STer

Yes, I obviously read the thread topic and that's what led to the posts. My posts are all about Syria and what the ethics of the situation are. Direct response to the thread topic. What does the reputation score tell me? I have -2 or -3 on some posts and there are the same 2 or 3 people dodging the actual questions at hand and trying to act personally offended. So it tells me what I already know. About 2 or 3 people in this thread are personally offended that I dared to ask some questions about the ethics of these situations. Do you expect me to stop asking because these few people don't like me asking? Meanwhile, the questions remain mainly unaddressed. Kevin took the time to actually respond to them at one point, and when I then clarified something, he again left the topic and went back to complaining about how personally offended he is. Fiddlertheleper is the person who at least made some real attempts to address the issues and it led to some very interesting learning opportunities. It's pretty simple. If you want to talk about the ethics of Syria, great. I've raised some questions about it, in one post I narrowed them down to 4 main questions. If you don't want to talk about it, then don't. Do you expect me to retract the questions because you don't like them being asked? Do you think if I get a -2 on my reputation I'll retract my questions or something? I don't really know what you're after. Talk about Syria or don't talk about Syria.

Not only did I not "accuse" anyone of anything, I've now quoted multiple places multiple times where I explicitly made clear I was not doing so. It's been quite strange to see 2 or 3 people continuously trying to force what I'm saying into being some personal accusation and, when I make clear I am not accusing anyone, refusing to accept that and going out of their way to insist on being "accused." Very odd. I have not used the thread to talk about any of my personal grievances. Personal grievances would be me posting about how personally offended I am that someone has asked me a question about the topic at hand . What I've done is ask questions related to US policy in Syria and the ethical issues involved - which is what the thread was about. That's not hijacking. That's participating. And it is not personal, it's about the topic. The only ones turning it personal are the couple people who, instead of just calmly responding to the substance of the conversation, start going on about how personally offended they are. I don't remember saying everyone was missing the point anywhere. Maybe I said one or two people missed it on some of my posts - which they did. Surely not everyone though. Fiddlertheleper, for example, certainly got the point and made some very interesting and thoughtful replies. I'd love to see more discussion of the type in those posts. Again, this is about the topic at hand - policy in Syria and the ethical principles and issues it raises. I certainly didn't foresee people being personally offended by questions being asked about their views on it. I tend to think of FDR as a place that values serious questioning and consideration and challenging viewpoints. I believe the questions I've raised are legitimate questions.

Wow this is really something: http://news.yahoo.com/scathing-obit-abusive-nv-mother-goes-viral-211215789.html "Everyone she met, adult or child was tortured by her cruelty and exposure to violence, criminal activity, vulgarity, and hatred of the gentle or kind human spirit," the obit said. "Our greatest wish now is to stimulate a national movement that mandates a purposeful and dedicated war against child abuse in the United States of America."

At this point I'd label what you're doing trolling so I won't be responding to your personal commentaries anymore. If you or anyone else would like to discuss the ethical issues raised by Syria, I'd find that interesting.

I don't believe projection is involved when you yourself keep claiming to be "offended" and that things are "sticking in your craw for days" and so on. It isn't me claiming you are reacting with personal emotion. It's you. I on the other hand am not the least bit offended or outraged by anything in the thread. I'm merely annoyed that an interesting ethical discussion is getting repeatedly hijacked by you trying to focus it on your own personal emotional reaction to the thread. If you are having a strong emotional reaction to the ethical discussion and want to talk about it, perhaps start a thread in the appropriate section. I'll even gladly join in. We can talk about why you were so upset by particular comments (provided you will quote them accurately and in context without ignoring key words), what issues it raised for you emotionally and so on. But this is a current events thread, where people are discussing what are ethical vs. unethical responses to a current political situation. It's not a thread about your personal dislike for having questions asked. It's not that I don't care how you feel. I do and I'm happy to talk about your emotional reactions to what I'm saying. But I just think it would be better discussed elsewhere so this thread can focus on the topic itself.

