There’s no need, because I am now in love with you.
But I disagree that it is a diversion of attention. The attention was on the acts committed by Novak, which means that analogous acts committed by others is fair game. She wasn’t complaining about Novak’s greedy capitalism, for example. She was complaining (or the complaint arose) that he leaked sensitive information. The comparison to Ellsberg was appropriate, even if you disagree with the minutiae of the analogy, because it dealt with the same predicate that has been assigned to Novak. That’s not a diversion anymore than a thread of Bush’s handling of terrorism is diverted by comparing what he did to the far superior job that Obama is doing. Predicates matter. They’re what gives the sentence its meaning.
If that had been my initial assumption, I’d agree with you.
My initial intent was to, assumption-free, simply discover what she meant by “traitor.”
I’m reminded of a passage in Feynman’s autobiography. Noted as a physicist, he describes attending a philosophy class out of curiosity and applying his own analytical methods:
So, too, here. There are many defensible reasons for calling Novak a traitor, as I cheerfully conceded above. But I have noticed that many people who view Novak’s acts with disdain also consider Ellsberg a hero, and this becomes an easy way to quickly uncover the root definitions of ‘traitor’ being used. I could have asked if Novak was a brick, but I didn’t think too many people would get the reference.
Absolutely. And such an answer then leads us to explore if either Ellsberg or Novak reasonably thought their acts would save lives, a perfectly acceptable direction for the debate to take.
While I think Bricker is right that in general people will tend to be inconsistent in the manner he describes, I think I’m with biggirl as regards to this particular discussion. The problem here is that Bricker has not taken a stand on his own position.
If Bricker introduced an actual argument, and then called on the Ellsberg comparison in support of that argument, then that’s a perfectly justified tactic, for the reasons he gives. But what he’s asking is for biggirl (and others) to respond to a comparison in support of an argument that he’s not actually made. I don’t think that’s justified.
By his logic, any time someone said anything, anyone else could just toss out 50 comparable situations, and force the other to take positions on all of those, without committing himself at all. I don’t see that as valid.
A simpler way to get to that answer probably would have been a post like this:
“I’m not sure Novak’s actions rise to the leave of treason. How are you defining the word?”
Instead, you immediately found someone you assumed Biggirl admired and asked if that action was treason. Your post does not appear to have been an honest attempt to clarify definitions.
It’s all about pointing out hypocrisy and not dealing with the issues, which has become standard fare around here. Hell, around the nation. Bricker didn’t want to actually discuss Novak’s legacy (that would actually be dealing with an issue, making an argument, and contributing to the debate), it was simply a chance for him to try and portray someone else as a hypocrite. It’s what passes for “debate” nowadays. And it’s on both sides of the political spectrum.
Look, if she said, “Yes, Ellsberg was a traitor too,” then how can I possibly argue the point? It’s almost definitional: unauthorized disclosure of classified information.
But if she was using a definition that included Ellsberg but included Novak, then I’m entitled to point out the inconsistency in her position.
Some time back, several posters undertook to point out an inconsistency in positions I held with respect to same-sex marriage, and after pages of debate, I realized I had been wrong in my earlier views. What a good thing that this method of argument was not simply dismissed as an attempt to point out my hypocrisy, eh?
You concluded that her definition of traitor was based on party affiliation based on calling Novak a traitor and not Ellsberg.
And then you agree there are other methods by which you could conclude Novak’s a traitor and not Ellsberg.
Essentially, you’re saying P->Q. And we have Q, therefore P. That’s faulty.
I would also like to point out that BigGirl made no mention of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg either. What the fuck is wrong with her anyway?
Well, it’s not so much a conclusion as a rebuttable presumption.
No. If she deliberately chooses to avoid answering in the manner she did, first dodging the issue and then faux-proudly proclaiming she won’t, I’m entitled to draw an adverse inference: that she has no additional nuance to offer. If she did offer any of the other methods by which we could conclude Novak’s a traitor and not Ellsberg, and defended them, then we could say that the initial presumption has been rebutted.
P -> Q
Q -> R
∴
P -> R
Wow, you ARE good.
Hmmm. The Rosenbergs were Jewish. Big Girl made no mention of them. Ellsberg was Jewish, and **Big Girl **made no mention of him. Just sayin’, is all.
I don’t think she’s under any obligation to defend herself against an accusation of inconsistency that was made with no evidence to back it up. Is she required to prove her innocence of any charges lobbed her way, or is it your responsibility to offer real evidence of her inconsistency before expecting her to rebut it?
Look, it was not initially an accusation of inconsistency.
Did you not read the Feynman passage??
I disagree. She could have other valid reasons for dodging the question, the stated one of which is “it’s Bricker; he’s baiting me.”
Biggirl, if you believe Novak a traitor, but not Ellsberg, what’s the reason?
Yes, I read it.
My bold.
You suspected that there was something “other than objective criteria at work” in the OP, presumably some kind of inconsistency. You loaded up a question to try to force Biggirl to prove that there wasn’t, and when she refused to play, you took that as an admission of her inconsistency.
Feynman, by contrast, appeared to be trying to understand the term of art “essential object.” In that case, I probably would have said, “I do not know that term. Can you please tell me what it means before I answer?” But, that’s just me.
I started out neutral. By the time I made the post you quote, my suspicion was grounded in the responses - or lack thereof - that my initial question garnered.
ETA: And by the way – there’s STILL no answer. So is Ellsberg a brick?
Is someone who shoots an old man always guilty of murder?
Doesn’t that suggest that two people that reveal classified information aren’t necessarily guilty of the same crime? Doesn’t the motive factor in? I’m not a lawyer, so can we have one answer that?
In any case, there is the according to Hoyle definition of treason in the law, and there is a vernacular, “that douchebag is a traitor.” It’s certainly possible that neither man may rise to the legal definition of traitor, but may be considered a traitor by a significant percentage of the population.
And we can all agree that Bricker was being very shady by weaseling in the myth that Plame was not a covert operative. But for his failings, I’d say that Bricker isn’t a traitor. 
He said, batting big, brown innocent eyes…
Nobody believes that but you. Wonder why?
[quote]
ETA: And by the way – there’s STILL no answer. So is Ellsberg a brick?
Take some fucking responsibility for what you say, just for once, willya? :rolleyes: