Hypocrite-in-chief responds to reporter about attacking Syria

[PatrickC]

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.

 

Ah, the great statist 'what if' conundrum. The conundrum having been statist caused, statist led, statist managed and then magically statist resolved. I leave this conundrum in the statists hands because it certainly remains their moral conundrum.

[Kevin Beal]

Oversimplified compared to the actual moral complexities of the situation.

 

That doesn't actually mean anything. It's not even a tautology. It's like saying that "x is y".

[STer]

Ah, the great statist 'what if' conundrum. The conundrum having been statist caused, statist led, statist managed and then magically statist resolved. I leave this conundrum in the statists hands because it certainly remains their moral conundrum.

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.

That doesn't actually mean anything. It's not even a tautology. It's like saying that "x is y".

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.

[seventwentyseven]

Talk about an oversimplification. If a person is abusing their children, is asked repeatedly to stop, does not stop, then are you saying at no point is it reasonable to use force to protect the children? And when you use force to do that, there is always a risk of that intervention itself leading to some harm. The calculation is whether the harm of intervention is likely to be greater or less than the harm already happening. If someone is aggressing against others and won't respond to non-forceable intervention, there is no way around the calculation having to be made.

 

So in Syria, if hundreds of children are being killed (again, it's ok if you doubt this to be the case, but then you should be very focused on finding the evidence to determine if it is true or not) how much risk of harm is justified? It's overly general to talk in isolation about "her neighborhood being destroyed." Are you saying that we would use the pretext of saving children to go in and purposely destroy civilian neighborhoods for its own sake? Or are you saying that in the course of targeting strategically important areas, civilian neighborhoods sometimes inadvertently get hit?

 

I don't think I understand what's going on here. I am the product of public schools and a family who wasn't too friendly to questioning why they did and said things so that may have something to do with it.

 

Tell me if I understand your question. Why is it applauded on this board when someone intervenes in a situation where a parent is POSSIBLY harming her child, but when it comes to hundreds of children being ACTUALLY harmed, the same people say it's none of their business?

 

Yes or no. If no, a short explanation as to why I'm wrong and a restatement of your question. I have read your posts and I am not yet sure sure what you mean so please don't answer it by asking me to read your previous posts.

 

Also, are there or have there been any "official" plans or suggestions for intervention other than "targeted missile strikes"? If yes, what and where did you find them? I haven't been able to find any. 

[Kevin Beal]

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.

 

Lol. Now you know how I feel

 

This is such a strange thread.

[STer]

I don't think I understand what's going on here. I am the product of public schools and a family who wasn't too friendly to questioning why they did and said things so that may have something to do with it.

 

Tell me if I understand your question. Why is it applauded on this board when someone intervenes in a situation where a parent is POSSIBLY harming her child, but when it comes to hundreds of children being ACTUALLY harmed, the same people say it's none of their business?

 

Yes or no. If no, a short explanation as to why I'm wrong and a restatement of your question. I have read your posts and I am not yet sure sure what you mean so please don't answer it by asking me to read your previous posts.

 

Also, are there or have there been any "official" plans or suggestions for intervention other than "targeted missile strikes"? If yes, what and where did you find them? I haven't been able to find any.

 

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.

Lol. Now you know how I feel

 

This is such a strange thread.

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?"

[PatrickC]

I don't think I understand what's going on here. 

 

An understandable summation to make I think.. STer is quite the wordsmith, try not to let him overwhelm you.

[STer]

An understandable summation to make I think.. STer is quite the wordsmith, try not to let him overwhelm you.

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.

[Rob_Ilir]

Hi SterDo you really think any one of us on this board can directly save tens, hundreds, or thousands of innocents from a far away dictator?Any intervention that is done with the gun to my head, is no worthy intervention.

 

Helping voluntarily in your own life on the other hand is rewarding to you and all of us, and would end the far away crazy too. But blood with blood, will only encourage the thirstiest of the red substance. 

[PatrickC]

You are not even attempting at philosophy here STer I'm afraid.. You are using a 'pragmatist' argument, utilitarian at best perhaps... Much of which has been discussed on this board ad nauseam.

[STer]

Hi SterDo you really think any one of us on this board can directly save tens, hundreds, or thousands of innocents from a far away dictator?Any intervention that is done with the gun to my head, is no worthy intervention. Helping voluntarily in your own life on the other hand is rewarding to you and all of us, and would end the far away crazy too. But blood with blood, will only encourage the thirstiest of the red substance.