I see that, almost amazingly after all of that, you just ignored that the quote you posted said "SEEMED" in it making it, yet again, you twisting what I said to - for who knows what reason - attempt to paint me as making harsh accusations so you can be offended. Given that you saw fit to read my response there and blatantly respond only to the parts that you wanted while ignoring the part that once again showed you to be mischaracterizing me, I think I'm done having this discussion with you. And since I already responded to all of your claims, your logical premises and so on (while you ignore many of the things I raised, such as when I asked what you suggest when the only entity capable of responding is one you don't find legitimate) and you don't seem interested in responding to anything other than to keep expressing your emotional outrage, I'm not sure what more there is to be said. I'm sorry you feel offended, but your offense continues to be not to what I actually said (again even the quote you claim makes your case does not make your case), but the way you mischaracterize what I said and my intentions. It seems like this discussion is hitting some emotional button for you and you aren't able to keep this a straightforward analysis of the topic. You're turning it into something personal - or just as bad, if not worse - trying to paint me as having made it into something personal. In fact, it's just the opposite. My interest is in the ethical analysis and how various principles are intersecting in the issues raised by the situation in Syria. I'm decidedly not interested, in this thread, in a discussion that cannot stay focused on the ethical analysis. If you believe there is no ethical inconsistency, great. Calmly explain why. But to get all offended because someone dares to ask questions about a potential inconsistency is really not justified on a forum devoted to philosophy and to asking hard ethical questions. In fact, getting so defensive just because someone is asking questions, rather than simply put forth your case in response, raises even more questions. As for the hypocrisy thing, you should go back and read the comment about self/other since the definition you posted specifically raises the issue of self/other. Hypocrisy requires not just a double standard applied to two different situations (like a child being abused here and a child being abused in Syria), but a self/other double standard (like if you said you expect other people to intervene if people are being harmed, but you wouldn't intervene yourself. That is what hypocrisy is.)

Are you on some kind of mission to find a way to be offended? I paste a quote where I specifically say there MAY BE an inconsistency (one of multiple times I've said that). So you blow that off and go looking through the thread for a way to find some other quote where you can try to paint me as making some kind of accusation. Well why would you even do that? Why would you purposely throw aside me explicitly saying it's a possibility multiple times, to go try to find one place you can claim I didn't say it was only a possibility? What exactly is your goal in this thread? To seek truth or to be personally offended? This is a philosophy board. Discussing whether or not there is an ethical inconsistency in a particular situation is fair game. If you find that offensive or are too sensitive to have the discussion on the merits, then I don't know what to tell you. Now to comment on the quote you did post, claiming it shows how I'm making some outright accussation, notice the word "SEEMS". Nobody SEEMED to be concerned because it was not mentioned, which ...exactly as I said, surprised me. And why would I be surprised? Because I think people here are unconcerned about children? Obviously not. I'd be surprised precisely because people here are concerned with children and I know that. Yes, focusing on the American state's ills and not the Syrian state's ills could be an inconsistency. And early in the thread, the Syrian state's ills were not being talked about. So I said they should be considered in the equation too. You find this offensive?

