I don’t have any illusions that I’m somehow gonna get away with something, or that I’m exempt from being attacked for other issues, or similar. This is really about “desperate times calling for desperate measures” - the desperate times we are in are that a bombastic, incompetent idiot in the White House appears to be clamoring for a colossally stupid war, and I’m willing to break rhetorical rules in order to fight against this incredibly harmful foolishness. War really is different, in that the potential harm is so colossal that it’s worth the risk of breaking this rhetorical rule, and we need to throw the kitchen sink, in terms of rhetoric, at the warmongers to try to prevent them from starting this war.
I wouldn’t advocate for this in “normal” circumstances.
Why not instead attack the administration and Trump directly on this then, instead of trying to paint with such a broad brush?? I mean, I agree with you mainly that the administration seems (or seemed until recently when things seem to have calmed back down for no reason given) to be arbitrarily pushing up towards military action in Iran based on unspecified intelligence and assessments that no one, especially Congress, seems to be aware of. THAT is something that can and should be attacked. But calling them cowards isn’t, IMHO, the way to do that…it’s using the facts and also a heavy dollop of (freaking recent) history to show what a bad idea it is, and perhaps reminding Congress to do their freaking job and push back on this sort of horseshit.
I just don’t think name calling ever does anything constructive, and I don’t see how what you are advocating in this thread is going to have any effect except to get people’s backs up and make yourself feel good about labeling those you disagree in the broadest possible terms.
I’m for all possible (rhetorical) tactics. All of the above. I’ve personally seen the “coward” tactic work on more than one occasion in similar scenarios, but I think every decent person should be making the best argument they can against this idiocy, including breaking the rhetorical rules if they think that would work best for them.
Name calling is indeed rarely constructive, but occasionally, in my experience, it is effective.
I’ve acknowledged that they are by definition different. What you’ve failed to do, and continue to not do, is explain why that is meaningful in your construction. Apples are different than oranges, therefore reasons. Why do the difference matter such that other analogies that you think don’t apply are somehow not apt?
Joining the military is a profession. It is an honorable one, certainly, but that does not transform it into any less of a profession than being a firefighter, or an office worker. That’s only true because we have an all volunteer military. See, I’m explaining why that criteria matters. When there are fires, I really want firefighters to go put them out - and they often risk injury or death to do so. I do not want to be a fireman. The risk is not worth the wage, nor do I appreciate the hours, etc. But I really do want there to be people who do that kind of work. I don’t see that as very different, but feel free to declare it to be so again.
Of course stupid wars are a problem and should not be engaged in. You’ve begged the question by defining them as stupid.
Do you understand what comparative advantage is? People contribute simply by adding to GDP. By shopping at Amazon. By paying taxes. Your hair splitting seems like a thin cover to engage in ad hominem.
In all cases it diminishes the person that engages in this tactic.
If you prefer to argue with this fantasy version of my argument, then you can feel free, but I probably won’t take part.
Because of the massive, incredible, colossal harm that stupid wars do. That’s not comparable to the potential harm of doing the wrong thing in any of those other issues that have been brought up. Fires need to be fought - there’s no such thing as the wrong fire to fight. There may be different tactics for different types of fires, but they all have to be contained or extinguished.
This makes war easy, for the vast majority of the population. It shouldn’t be easy - it should be hard. War should be hard on everyone, lest we get into it casually.
That’s a risk I’m willing to take. Bravely and honorably, I risk my own diminishment, all for my country.
That’s not much different than the rest of the thread where you haven’t actually made a bonafide argument.
The president has the potential to inflict massive, incredible, colossal harm to the world. From your position it would follow that one is cowardly to criticize the president if one doesn’t also run for that office. You’ve drawn some arbitrary line that on all sides is beset with Scotsman.
Perhaps. But then you should be doing everything in your power to change this. A constitutional amendment fixing the War Powers Act. Requiring a greater threshold for declarations of war. Requiring greater requirements for engaging in military activity. Limiting presidential powers to wage war as the commander in chief. But no, name calling is the order of the day.
