One little problem,
NOT loud protests, quiet reports of the American public opinion on the war.
Your moving the goalposts.
CMC +fnord!
Okay, magellan. Entertain the hypothetical.
IF it was known with reasonable accuracy that war protests were not just corellated with, but outright caused, increased hostility to our troops overseas, how would you respond? Would you demand restrictions on free speech? Put up billboards and run PSAs guilting the public into staying quiet?
How can you justify continuing a war that the public disagrees with? How can you live with yourself knowing that you supressed public dissent of that war?
In my opinion, the benifit of outspoken, nonviolent dissent is worth every life it might at some point vicariously snuff out.
The cited paper is found on this page:
http://people.rwj.harvard.edu/~riyengar/
The conclusions are worth reading. Amongst other things they acknowledge that the variation could be as much about timing rather than a true overall increase, which to me seems the most likely scenario.
Otara
AND
So let me get this right. Your debate is: if my reading of this study can be taken purely at face value, which shows that I was right in the past, then can we all agree that I was right in the past?
How long have you been on these boards?
Well, lessee, here. I attended and marched in one anti-war protest in Houston around the time of the invasion. Whenever I’ve spoken about the war with people IRL, I’ve generally expressed my disfavor of the occupation of Iraq. I’ve contributed to numerous threads concerning the war on this board, almost always speaking negatively about the US occupation in Iraq. Whenever I watch a NASCAR race on TV, I don’t stand or salute or do anything in particular during the playing of the national anthem. Hey, sorry, I just don’t.
Based on this behavior, the OP apparently insists that his cited study demonstrates that I have somehow been directly responsible for the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq, despite my never having advised anyone to kill Americans, and despite, to the best of my knowledge, no insurgent in Iraq ever having read anything I’ve written in this forum, or observed me sitting in my home watching a NASCAR race.
I’m curious how the OP, as a practical matter, sees the process working by which the behavior described above somehow results in specific deaths in Iraq, 'cause I’m not getting it. Is it the OP’s position that I am personally responsible for reports in the US press of protest actions that I never actually participated in? Am I somehow contributing to American deaths in Iraq because I am thinking impure thoughts about my country’s role in this war?
In any event, I am very happy that the OP has found yet another way to feel morally superior to the general run of board members, as this seems quite important to him.
In other words, “It is a given that you are causing deaths by protesting. Effective rebuttals of this premise are not permitted. Discuss how you feel about causing deaths. While you’re at it, have you stopped beating your wife yet?”
Consider this, my hypothetical. You are not allowed to challenge my premise, just take it as a given: if you deliberately run headlong at a guy holding a child and crash into them, knocking them down and breaking the child’s arm, are you morally culpable for causing this injury? Yes you are. You are a clumsy, irrresponsible oaf, aren’t you? Agreed?
[What’s that you say? The guy had a knife? He was about to stab the child? Nonsense. Only my premise is permitted. You’re a clumsy oaf aren’t you? You bear moral responsibility for breaking the child’s arm, don’t you? It was the guy with the knife’s fault you say? I won’t hear of it. Go off and start your own thread.]
You’re not the only one. The supposition that insurgents are hanging out in internet cafes, waiting to commit mayhem until they notice an uptick in “anti-resolve” expression on the thousands of websites they’re monitoring and tracking on Excel spreadshets – that’s the stuff of comic opera.
I simply used “loud” protests to distinguish from discussions with your friends. The protest has to be “loud” enough for it too be noticed. “Loud” enough that they register and spur reaction. If you or I are sharing our detestation of the war with the game in the background on a Sunday afternoon, that would not qualify by what I meant by “loud” as it would not be noticed.
Yes, the study does not prove anything. Hence my hypothetical.
It’s received here as evidence that those responsible for all the American deaths in Iraq, Bush and his enablers, will stoop to anything in their attempts to obfuscate and spread blame away from the place where it actually belongs.
Huh? There was an interesting debate quite a ways back, There was no support for either position, it was just opinions. If this study had been available then I would have shared it, as it is germane to the discussion and was something other than pure opinion. So, I’m not sure if you object to the original discussion, the study itself, or it’s relevance. If it’s any of those, I don’t see your point. If it’s something else, perhaps you could share it.
I think this is looking at it entirely in reverse, frankly.
Knowing that they cannot win a conventional war against us, insurgents instead attack our soldiers in an attempt to create political opposition opposition to the war here.
I insist—nor merely propose—no such thing. To be clear, what you describe is not the kind of protest that I’m talking about. As I just wrote above, It has to be “loud” enough to be noticed and commented on. By the administration and the press.
No. I don’t see how you got that from what I’ve written. It reflects my opinion 0%. You might want to reread.
No, not even close. If one wishes to participate in a discussion where a hypothetical is used, one must simply, for the purpose of the discussion, accept the hypothetical. Rebutting the hypothetical is not the same as rebutting my position. It’s avoiding doing so. If you so respond and then wish to explore a cahnage to the assump[tions made or alter it (as tomndebb did), I will endeavor to answer YOUR question. As a practical matter. I cannot respond to every hypothetical, and have little desire to do so when a poster has not addressed mine. That is why I asked a poster to start another thread.
See above. And if that was your hypothetical I would not choose to participate in the thread. It’s very simple, really.
No, Bush & Co. bear the responsibility for the war. But surely your not of the opinion that just because we are in a war that people aren’t responsible for their actions in regards to that war, are you? I’d say that if a soldier rapes and kills a 12 year old girl, that he is not absolved from those actions just because Bush sent him there. If an imbedded reporter revealed sensitive information about our troop movements and it resulted in U.S. deaths, they would be morally responsible would they not? I seem to recall that Geraldo did inadvertently revealed some info he shouldn’t have. When this was brought to his attention he felt as if he had done something wrong (innocently) but made sure to not make the same mistake again. It is possible, indeed it is fact, that Bush can be responsible for the war at large and individual players can be morally responsible for specific acts in the contest of that war. I don’t see how you can disagree with that. If you can, please explain.
I’d say that one feeds the other.
Some people have mentioned that protesting wars end them more quickly, saving lives that way. Let’s also consider that if there’s less war protests, I suspect there will be more wars started in the first place that might have seemed politically untenable otherwise.
I’ve got to run, but this has crossed my mind. I’d just like to reiterate that I don’t see how anyone can be free of moral responsibility for the consequences of an act when they (if) they are aware of a causal relationship between their action and the consequence.
It seems to me that some people are insisting that assignment of moral responsibility be suspended, much the way it is in mob behavior. I don’t see how people can advocate that people should NOT be held morally accountable for their actions and their consequences if they aware of the consequences beforehand.
Now, I must go…
Uh huh. Like that potent antiwar movement that delayed our entry into WWII? I don’t think most people, including most of its members at the time, look back at that one with particular fondness.
Antiwar movements can’t be judged in a vacuum, any more than wars can be.
As I stated upthread, if there is factual evidence for this, that needs to go into the calculation, as well. It is found to be true, then I think a player needs to still take responsibility for those additional deaths, but balance it with the many more lives he helped save.
Again, if true that should be taken into account. But I’d say that a general desire to NOT be engaged in war can be attained through protests of the less-ugly type and, most effectively, at the ballot box.
No, I really do have to go…