I think your responses are reasonable other than a couple issues raised. That's fine but what do you suggest then in a case where there is nobody else powerful enough to intervene? Should those being harmed simply have to suffer because those who can intervene are not likeable to you? I'm glad you at first say you "might" take offense because it matches the fact that I said there only "may" be an inconsistency (and went out of my way to stress that), as you can see quoted below. Unfortunately you then later went on to say that I claimed people were being inconsistent, leaving out the "may" part. That's not accurate. I saw a possible inconsistency and have asked questions to see whether it was there. I didn't try to highlight inconsistencies with questions. I tried to determine if there was an inconsistency with questions. As far as your logic there, the possible inconsistency is not whether people intervene in Syria or not. I imagine you can make a case for why it's moral to intervene with a child being abused at the store, but not intervene in Syria. I said that I myself am very torn on whether I'd even support forceful intervention in Syria, for a variety of reasons. This isn't about the end decision of whether to intervene. It's about the process of making that decision. As I've said many times in this thread, I simply found it possibly inconsistent that when we see a child in front of us being harmed, our initial outrage is driven by concern for the child. But when the Syria issue was raised, the focus wasn't on the children in Syria. People didn't say "It's horrible, but because of X, Y, Z I feel terrible that we really shouldn't intervene." Instead, the focus was on Obama and a sort of knee-jerk "Obama and statism are bad so forget all this" (of course overlooking that the Syrian government is just as much a state doing terrible things too.) Well the people being harmed in Syria are not the ones at fault that the only power that may have enough might to do anything is one that you don't care for or find legitimate. That fact doesn't do anything to help them.

What does the vegan example have to do with this? Who said to neglect people nearby? The two are not mutually exclusive. Nobody suggested concern about those in Syria instead of concern about those closer by. So I don't see the relevance of that point. Also I didn't say to spend time thinking about "what ifs." In a case where people are being harmed by chemical weapons, that isn't a "what if" it's an "already happened."

You must not have read where I said The problem is, like it or not, states and large institutions exist. We as individuals cannot directly stop them when they do particularly harmful things. So you can either support groups and institutions - sometimes even other states - in attempting to stop them or not. Even if, in the long run, you hope these institutions disappear through generations, we still have the question of what to support or not support in the meantime. I haven't said you have to support forceful intervention. I haven't even said that I'm sure that I do myself. All I said was I found the discussion in the thread oversimplified and I didn't see people wrestling with the deeper ethical issues involved. If you wrestle with them and conclude, having taken the complexities into account, that you feel it's best not to get involved, that's legitimate. But if you jump to that conclusion without even considering the people being harmed and so on, then I think that's a copout. You are so far from even reading what I'm saying that you're acting as if I've made claims when all I've done is ask questions. Only a few posts ago, I even took the time to whittle down the discussion to about 4 main ethical questions. I fail to see how the questions can be an "argument." The questions are questions. You don't seem to want to answer the questions, which sort of supports my entire point in this thread, that people were jumping to conclusions on a complex issue like Syria without seeming to even ask these important questions. If you don't want to answer the questions I've raised, that's fine. But don't act as if my questions constitute an argument, pragmatic or otherwise.

What's overwhelming about it? A couple of quite legitimate ethical questions are being asked. This is a philosophy board. They are not even that novel of questions. They're just basic ethical questions about when force is justified or morally required in defense of others.

There have been more than one question raised in the thread. One was why it seemed the well-being of the people, including children, in Syria seemed to not even be weighed in the equation during the discussion in the thread. Another that evolved had to do with when it is justified or morally imperative to intervene when we witness others being harmed, especially with particular kinds of weapons like chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear. The only plan other than targeted strikes that I've seen is the one being floated about Syria giving up their chemical weapons stockpile to international care. But of course we don't know all the things that were tried over the last 2 years before targeted strikes finally became the discussion. No I really don't know how you feel. I have spelled out quite logically what I'm saying with a lot of explanation. You have responded with undecipherable statements like that I'm "oversimplifying the oversimplification" followed by very little explanation of how I've done that. I don't feel like you're even taking what I'm saying and logically responding to the substance of it, but just sniping with short unexplained meta-comments. If nothing else, a couple of very clear, coherent questions have arisen as focal points of the thread. If you're that confused, then just focus on those and discuss them. Here are some of the main questions again: "When is it justified and/or morally imperative to intervene using force when someone else is being violated?" "What about when chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons are involved? Does this change the calculation?" "What about when children are being killed? Does this change the calculation?" "What is the relationship between the morality of intervention on the personal level, for example if you witness someone harming a child in front of you, vs. on the social scale, for example if a nation's government far away is harming children?"

