It could be Asher if he felt like trolling. Unlikely, but an outside possibility.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Hypocrites?
Collapse
X
-
Re: Hypocrites?
Originally posted by itsagreenday
Are war protestors (American) who now "support the troops" instead of hoping for U.S. defeat hypocrites? If the war truly is immoral, shouldn't people opposed to it hope for its objective not to be accomplished? Thoughts?
No matter what, one should keep a good thought for the troops.
War protestors, in the current scenario, are misguided.Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead
Comment
-
Originally posted by itsagreenday
If you REALLY were against the war, the U.S. losing would have some good for you. The U.S. would not have accomplished what it sought out to do "immorally" and it would be much less likely to do it again.
I admire the Columbia University professor who hoped for the death of thousands of U.S. soldiers so that the war would not have a successful conclusion. However, I don't agree with him and would punch his face in if I was in NYC. But at least he isn't a hypocrite.
One would hope that the shallow nature of this reasoning would be obvious, though it is not.
Here is a simplified example: you are in a bus, and the driver comes upon a fork. You say, hey, go right cause if we go left, the chances fo a fatal crash are huge!. The driver says:"I don;t believe that, the right is the dangerous path, I will go left" and goes left. The thing is, you are in the bus. Maybe it would peak some schadenfreude to see the driver get his comeuppins, but for tha to happen, you and a lot of innocents would get screwed too.
Once a decisiosn has been made, even one you disgaree with, and a new path set, it is for rational people to seek the best possible outcome from it. imply to ask for destruction and vengeance is wrong.If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
Comment
-
What GePap said, though when I read "...comes upon a fork" I got very confused, and wondered how dangerous a piece of cutlery this was...
As for "itsagreenday", the greenday bit made me think it was Bods straight away...but I suppose it could be coincidence...
...and in any case...
Comment
-
Originally posted by GePap
One would hope that the shallow nature of this reasoning would be obvious, though it is not.
Here is a simplified example: you are in a bus, and the driver comes upon a fork. You say, hey, go right cause if we go left, the chances fo a fatal crash are huge!. The driver says:"I don;t believe that, the right is the dangerous path, I will go left" and goes left. The thing is, you are in the bus. Maybe it would peak some schadenfreude to see the driver get his comeuppins, but for tha to happen, you and a lot of innocents would get screwed too.
Once a decisiosn has been made, even one you disgaree with, and a new path set, it is for rational people to seek the best possible outcome from it. imply to ask for destruction and vengeance is wrong."The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."
-Joan Robinson
Comment
-
-But the soldiers are not innocents, and I personally am not in Iraq. Regardless of the outcome, I am in no way screwed as well. In any case, no one I know is over there, and I'm not American, my stake in this war is much lower than you would like to think.
A defeat of the US and UK would be incredably destabalizing to the world. There are things that can still be salvaged form this operation, and if the aftermath is generally controlled not by the peanuts gang in the WH but by reponsibe adults, then a small bit of good can be spun out. If the US and UK lose, then this will just be a wasted event, plus for the US to lose, things have to really get ugly, which means far, far, far more dead people than what we are getting right now.
As they say, if life gives you lemons, make lemonade.If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
Comment
-
greenday -Berzerker, how the **** is it hypocritical? If your answer is, why not Saudi Arabia, my answer is that I want to see them fall hard. But one regime at a time.
Azazel -LMAOROTF I love you libertarians!
Comment
-
No more a hypocrite than anyone who wants to avoid a bad outcome, but then has to choose between the lesser of two evils because of other choices made by someone else.
It's fallacious to infer that a rational person must support the defeat of the US because they didn't support the idea of going to war. The proposition "If A is against the war then A must be for a US defeat if war breaks out" is false, since it can be otherwise.
Such a person can still agree that the war is a bad thing, but that a US victory would be the lesser evil than Saddam winning, even though no war at all would still have been the optimal situation for that person. The very fact that war has started changes the options available.
Case closed I think. [edit] I see GePap posted much the same argument. I agree with him.Only feebs vote.
Comment
Comment