Sure we can–we do it all the time. We do it when we allow cops to arrest people but don’t allow me to arrest people, when we praise our soldiers and condemn their soldiers; when we praise someone using violence to defend a child from harm but condemn a person using violence to subdue a parent in order to harm the child.
The only time we can’t do this is when the tactics used by bother groups are in service of morally neutral ends.
Daniel
I disagree, obviously. As I said, the First Amendment protects free assembly only to the point where it infringes on the free assembly and commerce rights of others.
Therefore, Operation Rescue may protest, but not block the clinic door. And this group may protest as well, but not block the table or prevent students from going there.
Fair is fair.
I should have said, “The only time we can’t do this is when the tactics used by bother groups are in service of morally neutral ends, OR when the harm done by the discrimination outweighs the good of the discrimination.” As I’ve said earlier, I don’t support the students’ actions; it’s the added clause that’s the reason for my lack of support.
However, I think that it’s an important difference from what you’ve said.
Daniel
Ah, I think I see where I wasn’t clear. Killing civilians is, of course, on the heads of the soldiers who do it, and it’s for those individual soldiers to make that decision. However, military and political policy is what makes the killing of noncoms more likely; for example, if the government decides to invade a country at all, that raises the chances noncoms will be killed. And military policy dictates tactics; do we carpet bomb an area, or send in the G.I.s? And both government and the military work on the definition of who counts as an enemy combatant, and the rules as to who may be killed and who may not. A soldier may be in a situation where they have the choice of shooting a noncombatant, but for the large part it’s policy that puts them in that situation in the first place.
Well, there was this as a more direct example;
And I generally got the idea that you were arguing against me not just because you think i’m wrong, but also because my view of things is immoral.
No worries. If you weren’t doing it on purpose, then I have no complaints. I was probably reading into things that weren’t really there.
True. But if a soldier disobeys an order, then his C.O. will order the arrest of that soldier (if possible) and then give the order to a different soldier under his command. And if that recruit never signed up in the first place, a different recruit would have been assigned to that unit.
Not at all. As i’ve said before, regardless of whether or not your position of immorality will be taken up by someone who’ll do the same job, it is your decision. In the greater scheme of things, no, nothing will change; there’s still a drug dealer, and people will still get their drugs of choice. But there being no change doesn’t give you a moral act; you are responsible for your choices. If your choice is to be a drug dealer, then you’re acting immorally (and illegally).
I agree that it’s a similar situation (well, not that troops are similar to drug dealers, but I don’t think you meant that either), but I just don’t take what you are out of the situation. Your choices are your choices, regardless of whether they’ll be performed anyway by someone else. That’s why “I was only following orders!” is no defense in law; because you’re responsible for the choices you make, and unless you have no choice at all you are responsible both morally and legally for what you do.
Words in my mouth! Hack-ptooie!
I say again: the anti abortion protest movement has a legacy of violence, intimidation, coercion & murder. They have forever revoked the luxury of ever claiming that they are a non-violent bunch. We even had to execute one of those guys.
Also, the supposed plight of the young Cody James notwithstanding, the booth at that job fair is not the only way available to find out about the military. The military will eagerly send you a free hat and a video game if you call them on the phone or e-mail them. Then they drive out to your house to spend the day with you. Then they call you all the time on the phone and barrage you with printed material in the mail. All they need is your name, one time, and soon you will be hearing every BS promise the recruiter can think of to get you to sign up. (In fact I would venture to say that talking to a recruiter is about the worst way to really find out about a career in the armed forces.)
Compare this with a person trying to get into what might be the only clinic in the state they live in, or within 500 miles, only to find a sketchy crowd of religious extremists waiting to harass you personally.
You might want to be careful here, since the actions of some antiwar protesters could easily be used to taint the whole group, under your reasoning.
After all, violence, intimidation, coercion and murder were committed by some antiwar activists, weren’t they?
Oh really, and who is that then.
Surely you aren’t still going on about those union guys who took your sign away?
You don’t recall Weatherman or the Symbionese Liberation Army?
You have a mighty short historical memory.
Um, antiwar activists 
CMC fnord!
Has it occured to you our savage behavior in Iraq is a major source of hostility towards the military ?
Considering that American conservatives live in their own fantasy world unconnected to the “reality based community”, I’d say it’s not the left engaging in "intellectual circle-jerks ". The prevalence of conservative thought is due to several factors IMHO :
The degeneration of America into a nation of near-sociopathic predators, who hate compassion and cooperation, unless it’s to hurt others.
Widespread ignorance and a screwed up education system.
Widespread religious fanaticism.
A high level of bigotry.
Widespread detachment from reality.
That assumes there is a limitless pool of soldiers and recruits; there isn’t. If enough soldiers disobey or too few people join, those orders can’t be performed.