If your view of the state is that they are a bunch of criminals, then isn't what you say here akin to saying that if you see a child being harmed by being in the middle of a fight among criminals, it's not your business? I guess I'm not sure I understand why the nature of the perpetrators is the issue. Isn't the issue the well-being of the victim? The real conundrum is that, no matter what your view of statism, until you have an entity strong enough to resist the wrongdoings of existing powerful states, you are either saying they can do whatever they wish or you will have to try to pressure the states you do have influence over as best you can. I don't see any other options. I'm sorry, you've really lost me at this point. If you have a particular issue you want me to respond to, please spell it out again and I'll try to respond.

Oversimplified compared to the actual moral complexities of the situation. The question isn't if you personally, acting alone, can help those children. The question in this case, with Syria, is whether groups of people and institutions in which we have an interest can help them and whether we should support them in doing so. The United States helped enormous amounts of children when they intervened in World War II. I have met many of them personally who wouldn't have even survived otherwise. Now some might also point out that the US caused harm in intervening too. But that is exactly my point. These things are complex with factors on all sides. If you don't think they are, then I believe you are ignoring many important parts of the calculation.

This is interesting because you're re-stating the same basic questions I've been asking in the thread. Did you get the impression that I was trying to provide answers? I was posing the questions just as you are. I even posted myself earlier in the thread I wouldn't pretend to have any simple answers. These are very complex ethical decisions. And that was precisely my point. When I first came in this thread, I saw people appearing to me to oversimplify the issue and only focus on one aspect of it in regards to Syria. What seemed to me one of the most difficult ethical decisions humans face was being talked about like a no-brainer for non-intervention without even a mention of the well-being of the children in Syria. I just wanted to understand why others weren't seeing the complexities of the situation that I was seeing, especially in a place so concerned with the welfare of children. As far as making progress on answering those questions, I'd love to see a discussion of that. I don't have any clear ready-made answer. I think it really depends on the circumstances of particular situations. I doubt it's even possible to intervene in every case, even if you wanted to. So you have to pick your battles.

So you're saying the US is trying to get involved in Syria to lure Iran in so we can then attack Iran claiming it's in defense? I understand your ethical view and it sounds pretty reasonable. I was never claiming there couldn't be an ethical case against going in. I just didn't hear anyone really giving one and it seemed to be just a knee-jerk anti-Obama type thing without consideration of the other side - the situation within Syria. You have clearly thought this through very deeply. Of course the analogy isn't killing the mother and father to save abused children. It's where the parents are killing their children, not just abusing them, and you are trying to strategically remove things that help them do that. You don't even necessarily try to kill the parents. But that is a possible outcome in the course of trying to stop their own killings. I agree completely that all the strategic aspects, like those involving Russia and China, must inform any actual decision. But even if we decided not to go in due to those reasons, it doesn't mean it was immoral to want to do so. You've definitely studied this a lot more than me. Thanks for the very interesting information. Well keep in mind you have to add an important element to the equation. The proper analogy is you see someone spraying poison gas on the person. This raises many more risks than even a stabbing. Now imagine you also know that the perpetrator has further stockpiles of poison gas. The situation in Syria would not be as complex as it is if not for the use of one of the especially dangerous types of weapons like chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons. Of course, killing in any form is tragic and raises ethical concerns. But, the use of these types of weapons raises a whole additional layer of ethical questions.

Yes I'm sure I didn't watch it But I hope to watch it soon. Like I said, maybe when I do I'll see what you're talking about. But it would be an odd situation for a journalist like Charlie Rose to be pitted in a win/lose struggle with an interviewee. That would seem like pretty poor journalism.