You must not have read where I said 

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 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 not even attempting at philosophy here STer I'm afraid.. You are using a 'pragmatist' argument at best, utilitarian even... Much of which has been discussed on this board ad nauseam.

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.

[Rob_Ilir]

I didn't see people wrestling with the deeper ethical issues involved. 
 

 

I see people going vegan based on moral reasons alone, let alone care for innocent humans. 

 

 

But if you jump to that conclusion without even considering the people being harmed and so on, then I think that's a copout.

Wouldn't a cop-out involve choice? True, you can choose to spend time in thinking about what ifs, but dont neglect the people that are right there to be helped in your own square meter. 

[STer]

I didn't see people wrestling with the deeper ethical issues involved. 

 

 

I see people going vegan based on moral reasons alone, let alone care for innocent humans. 

 

 

But if you jump to that conclusion without even considering the people being harmed and so on, then I think that's a copout.

 

Wouldn't a cop-out involve choice? True, you can choose to spend time in thinking about what ifs, but dont neglect the people that are right there to be helped in your own square meter. 

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."

[Kevin Beal]

"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?"

 

1) Vicarious self defense is justified. The proof for that is in UPB.

 

2) answered yes to #1

 

3) answered yes to #1

 

4) Something immoral here is immoral there. The location is completely irrelevant to the morality.

 

I completely accept that it's evil to murder children with chemical weapons. It doesn't matter who is doing it either, it's still evil. And I wish that they weren't being murdered. None of that is inconsistent.

 

There is no comparison to me intervening in child abuse in my hometown and the US doing targeted airstrikes in Syria. It is not inconsistent of me to intervene in child abuse and then condemn the US military in their wholly murderous pursuit.

 

So I have a question for you: can you understand why I might take offense at this comparison?

 

It is a comparison if the claim is that I'm being inconsistent.

 

I don't know in what ways vicarious self defense can be justified in situations such as these, but there's no reason to believe that this war will finally be the one just war. We are, after all, talking about airstrikes in Syria. That's what the video is about.

 

Also to the point that you are not making arguments but simply asking questions. This is untrue. You made a claim that people are being inconsistent, then you attempted to highlight the inconsistency through a series of questions. In that is a conclusion and some implied premises. Being that they are implied and you didn't really elaborate on the point I wanted you to the last two times I prompted it, I cannot quote you and must then translate.

 

The argument is roughly:

 

P1. Intervening in child abuse is good

P2. The chemical attacks in Syria resulted in the deaths of children

P3. People around these parts applaud intervention in child abuse when it is local

P4. People here did not condemn the child murder in Syria, nor did they intervene in that child murder. Further they don't plan on intervening in the future the way they might intervene if it were local

C1. People are being inconsistent about their application of the principle that it is good to intervene in child abuse

C2. People care only about local children

 

Since this argument is obviously false, I wanted you to make it explicit so that it's falseness would be apparent. A sort of Socratic dialog kind of thing. Assuming that my statements are true, then it might explain why you were accused of sophistry: making the worse argument appear the better.

[STer]

1) Vicarious self defense is justified. The proof for that is in UPB. 2) answered yes to #1 3) answered yes to #1 4) Something immoral here is immoral there. The location is completely irrelevant to the morality. I completely accept that it's evil to murder children with chemical weapons. It doesn't matter who is doing it either, it's still evil. And I wish that they weren't being murdered. None of that is inconsistent. There is no comparison to me intervening in child abuse in my hometown and the US doing targeted airstrikes in Syria. It is not inconsistent of me to intervene in child abuse and then condemn the US military in their wholly murderous pursuit. So I have a question for you: can you understand why I might take offense at this comparison? It is a comparison if the claim is that I'm being inconsistent. I don't know in what ways vicarious self defense can be justified in situations such as these, but there's no reason to believe that this war will finally be the one just war. We are, after all, talking about airstrikes in Syria. That's what the video is about. Also to the point that you are not making arguments but simply asking questions. This is untrue. You made a claim that people are being inconsistent, then you attempted to highlight the inconsistency through a series of questions. In that is a conclusion and some implied premises. Being that they are implied and you didn't really elaborate on the point I wanted you to the last two times I prompted it, I cannot quote you and must then translate. The argument is roughly: P1. Intervening in child abuse is goodP2. The chemical attacks in Syria resulted in the deaths of childrenP3. People around these parts applaud intervention in child abuse when it is localP4. People here did not condemn the child murder in Syria, nor did they intervene in that child murder. Further they don't plan on intervening in the future the way they might intervene if it were localC1. People are being inconsistent about their application of the principle that it is good to intervene in child abuseC2. People care only about local children Since this argument is obviously false, I wanted you to make it explicit so that it's falseness would be apparent. A sort of Socratic dialog kind of thing. Assuming that my statements are true, then it might explain why you were accused of sophistry: making the worse argument appear the better.

