50 or 60% were going to vote.
Boom!
Now 70 to 80% vote, more people more accurately reflects the feeling of the country and PSOE wins.
The bomb didn’t tell people to vote for the PSOE, the bomb encouraged more people to go out and vote for who they were already going to vote for.
[QUOTE=Tabby_Cat]
Apparently, not against the war enough to decide to vote against the party that supported the war.QUOTE]
Are you kidding me?, THEY VOTED AGAINST THE PARTY THAT SUPPORTED THE WAR. Who do you think won the elections anyway?
Yes, much the same critcism would be called for. Except that it would be more towards the government and not the voters.
What part of the (Can’t be arsed to look it up)% of the Spanish population who put Aznar in power don’t you understand?
Perhaps. But had the bomb not occurred, the incumbent would win (perhaps marginally, but still). Therefore, the people who did not bother enough to go out and vote were allowing the incumbent to win. They probably read the newspapers as well, coupled with experience from the previous elections, and knew that the incumbent would likely win.
In fact, these people are even more guilty of “punishment” voting than those who intended to vote anyway. They would allow apathy to let a party which they felt so negatively about win the election?
I admit, though, that these people can hardly be called cowards. Exclude them, if you want to. But apathethic unless your countrymen are killed… hardly noble behaviour.
I was referring to the polls before the elections. Where the incumbent was winning. I do not kid.
Obviously not. Tu Quoque requires two contrary positions from the same person, or it requires an inconsistency between a persons actions and their words. Since I have yet to voice an opinion on The Gaspode’s allegations against the 17 posters mentioned in the OP, and merely referenced his description of Spain, there is no inconsistency to point out. Just because I label TG’s description of a country as “lyrical” doesn’t mean I fully agree with his entire post. It also doesn’t mean I fully disagree with it.
Ironically, your accustion of Tu Quoque is in itself a Strawman.
I saw you reported the OP earlier today. You are, however, mistaken. The SDMB has rules against falsely attributing attributing quotes to people. To give you an example, and this is for illustration purposes only, let’s assume that I engage in the following conversation:
… then I would be in violation of one of our rules. However, just because The Gaspode aparently mistook your intentions doesn’t automatically mean he’s deliberately done so.
But hey, there are two more moderators in the Pit. Perhaps one of them agrees with you. I wouldn’t bet the farm on it, though.
I don’t even know what this means. Let alone what it refers to.
Ok, then here’s my problem: It’s hardly outrageous to infer that the above sort of thinking – although not formally announced – was an element in the outcome of the Spanish elections. Granted, there is plenty of room for debate over how to interpret the election results, and at the worst, the “cowardly” decision was made by a small minority of the population, but there it is.
So “If obtaining advantage for your country is not an overwhelming principle to be held in utmost regard, I don’t know what is” and Spanish voters felt it was in their interest to vote the way they did, then what is the problem again?
Further if a country changes their stance based on military threats they are “weak-willed” cowards. Ok. What word would you use for a country which changes their stance based on, say, economic threats? Because I find it even less acceptable to renounce your principles on the basis of economic threats which are, after all, not as compelling as military threats. So if a country expressed reluctance to help the USA and then agreed to do it when threatened with economic sanctions or offered economic benefits what would you call them? Whores? If the word for someone who changes their principles under the threat of force is “coward” what is the word for the one who sells his soul for money? Because it has to be worse than “coward” and I cannot think of it.
For example. Suppose just for a minute that the American government, in order to protect some American workers, had imposed some import duties on some products like say, oh, um, steel. Suppose some foreign countries threaten some economic sanctions unless those tariffs are lifted. Should the US government stick to its principles? Or is it okay to get rid of the duties if the cost of keeping them is higher than the benefit?
BTW, there is NO proof yet that anyone in Spain changed their vote but that’s OK. I am still willing to defend their right to change it and not be called cowards.
I suppose that the American people could be called cowards too if at any point in any war they would change their minds and decide the casualties are not worth the gains? As long as there is one single American alive the only thing to do is fight on? Any American who changes his mind about the war based on the number of casualties is a coward? Suppose the casualty rate in Iraq starts increasing. 200, 300, 500 dead every month. Any one who questions the wisdom of continuing the fight is a coward? A traitor?
You said:
Tu Quoque is :
Emphasis Mine.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html
More ironically, do you realize that it is your bringing up the definition of tu quoque that is the straw man? I just took your red herring for bait. Merely labeling a fallacy is not a straw man, arguing about the definition of a fallacy when it’s not the premise is a straw man.
And btw, I’m obviously not up on the fine print of the user agreement but it seems to me that revealing in a public forum that I reported the post is unethical, if not technically, then certainly in spirit.
WE DON’T KNOW WHO WOULD HAVE WON, GOT THAT?
You simply cannot extrapolate who would have won from some entrance polls, they are not 100% accurate.
Why do I feel like I’m dealing with some insane temporal paradox here?
That’s why I merely asked for an apology/retraction.
I’m sure The Gaspode will apologise if he feels so inclined, KidCharlemagne.
Furthermore, I could take your penultimate post apart again, but it’s obviously useless. This is how it started out:
I repeated what was clear to anyone with a brain: that “lyrical words about Spain” obviously didn’t refer to the entire post, but to the OP’s description of Spain.
There’s no point in making things more complicated than they are. You misinterpreted my words. This may have been unintentional, but for God’s sake, how many explanations do you need?
If it’s The Ryan-esque semantics debates you fancy, I suggest you start looking for another opponent. I’m not interested, and you’re certainly not worth the time.