I haven't watched the interview yet. When I watch it maybe I'll understand what you mean. But at the moment I'm confused. Charlie Rose is a journalist whose job is to simply ask the person questions and let the audience hear their responses and judge those responses for themselves. Your claim makes it sound like his job is to be in some sort of win/lose conflict with his interviewee and try to "defeat" them or something like that. Isn't Rose's job to be as unbiased and uninvolved as possible and remain objective? If so, how can he get his "ass handed to him" by someone who is just answering his questions as they see fit to answer them?

I feel it's the opposite. I'm trying to keep the two separate and focus on the morals and some others are meshing them together. I'm fine hearing about both though. But what really interests me is the moral part since I was surprised that in a place so concerned about the welfare of children, there seemed to be a knee-jerk reaction so strong that nobody even considered whether intervention might be justified ethically (even if perhaps strategically we couldn't figure out a way to make it work well.) Also I think you haven't stated number 1 quite how I mean it. I'm not asking "Is it a moral imperative to intervene when someone else is being violated?" which is an all-or-nothing way of saying it. I'm asking "When is it justified and/or morally imperative to intervene using force when someone else is being violated?" It sounds like some in this thread don't feel it's ever justified when it's on the society-scale level, only when it's between individuals or very small groups. But, if that's so, then I don't know how they expect to respond when larger groups or regimes are using force and won't stop. #2 I think you've stated accurately and is something that I think some people are answering in an attempt to answer the first question, but of course it can't do so. You can easily believe it's justified to intervene, but that strategically, in this case, it just won't work for whatever reason. As you say, they are different questions. I didn't assume people on this board were not concerned with children dying in Syria. I pointed out that the well-being of these children was conspicuously not mentioned in this thread as a point of concern. And I referenced darkskyabove's language in his first post in the thread about this basically not being a challenge he faces since it's thousands of miles away, which I interpreted as him saying "if people are killing each other far away, then it's not my business due to the distance." If everyone else is talking about strategy, then I'm curious the view on the morality. Because what I interpreted - rightly or wrongly - from the start of the thread - was not about strategy but about making moral judgments about Obama based on his desire to intervene, implying that intervening in Syria would be evidence of immorality.

Just because the new leadership in Libya may happen to be more friendly to us in terms of oil doesn't mean that was the reason for the involvement. But it's possible that you're right and our involvement there was a ploy over oil. I'm not well-versed enough to know for sure. But my impression was that Libya really was a relatively limited intervention, not a long-term quagmire for the US. If Russia and/or China help the Syrian government that may change the strategic calculation. And if you say we shouldn't get involved because of their threats - we should allow them to intimidate us from getting involved - that is one viewpoint. But it doesn't really shed any light on the ethics of the situation which I am more interested in. It could be that morally we are justified in intervening, but that China and Russia, by threatening to oppose us and support Assad - perhaps itself an immoral act - make it no longer a beneficial calculation. If your argument is that limited intervention won't help reduce either current or future use of WMD, that is a very legitimate reason to oppose intervention - a strategic one. What I find interesting is that nobody in this thread but me seems to think there is even a possible ethical justification for intervening. I didn't say it's just Obama that ideally wouldn't want to be involved in Syria. I don't think very many people want to be involved and I think almost all would prefer this entire situation wasn't happening. Some like McCain are very eager to intervene, but I think even McCain wishes this would all just stop and not even be an issue. I don't think they are glad it's happening as some opportunity to exploit. What for? What is the significance of your description regarding Iran? Are you saying we want to get involved in Syria in order to launch attacks on Iran from Syria? How do you see the two things connected? Thank you again for another very thoughtful post.