I think your responses are reasonable other than a couple issues raised. 

There is no comparison to me intervening in child abuse in my hometown and the US doing targeted airstrikes in Syria. It is not inconsistent of me to intervene in child abuse and then condemn the US military in their wholly murderous pursuit.

 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. 

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.

 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.

[Kevin Beal]

 

 

It surprises me that on a board so incredibly sensitive to the treatment of children, nobody seems to be concerned at all that hundreds of children may have been victims of chemical weapons in Syria.

 

This is a clear statement. The point being made here is obvious and was explicated in my syllogism above. You didn't say that it was a "possible inconsistency" until after you said this. This, after you were challenged on it. And I genuinely believe that you cannot see how you are doing this since you do it again below.

 

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.)

 

There you did it again. I am against statism, but am only focusing on the American state and not the Syrian one (as if this were some sort of inconsistency).

 

You are being much more direct then you claim in this last post. It is not presented as a "maybe" until it's convenient. That really bothers me, and I'd ask you to simply concede this point.

[STer]

This is a clear statement. The point being made here is obvious and was explicated in my syllogism above. You didn't say that it was a "possible inconsistency" until after you said this. This, after you were challenged on it. And I genuinely believe that you cannot see how you are doing this since you do it again below.

 

 

There you did it again. I am against statism, but am only focusing on the American state and not the Syrian one (as if this were some sort of inconsistency).

 

You are being much more direct then you claim in this last post. It is not presented as a "maybe" until it's convenient. That really bothers me, and I'd ask you to simply concede this point.

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? 

[Kevin Beal]

 

 

Are you on some kind of mission to find a way to be offended?

 

Nope. You said something didn't happen. I said it did, then I provided evidence for that, evidence counter to your own which you provided.

 

 

 

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?

 

It was taken from the first post you made in this thread. The post that launched this discussion in the first place. It is what I was referring to this entire time when I talked about the position you were putting forward implicitly. It's not like it's some insignificant quote, it's the post where you introduced your criticism. It was also filled with leading questions ("Or is it that, since they're far away, you don't care about them?") and a suspiciously exaggerated portrayal of your opponents ("It surprises me that on a board so incredibly sensitive to the treatment of children") (emphasis my own). It's not nothing or irrelevant, so please do not portray it as such.

 

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? 

 

Do you honestly believe that anyone is pro-Syrian gov't? If not, then it's dishonest to portray it like it's some sort of inconsistency (which it so obviously isn't).

...also the point about hypocrisy vs inconsistency really irked me and stuck in my craw for days, lol.

 

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.

 

The actual dictionary definition is:

 

 

 

the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.

 

If I'm saying that intervening in child abuse is good, but say that we shouldn't intervene in the murder of these Syrian children (the basis of the "possible inconsistency") then that is an accusation of hypocrisy.

 

This is the first definition I looked up, and no others were given. It's the way that most people use the word "hypocrisy".

 

So there!

[STer]

Nope. You said something didn't happen. I said it did, then I provided evidence for that, evidence counter to your own which you provided.

 

 

 

 

It was taken from the first post you made in this thread. The post that launched this discussion in the first place. It is what I was referring to this entire time when I talked about the position you were putting forward implicitly. It's not like it's some insignificant quote, it's the post where you introduced your criticism. It was also filled with leading questions ("Or is it that, since they're far away, you don't care about them?") and a suspiciously exaggerated portrayal of your opponents ("It surprises me that on a board so incredibly sensitive to the treatment of children") (emphasis my own). It's not nothing or irrelevant, so please do not portray it as such.

 

 

Do you honestly believe that anyone is pro-Syrian gov't? If not, then it's dishonest to portray it like it's some sort of inconsistency (which it so obviously isn't).

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.)

