Agreed. But that’s now a tangent to a tangent.
Let me start over on the topic of the current thread. There’s a very interesting discussion to be had here. I, for one, will happily admit that my opinion of Novak and what he did is vastly lower than my opinion of Ellsberg and what he did. Might I be interested in discussing why that is? Well, I might, or I might not. I mean, I just might not have the emotional energy or the time to engage in such a debate. And (key point) it’s entirely possible for me to hold that position, and not have any real desire to defend it or explain it, WITHOUT being a prima facie hypocrite. But I certainly think there is some interesting discussion to be had. The question is, did your approach to this thread make that discussion more or less likely to actually happen?
I must say that my initial post seemed pretty non-confrontational, at least to my eyes: short, sweet, and to the point.
Seriously? There is nothing in my post to suggest there is some moral failing associated with criminal defense.
Approaching every discussion as though you’ve got an overwhelming burden in your favor ignores the reality of most controversies. Your attempt to “craft” every argument in such a manner that you’ve only to disprove your opponent’s argument is reminscent of a child who knows the rules to only one game and thus turns every game into that one.
[quote=“Bricker, post:202, topic:506859”]
I must say that my initial post seemed pretty non-confrontational, at least to my eyesQUOTE]
Do you understand *yet *why you were so wrong about that?
Back in the early days of this board, I remember Lib used to toss in similarly short, sweet, to the point remarks that would turn just about any thread into a debate over the first principles of libertarianism. (He’s gotten better. :)) You surely remember those days. In his mind, they were perfectly reasonable and innocuous posts. Just sayin’.
Really. Reason alone? I Kant imagine that the road to hell is paved with the good intentions of people thinking they are just being logical about the world.
The last time I thought hard about a conservative position I held: that gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed, a number of people pointed out the logical flaws and the logical dead end about the position and I changed my mind: I’m now for gay marriage. Because it is logical and the decent thing to do to allow everybody the benefit of the laws. Much conservatism is based on a presumption that existing institutions are good. That might be a wonderful argument for self congratulating conservatives and a cool handicap to have in a debate, but it isn’t a presumption I am willing to give, or as a liberal, to take. The position with the most merit is the one I wish to adopt in any given argument, and that requires an open mind and thorough investigation. Novak was not such a person.
That doesn’t quite ring true. Perhaps you can make it ring true by responding to my question from before: Why didn’t you simply ask her what she meant by “traitor”?
See, in the absence of an explanation for that, a lot of people seem to be looking at your demonstrated political leanings and making an easy-to-justify connection to the likelihood that your Republican-Spidey-sense started tingling, prompting you to spring into action.
And the Feynmann story doesn’t strike me as a very good explanation. He at least asked for an explanation before he started drawing analogies.
Well, I certainly don’t think of him as having been a traitor.
I do think of him as having been all too fucking loyal.
Funny. If I said Novak was a traitor and someone demanded to know why I don’t think the same thing about Ellsberg, I’d have to say, “Because I don’t know who the fuck Ellsberg is.”
I’d be the first to say I know jack shit about the Vietnam War.
Bricker, would you consider W. Mark Felt, aka “Deep Throat”, a traitor? Or for that matter, what about Woodward and Bernstein? Hmmmm???
Not me. Heroes of freedom, just like Novak.
What classified information regarding the justification for a war did they reveal to the media?
Bricker is being completely and unfairly attacked here, simply for raising a completely fair comparison.
“Traitor” is far too strong a word for either Novak or Ellsberg, but then so is “Hero”.
jsgodess, now that you’ve read the thread and you know who Ellsberg is, what is your opinion?
In what way was Novak a “hero of freedom”? Please answer precisely, as your usual hand-waving, vague, and “Just so” answers require an answer that, in your view, are attempted mind-reading and are incorrect, though you won’t say why.
You can cut all that out by telling me exactly why you believe Novak’s outing Plame makes him a “hero of freedom”.
And therein lies the critical difference. Novak was not trying to protect the country, he was trying to protect George W. Bush.
Still don’t know who Ellsberg is, not enough to have an opinion.
ETA: Oh, and I think Novak was a scandal but not a traitor.
I can’t quite put my finger on it, but something tells me you have a preconceived prejudice against my answer.
Try this:
How about I give you a straightforward answer when you ask a question without being a total dick about it?
Because I have ben down similar discussion trails about ten thousand times.
My “demonstrated political leanings?”
Wow.
I can’t think of too many people on this board that have expressed as even-handed political opinions as I have. I can point to many times I’ve defended Democrats – how many times can you say you’ve defended Republicans?
In what way does my asking for a precise answer due to my previous experience with you make me a total dick?
I see that you have no interest in anything but evading and hand-waving. I’ve no interest in playing that game. Can you, by chance, answer this question?
In what way was Novak a “hero of freedom”?
That’s an absolute article of certainty? The evidence admits to no other conceivable explanation?
No. . It was a total asshole way to ask a question. I’m not playing a game, either. Seriously.
You preface a question like that and expect consideration, you condescending prick?