I'm confused as to why you raise that I often ask for evidence, as if somehow I've contradicted that in this case. I've mentioned in almost every post in this thread the possibility that we are being lied to and said that if that is someone's reason for opposing intervention, they should say so. So far not one person has said "Yes my reason for opposing intervention is that I think we are being lied to and the chemical attacks did not happen." Some people, like Fiddler, have posted that quite clearly do believe it happened. I think it's very likely they did happen but I am consistent in that, if it was me making the actual decision, I'd certainly pore over that evidence carefully. If your argument is that the attacks didn't happen, then say so. And then there can be a discussion of the evidence of whether they did or did not happen. I fully support that discussion. But that is a discussion of its own. Even if we found out such attacks didn't happen in this case, I'd still be interested in how people would react in a case where they did. I agree that forceful intervention requires looking at the evidence and considering all possible consequences. Just remember that all consequences includes the consequences of not acting, both in the short and long-term, which can sometimes be quite significant, as well. I'm not sure how this is a contrarian perspective. I see it as a very empirical, straightforward perspective. If we have evidence that someone used chemical weapons to kill children, at what point is forceful intervention justified? Is it really so contrarian to believe there are situations where it is justified?

If you believe forceful intervention of any kind in Syria will cause more deaths than allowing the use of chemical weapons, that's a perfectly legitimate reason to oppose the use of force. Am I correct that you don't always assume the intervention will cause more deaths than the original problem? There are cases where the use of force against one person or a small group will save many more lives? But you simply believe the situation in Syria now is not one of those cases? If the reports are accurate (whether you believe they are or not is another issue) then 1400 were killed with chemical weapons. You are saying if we did anything forcefully, even if very targeted and strategic, it would lead to more than 1400 deaths? If that is your belief, then I can see why you'd want to stay out of there. I myself would doubt that a very targeted, strategic action would kill 1400. But if that is the reason for your view, I can understand that. As for your second question, talking with people about our response to Syria is not in any way an intervention regarding what's going on in Syria itself. My question is, if the Syrian government did use chemical weapons on its own people, should there be any intervention there. Thanks for a very thoughtful response. I'm glad to see that your response gives serious consideration to the well-being of those in Syria, including the children. I certainly agree there is no obligation to use force in all cases, especially if you don't think strategically it will help. And I appreciate you offering other ways of intervening that might help. I don't know if you're right though that violence is "never" the answer. Self-defense or forceful protection of others is, sadly, sometimes necessary. Cases involving chemical or biological or nuclear weapons have an added layer of complexity since they involve precedents that are dangerous. Using these types of weapons raises strategic issues that are even more complicated than when they are not used. So that also must be taken into account in this case. I understand your reasons for believing that taking action in Syria would be for ulterior motives. There are plenty of examples of why it's wise to consider that. I'm not sure that is really the case here though. I don't think anyone involved - even, perhaps especially, Obama - is happy about this situation and glad it offers a chance to go exploit Syria. I really believe all of them wish this situation was not happening and know that going into Syria will be unpopular. I'm also not sure it's quite accurate to talk about this as if it is going to involve muddling ourselves in a war. I would be surprised if this went beyond a very limited strategic strike. You may say that's naive of me. But look at Libya. Do you see us muddled in a long-raging war in Libya? No. We took part in some very limited, strategic operations and that was that. As far as I know, we didn't end up engaged in Libya in a long war or in exploiting them for eternity. It really does seem - whatever your view of the consequences - to have been what we said - a limited, strategic intervention. We do sometimes do such things without remaining mired in a place forever. Since that is what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, people tend to now think that always happens. But I don't think it does. And I think it is especially unlikely to happen in Syria precisely because the American people are even more fed up than usual with that after Iraq and Afghanistan. So I think you're wise to be skeptical. I am too. But I also wouldn't go to the other extreme. There are sometimes limited strategic operations. And sometimes, even if you're a total cynic who thinks the government never does anything for humanitarian reasons, the humanitarian reasons just happen to overlap with whatever you think their motives are and there isn't anything much beyond that involved.

Here's an interesting way to make some progress here. Check out this Inventory of Needs Which of those needs would you say you're trying to meet when you go searching for information on the family?