[Kevin Beal]

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've graduated from denial and are now projecting. You reject my "emotional outrage" while yourself outraged emotionally.

[STer]

You've graduated from denial and are now projecting. You reject my "emotional outrage" while yourself outraged emotionally.

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.

[Kevin Beal]

Well that's a disappointment. We've regressed back into denial...

 

I didn't say I was "outraged", that part was invented.

 

In order for projection to occur, you must deny your own experience.

 

If you truly thought that I was bullying you in my outrage, lying about what you were saying, endlessly denying and avoiding things, and you weren't offended, then it can only be because you aren't feeling your feelings. Or you think that I'm just insanely irrational / stupid and realize that it has nothing to do with you. But you don't think that though.

 

The fact that you passive aggressively add that you will help me with my irrational feelings in another thread is the beautifully predictable response of someone who absolutely has taken it personally and is upset by it. You denying that is perfectly consistent with projection.

[STer]

Well that's a disappointment. We've regressed back into denial...

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.

[Guest darkskyabove]

At this point I'd label what you're doing trolling...

 

Wow. First, you accuse "everyone" of claims they never made. Second, you hijack the thread, turning it into your personal grievance session. Third, you continuously insinuate that, because no one rises to defend your point of view, that "everyone" must be missing the point. And to top it all off, you accuse another of "trolling".

 

Next stop...the Twighlight Zone!!!

[STer]

Wow. First, you accuse "everyone" of claims they never made. Second, you hijack the thread, turning it into your personal grievance session. Third, you continuously insinuate that, because no one rises to defend your point of view, that "everyone" must be missing the point. And to top it all off, you accuse another of "trolling".

 

Next stop...the Twighlight Zone!!!

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.

[Guest darkskyabove]

Read the thread topic and check it against all your posts. Then check your reputation scores. That should give you a clue.

[STer]

Read the thread topic and check it against all your posts. Then check your reputation scores. That should give you a clue.

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.

[Guest darkskyabove]

@STer:

 

The thread title is "Hypocrite-in-chief responds to reporter about attacking Syria." (Hypocrite-in-chief being U.S. President Barack Obama.)

 

Not once have you commented on the original issue of this thread: the President's comments.

 

It's actually very simple: you have hijacked this thread.

 

Your posts on this thread speak for themselves. Nothing you say, after the fact, can change what you've written.

 

You have been the primary party to drawing other members into personal conflict. Which is the original internet definition of "trolling". This forum has specific rules about usage. Refer to http://board.freedomainradio.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules.

 

Unless I witness a change, I will no longer respond to you, and would appreciate that you refrain from responding to me. If this problem continues, I will simply report it to the board staff.

[STer]

@STer:

 

The thread title is "Hypocrite-in-chief responds to reporter about attacking Syria." (Hypocrite-in-chief being U.S. President Barack Obama.)

 

Not once have you commented on the original issue of this thread: the President's comments.

 

It's actually very simple: you have hijacked this thread.

 

Your posts on this thread speak for themselves. Nothing you say, after the fact, can change what you've written.

 

You have been the primary party to drawing other members into personal conflict. Which is the original internet definition of "trolling". This forum has specific rules about usage. Refer to http://board.freedomainradio.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules.

 

Unless I witness a change, I will no longer respond to you, and would appreciate that you refrain from responding to me. If this problem continues, I will simply report it to the board staff.

I believe things related to the ethics of US policy in Syria are closely enough related to the thread topic to be justified. I would actually appreciate if you did stop responding as you are continuing to distract from the topic at hand. It's actually quite surprising you'd spend so much time posting these types of posts since I have no idea what your goal is. As mentioned, I've posted 4 quite legitimate questions related to the ethics of intervention which I'm happy to discuss with people (and did enjoy talking about with the couple people who actually wanted to talk about the topic).

 

If you aren't interested in talking about them or about the ethics of Syria I have no idea why you keep posting in this thread. I don't know what you are trying to accomplish. I stand by the questions and look forward to discussing Syria with those interested. Those not interested or "offended" by the topic should probably just post on other threads they find less upsetting. It seems as if you don't like these questions being raised so you're trying to force me to stop asking perfectly legitimate questions.

 

Again the questions I asked are:

 

"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 you think these questions are unrelated to the topic of the thread, I disagree. If you think asking these questions is making the thread personal, making accusations or trolling, again I disagree.