'night Johnboy.
Boy sure can kill a joke, can’t he? Clubbed it to death like a baby seal.
You know who else could do that? HITLER!!!
There was no way he could have meant what you construed in your conditional, and so your “if luci thinks I must mean X” is ridiculous on its face. Luc did not mean X, as was clear from his syntax.
And I think the law is completely irrelevant to morals. Shocker, I know. The teacher was wrong, not because it’s illegal, but because it’s wrong. If it weren’t illegal, it would still be wrong. Legal fetishists might have difficulty comprehending that some of us aren’t as interested in the minutiae of the law as we are in what’s ethical and reasonable.
That was one of the reasons put forward. One of the other reasons put forward was regime change. And since, ta da!, the regime is changed (as if by a MIRACLE, a miracle involving lots and lots of miraculously dead people!) then the war has fulfilled one of its reasons.
Now, from my perspective, that’s all complete bullshit but it’s not a figment of anyone’s imagination like those damned WMDs.
Liberal, I’m not sure why I’m bothering with either you in general or this inane discussion in particular, but here we go anyway. Look at your post I quoted in this post again. It doesn’t make sense because you are conflating two concepts, which are (i) what luci thought I must have meant and (ii) what luci meant.
He said that a natural result of my statement was X (i.e., he said that I “must mean” X). I know he didn’t think X was true. He was saying that my statement was false because it lead to false results. I then argued against his assertion that the natural result of my statement was X. At no time in that argument did I think that luci thought that X must be true.
So we are all clear, X means “The statement ‘the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor’ is an opinion.”
This is my last post on this matter. If you still do not believe that (i) I fully understood what luci and I were talking about, (ii) you have added nothing to this discussion with your tangent about dependent clauses and trying to help idiots, and (iii) you are a sad little human that takes yourself way too seriously, then any further posts on this subject wouldn’t help you anyway.
The only justification for Regime Change was that Saddam had WMD. Regime Change in and of itself is not a result for which Americans will send their kids to die. WMD were the boggie man used to justify the invasion. Everything else was secondary. The administration knew that without WMD there was not the political will for war. That is why they went to such great lengths to fabricate evidence of their existence.
With all due respect to your father… I think he was wrong.
Yes, it’s often about the law for me. One reason if undoubtedly that when you hold a hammer, lots of things start looking like nails; I have spent a lot of time in the world of legal analysis, and that undoubtedly influences many aspects of how I see, argue, and analyze events.
But part of it is objective, too. When we discuss issues like whether the presence of children at school is involuntary, and how it relates to children involuntarily attending church at the behest of their parents, I think it’s objectively important to look at the law, because the law compels in one case and not the other. Screaming fights and loss of TV or driving privileges are noteworthy punishments, but they are simply not in the same class as the punitive fines or even jail time that can result from parents’ refusal to comply with compulsory education laws.
Finally, the law represents the mechanism in our society by which we may reconcile competing viewpoints. We would all be better off if we simply followed my every command, and the only reason we don’t is that for some odd reason you believe we’d all be better off if we followed your every command. If it were just the two of us marooned on an island, we could reach a simpler accommodation – rock-paper-scissors for every decision, perhaps, or which one of us was holding the gun. But in a larger society, the law, enacted by elected officials for whom we both have the opportunity to vote, is the method we’ve agreed upon to reach decisions as a society.
The problem with the sweeping pronouncement is that it lacks any method of rigorous proof. In this very thread, people – Liberal, for example – do not appear to share your view that the teacher’s actions were wrong. Do you propose to shout at each other until the more hoarse person is forced to concede?
And the problem with your inconsistent attitude is that laws change all the damned time, making something illegal that wasn’t before, or making something legal that used to be illegal. If the law were changed so that taking kids to church were illegal, what then? You depend on the law for your arguments when it agrees with your previously formed notions.
As for Liberal, he and I rarely agree so why should this case be any different?
Do you mean that’s the only justification you find acceptable or that’s the only justification you heard given? Because if it’s the former, that’s opinion again, and if it’s the latter, well, you didn’t hear the same things I did.
There were a number of people selling the war as a humanitarian mission. That you don’t believe in it doesn’t make that argument go away.
Oh, that’s why we invaded Darfur…oh wait…
So, if one humanitarian mission isn’t made, then none have ever been made?
We don’t fight wars for humanitarian reasons. It is hard to sell Joe Sixpack on sending his kid to die because some dictator is being mean. It takes the added crunchiness of danger to the republic, real or fabricated. The only thing even close was the former Yugoslavia, but even there the history of conflict in that region dictated the involvement of US resources. While it served humanitarian purposes, had it been in a different region we would not have gotten involved.
Well, consider abortion. I’m firmly in the pro-life camp, so the law, which permits abortion, is not really an ally. So in the case of abortion, I acknowledge that supporters are acting legally, while I believe they’re wrong in what they’re doing, I absolutely acknowledge that principled people can reach different conclusions; I don’t flatly assert that they’re wrong, period.
So I don’t really see how I’m being inconsistent.
There are people, some of them on this very board, who think that the war in Iraq was a net good because we overthrew Saddam Hussein. That would make the war in Iraq make sense for those people. That would make the war in Iraq not “senseless” for those people. When people have different attitudes and values about subjective things, we call their conclusions “opinions.”
No matter how strongly held your opinion is, it’s still an opinion not a fact. “Was it worth it?” is going to get different answers, all of them opinions, not facts. “Was it senseless?” is going to get different answers, all of them opinions, not facts.
I’m embarrassed for this board that there are people who can’t tell the difference between facts and opinions.
You’re being inconsistent by arguing that my opinion of the rightness or wrongness of action A should be influenced by its legality. If you made the statement that abortion is wrong and someone replied, “But it’s legal” I would consider that reply to be completely irrelevant. Your reply to me was equally irrelevant, if not more so. I never asked, nor cared, what the law was.
When I said so, you said that I should care and that somehow if I didn’t base my ethics on the law I’d just be left screaming at Liberal. So, take your own medicine. Base your ethics on Roe or else YOU’LL be left screaming at Liberal. That’ll learn ya.
Of course the war is not senseless for them. I agree. All of my comments about the senselessness of it have been in regards to the stated reasons. I clearly stated that if the war was not about WMD then while it may be a war I disagree with it may not necessarily be senseless. The administration has never made clear any other casus belli. If there is one let them express it then we can determine whether the war is senseless. I agree that “senseless” can be and often is an opinion, but in this circumstance we have the stated reason for the invasion (you may disagree with what I stated as the reason, but that is another issue) and we have the result, therefore a factual determination can be made. The question is did the invasion accomplish it’s ostensible goal? The answer to that question is most emphatically not opinion. The question is, was Iraq a threat to American National security and is it less of a threat now?
You and me, both…
I’ll certainly take you at your word, having no reason to react otherwise. But I’m sure you will concede that your expository skills could use a little work.