The question is, when someone is not only telling others how to act, think and feel, but using chemical weapons to force them, what happens? If nothing, then productive or not in your view, it is going to continue happening. You can never get away from this paradox. If you disagree with the use of force, then how do you respond when someone is using force and refuses to stop? And if they are using it against someone else and you are witnessing it, but it isn't happening directly to you, should you get involved or not? These are difficult ethical choices, but they can't be sidestepped if you are serious about ethics. My main point in this thread is just to point out that there is so much critique and focus on Obama and his rhetorical response, and so little focus on Assad and his wrongdoings. I would think there would be equal focus, if not more focus on Assad. After all, Assad has already committed these atrocious acts (unless, again, you think we are being lied to.) Obama is still wrestling with what to do and giving talks (and in these talks condemning the abuse and harm of children, which is a message I think we would agree with, whatever else you believe about it.) Where is the balance of concern for the wrongdoings of the Syrian state? Why is the only focus on the potential wrong that you believe may come in the US response? It just seems to miss half of the issue. I call it inconsistency. Hypocrisy is when you hold one view for yourself and a different one for others. Hypocrisy is a particular case of inconsistency, but not one that I think is really involved here. This is a case where there is one standard being applied in one situation involving others and a different one maybe (and I stress maybe) is being applied in a different situation involving a different set of others. So there is no self/other issue here. It's not about hypocrisy. My point here is really about focus. If you see a woman yelling at her child in the store, your focus is heavily on the well-being of this child. Yet when you see this situation in Syria, for some reason your (not you specifically, but several people I saw posting) main focus ends up being on Obama's speech, rather than on the well-being of those children. I didn't even see a focus on both. It was pretty much only on Obama and the US response and nothing mentioned about the children being harmed. It's an attentional issue I'm pointing out. Saying that you support interventions that are peaceful is sidestepping the question. Of course, if peaceful interventions work, there is no dilemma. The difficulty comes when we deal with ruthless dictators, psychopaths and others who do not respond to any peaceful interventions (or even exploit them to do further harm.) The reason you're being asked to come up with peaceful interventions is that, if you are unable to, it leaves us in a situation with only two options - forceful intervention or no intervention. Supporting airstrikes is not out of the question in general. You simply took it out of the question for yourself. I simply wanted to clarify if you support any other types of interventions. It sounds to me like you are saying that you are a pacifist then? You are in all cases against the use of force even in defense of those being harmed by force and when peaceful interventions fail? You keep responding as if I called you hypocritical and the entire response is as if I said that, but I never said that. This is a strange case where I didn't say something, you are claiming I said it and telling me to back up my claim when I never made that claim. I claim there may be some inconsistent application of certain principles going on. But this is not the same as hypocrisy. Nor does it mean there is ill-intent since, as I've said, I think it may simply be about where people's focus is being drawn vs. where it is not being drawn. I'm trying to draw some attention to the part of this situation I haven't seen focused on enough.

There is so much in your response that presupposes things I did not say. I said there seems to be an inconsistency in how people respond to lesser abuses at the local store vs. much more serious abuses against children further away in the world. If people on this board were there and saw children with chemical weapons used against them, I assume they'd be outraged. But since it's so far away, they don't see it, so it has less impact than even seeing a mother yelling at her child in the store. That's the point I was making there. In asking about your views, I went out of my way to separate two issues - whether to intervene, either now, or at any point vs. what kind of intervention, but in your response you ended up mixing them back up again, making it hard to get very clear on your stance. The only thing I think I am clear on is that in no situation do you support airstrikes? And is that truly your view no matter how widespread the abuses became? If it reached a certain level of number of people killed, would you still say that? As for the question of what other interventions might be possible other than airstrikes, you seem to be asking me when I was the one asking you that. If you are 100% against airstrikes, then I'm curious what other possibilities for intervention you see. It seems to me that if you do think intervention is ever worthwhile, but you are against airstrikes, you should suggest alternatives that you think will work better.