Posted on 03/11/2003 8:31:41 PM PST by beckett
My premise is your premise - if it is irrational, by definition, to violate the principle of self-preservation, then every American soldier who has ever thrown himself on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers, or died at all in combat rather than avoiding it in the first place, is, by your definition, irrational. By your logic, Bill Clinton is far more rational in having avoided the draft than someone like Bob Dole was for having served in combat - Dole "irrationally" risked violating the principle of self-preservation by joining the Army, whereas Clinton "rationally" minimized the risk to his own life by hanging out at Oxford and smoking lots of grass.
Needless to say, I reject this line of reasoning.
...you still refuse to accept what is uniformly meant by "rational" in this context, i.e., ratiocinative, logical, not 'soundness of mind.'
Au contraire, that is exactly what I mean by rational. They perform cost-benefit analyses in determining their methods of achieving their goals, just as we do. They tailor their tactics according to their estimates of success, just as we do - they eschew tactics that they estimate will fail, and prefer tactics that they believe will succeed. They are perfectly rational actors, in every sense of the word.
2- Regarding self-preservation, you continue to ignore -- or fail to comprehend -- the distinction I make between extraneous and fundamental.
3- My argument with you is a semantic one… and you fail even to see this… As I said, you are arguing with yourself.
4- It is pointless for us to restate our positions ad nauseam.
Someone, I forget who, once noted that it is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. Suggestion: Why not invoke that thesis? If you do so, you will be able to exit this thread with your ego intact….
I believe I have stated and adequately defended the proposition that they meet any definition of "rational" you care to present.
Regarding self-preservation, you continue to ignore -- or fail to comprehend -- the distinction I make between extraneous and fundamental.
There is no such distinction between their acts and our acts in reality, although I can certainly see why you wish to invent one.
My argument with you is a semantic one… and you fail even to see this… As I said, you are arguing with yourself.
I think not.
It is pointless for us to restate our positions ad nauseam.
Indeed.
Someone, I forget who, once noted that it is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. Suggestion: Why not invoke that thesis? If you do so, you will be able to exit this thread with your ego intact….
No ego preservation is necessary - I am content to let the record speak for itself on this. You are still wrong, but I do thank you for a relatively civil discussion ;)
You are confused. You continually invoke the "insanity" definition. Indeed, it is necessary for you to invoke it so that you can argue that "irrational" precludes "evil."--meI believe I have stated and adequately defended the proposition that they meet any definition of "rational" you care to present.--you
Precisely the problem. The "unsoundness of mind" definition does not apply in this context, but you invoke it selectively to elude the logical inconsistencies that bird-dog your argument.. As I have been trying to get you to understand, your argument with me is semantic. (NB: I am not now discussing, nor have I ever discussed, your argument on this thread with others.)
Regarding self-preservation, you continue to ignore -- or fail to comprehend -- the distinction I make between extraneous and fundamental.--meThere is no such distinction between their acts and our acts in reality, although I can certainly see why you wish to invent one.--you
This distinction is integral to the notion of rational behavior. As I have said before, I can make the argument, but I am not obliged to make you understand it.
Someone, I forget who, once noted that it is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. Suggestion: Why not invoke that thesis? If you do so, you will be able to exit this thread with your ego intact….--meNo ego preservation is necessary - I am content to let the record speak for itself on this. You are still wrong, but I do thank you for a relatively civil discussion ;)--you
Thx… but as I see it, the problem has less to do with letting the record speak for itself than with… who will get the last word. ;)
It's all yours ;)
The UN is running "refugee camps" on the West Bank that have celebrated their Golden Jubilee.
There is a message in that fact...
It is the United States vs the American Indians. Two cultures that were antithetical to one another and, because of their nature, could not co-exist. One was a nomadic culture, the other based on a settled agriculture. One subscribed to the concept of private property, the other to communal property -- which becomes impossible when both are claiming the same property.
In this particular case, neither was devoted to the extermination of the other. Instead, the Indian Wars were about preserving one culture vs imposing another culture.
It is possible to construct a moral defense for either side of this particular culture war. One can argue who was right and who was wrong. But one cannot argue the outcome: one culture prevailed over the other. From a practical standpoint, one culture was superior to the other when it came to the issue of survival.
We (and the world) now find ourselves confronted by another culture that is antithetical to our existence. The Radical Islamists want to a.) kill us or b.) convert us. Seemingly, if they had their 'druthers, they 'druther the former. This is where the analogy with the American Indians breaks down -- they did not undertake to exterminate the white man, nor did they wish it. By the same token, the white man had no interest in extinguishing the Indians, merely subduing them.
Co-existence, the strategic equilibrium that was achieved during the Cold War, is not an option under these new circumstances, though. Just as the culture of the Arapahoe and the Cheyenne could not co-exist with barbed wire fences and wheatfields, the Radical Islamists cannot co-exist with Western Civilization.
Thus, the morality of the War on Terror is moot. It is not really a question of right or wrong. It is a question of survival: Kill them before they kill us. Kill them while they are still a relative few, before their movement expands further.
full article here:
Yes!!!!
A working link to the original essay:
http://www.lee-harris.org/2355/our-world-historical-gamble
In retrospect the most horrible “unintended consequence” was the rise of Reid, Pelosi, and Obama.
Yes, their rise was a direct result of the Iraqi War.
Our media makes no money from war, but great sums of money from redistribution of wealth from investment to consumer spending. So it seized the opportunity to get redistributionists elected to congress where our Constitution gives great power to extract “whatever” from a President embroiled in an unpopular war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.