War should be hard. It should be done after careful calculus of the potential risks and rewards that may occur, and a whole host of other factors that come into play. Ad hominems do nothing to further that.
Lots of people seem to be enjoying themselves. I thank you for taking part in this discussion, as I thank everyone. Even when you disagree with me and tell me my arguments suck!
I’ve drawn a line around war, which you acknowledge is different. And the president’s potential for massive harm is pretty strongly focused on the potential for dumb military action. And I would certainly strongly criticize anyone who criticized the president but refrained from voting.
All of this sounds great to me. I’m in favor of all possible strategies and tactics to make dumb wars less likely.
In my personal experience, you’re wrong – carefully crafted personal attacks can indeed occasionally be effective in changing minds, in limited circumstances.
No, because you are somehow, insanely, confusing rights with duties. The right to gay marriage doesn’t require anybody to get married at all. War requires compelling service members to travel into harm’s way and stay there until they’re released. Possibly a draft as well.
I demand that able-bodied men risk their lives in service of our country! Except for… uh… me, because I prefer not to.
Not exactly true. We have all volunteer enlistment. The reason this distinction matters is that once the war starts, it becomes very much not voluntary anymore at that point. You do not simply check out and say “nah, too much for me”. Or “nah, I didn’t sign up for that kind of war.” It is so compulsory that people who serve their 20 years can be pulled back in for another few tours. It is so compulsory that even if you’re badly hurt, you will be given medical treatment and potentially get sent back into battle if you can recover enough.
Firefighting is nothing like this in terms of intensity, coercion, degree of freedom sacrificed, or years of lives sacrificed. It’s a hollow analogy.
No, but has anyone lost weight because someone in real life constantly called them fat? I imagine there are some people who did. I’m thinking maybe husbands or wives whose spouse called them fat all the time.
Well there are 7 billion people in the world, so anything’s possible. But if a person I cared about become so overweight I was worried about their health, I think compassion and support would be a more effective tactic than insults and attacks.
And I’d hope someone in such an abusive relationship would Get the fuck out. If anyone insulted me about my bad habits I’d double down out of spite. And have nothing to do with them in the future.
Wanting to prevent war is a great goal but we shouldn’t get there with irrational arguments and ad hominems.
Firstly because it’s a flawed argument and will only convince those who are not thinking.
But secondly, next time, the same kind of flawed argument will be used to advocate for a *bad *position.
For example; to me it’s not that far from the common line of “So-and-so prominent celebrity who jets all around the world to speak at events and rallies that spread awareness of climate change and urge governments to do more, jets all around the world. Therefore, hypocrite”.
Well, I mean, yes. As you say people belittling you about smoking is not likely to change your mind. I think this is true for just about all 7 billion people on the planet. So we can say that personal attacks are not effective ways to change people’s views.
I think you know this and are just arguing for the sake of arguing. So I will leave this stupid slap fight. If** Andy** wants to respond to my point I may engage with him.
I think you’re right in general, and most of the time. But I think that there are rare circumstances in which certain carefully and specific types of targeted personal attacks can be effective – not with everyone, but with some folks. I don’t think this is the only possible effective tactic just that it’s one that could supplement other tactics.
And social shaming has a long history of effectiveness in changing behaviors, and social shaming is a big part of my tactic.
Unfortunately, the wars carry on despite public opinion. It would be more productive to shame those who bear more responsibility for war. If you believe criticizing hands-on killers crosses a line of social norms and you are afraid to do it, you’re not going to get very far in preventing wars. But there are still others who bear responsibility such as the executive and legislative warmongers and the academic/policy analyst warmongers. Even criticism of these types of warmongers is at a historical low in US society. I only see criticism of these warmongers on partisan lines, and even then very rarely. There is much intraparty criticism of peaceful pols and academics however.
Your criticism of Joe Schmo cracking a Budweiser and exclaiming “Nuke ‘em all!” is hardly a) controversial or b) effective.