That last quote was from me, btw. And you’re correct; one thing to keep in mind, though. If there was such a crisis in recruitment, the chances of the country going to war are decreased due to lack of manpower. If to remedy that conscription is brought in, then i’m as fully against that as I am the protesters disallowing recruitment to take place.
You are conflating cause and effect here badly. Conservatives are just much more effective strategically and tactically in the U.S. than liberals and have been for some time. That isn’t a value judgement and I am not a traditional conservation, it is just true.
You seem to be falling into the same old trap of “our ideas are good and are tactics are effective yet people are just to stupid/evil to see it”. The more likely explanation is that either your ideas are unsound and people know it or that your ideas are good but the way of getting the message out just doesn’t play well. If I were you, I would choose to believe the latter and maybe alter some behavior. Protesting like that simply does not play well in the U.S. these days and tends to be counterproductive to a cause especially when it takes places in a liberal-leaning California university.
Now I am not one to criticize someone else’s approach without offering better alternative. One great example an an effective lobbying organization is the NRA (doesn’t matter if you like them. they are very effective). The gun rights movement could have slowly sputtered out over decades like it did in other countries except we have the NRA and it is one of the top 3 most powerful lobbying organizations in Washington. Gun rights people don’t hold signs and hold silly little protests. They fund the NRA who has this mini-skyscraper full of analysts and media people and lobbyists and they hit the power centers and media every day. Gun rights would have been a fringe issue at this point but they are tactically strong. Silly little college protesters are not tactically strong.
Another example is conservative talk radio. It is wildly successful and serves as a unifying force to get the message out to every area of the country all day, every day. Liberals can’t seem to put together even one liberal talk radio station let alone blanket the whole country with their message.
Liberal need to reevaluate their strategy if they want to be very successful in this country. The shag rugs were pulled up out of most houses long ago and liberal strategy needs a remodel as well.
They were an outgrowth of the Venceremos Brigade, which did oppose the Vietnam War.
Aren’t you allowed to make a citizen’s arrest?
How about option #7:
Stop discriminating against gay people. If GenericDrugCompany announced that it’s new corporate policy was to fire all the gay chemists and not hire any more gay chemists, then GenericDrugCompany would not be allowed to have a table at the UCSC career fair. Even if the head of GenericDrugCompany said “it’s ok if you’re a gay chemist, I don’t want to know. As long as you don’t tell anybody about your predilections everyone can be happy. 'Cuz if you do, it’s the boot,” the poor recruiters for GenericDrugCompany would be turned away at the gates of the UCSC career fair.
Luckily the US Military doesn’t have to worry about that sort of thing. The Supreme Court said so.
I agree with this completely. Protests can work- but only if you have a sense of what you want to achieve with one. One of the first things liberals need to do is work out some goals and FOCUS on them. No anti-GTO signs at an anti-war protest. No diffusing a single message or scaring off moderates by presenting every concievable cause at every oppertunity.
However, one thing to keep in mind is that many student groups (and presumably various sundry dissident groups) have been infilterated, by the government’s own admission. The government has a lot of experience turning effective organizations in to ineffective ones.
Update:
This won’t come as a news flash to most people, but the Students Against War group at Santa Cruz is a bunch of fucking pantywaists.
On their website, they’re currently bitching about the fact that they’ve received hate mail over this incident, as if that is at all surprising.
They’re also whining over the fact that some members of their group have been suspended from school for a few days, where a real radical would see this as just a necessary consequence to take for needed action.
These guys want to do what they wish and face no sanction at all, which isn’t the way the world works. I’d call them typical spoiled college kids, but most college kids I meet are more grounded than this.
In any case, they should get far more than a 7 to 10 day suspension, needless to say. Nonetheless, I was expecting them to get off with nothing, so this outcome pleases me somewhat. Kudos to the UC Santa Cruz administration for sending these brats a badly needed message.
Ha. I love this;
Oh no! Threats! Well, i’m glad the student group isn’t taking the low road in this wa…
…Nevermind. 
Actually, it’s not just hate mail, Mr. Moto. There are death threats and wishes that they come to harm, as a result of Michelle Malkin posting the students personal information on her blog. I’m sure most people can deal with email that says “You’re a jerk; I hate you” but I think it becomes something else when the emails contain things like:
These people sound like magellan01: dangerous deranged lunatics.
Perhaps you think the students shouldn’t be concerned about the people who sent these emails? Like magellan01 claimed, it’s just a “joke”, right? :dubious:
Hey, if you get involved in political matters, nutcases will send you mail.
I found that out quite well when I was an intern in a congressional office. I’m sure others will attest to similar experiences.
If you can’t stand this, maybe it would be a good idea not to get involved at all. Or, better idea, maybe you should have the good sense not to post your personal information in the first place.
(Please note, I don’t condone sending anyone nutty messages. Given that nuts are a permanent part of the American landscape, what I condone is protecting yourself from them.)