Skip to main content

View Diary: If Death is Death... (144 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It is UPGRADING (6+ / 0-)

    the taboo on starting wars except as a last resort.

    The willful misunderstanding exhibited by this diary and the approving comments is stunning in its disingenuousness.

    •  Your argument seems to be (3+ / 0-)

      that all arguments against Syrian intervention are good and all arguments against those arguments are bad. Because you are not engaging the diarist on the merits. If I misunderstand you, proceed with enlightenment.

      I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

      by blue aardvark on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 11:26:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's simply a lie (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        urovermyknee

        The diarist presents no merits.

        I explained the point as I understood it, an argument against an armed attack as a response to an armed attack as a moral or justifiable act.

        What is the objective of the armed attack is the question presented.

        It seems that your view is that anything in support of an armed attack in Syria is good and that any arguments against are bad.

        Maybe you can enlighten me.

        •  That's pretty smug of you to dismiss this diary (3+ / 0-)

          I do perceive merits.

          The argument is whether or not an attack via chemical weapons merits a different response than an attack via bombs and bullets.

          That is what Kos' diary is about. It is also what this diary is about.

          The diarist explicitly states that he does not advocate an attack on Syria, merely that he thinks that keeping chemical weapons on the other side of a line is a good thing. This diary is not in support of attacking Syria, it is in support of the continued prohibition, however tenuous, of chemical weapons.

          Since the diarist says

          I wish I had an answer for the horror of Syria, nearly two years running now.  And I am opposed to intervention by the U.S. because I don't see it as having any sort of outcome that doesn't do more damage to the region.
          your attempts to conflate horror at chemical weapon use with support for an attack on Syria indicate that you have not, in fact, actually read the diary.

          You aren't engaging the diary on the merits. I have yet to see you write anything displaying minimal comprehension.

          I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

          by blue aardvark on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 11:37:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Pretty fucking smug of the diarist (0+ / 0-)

            The paragraph you highlight show the willful misunderstanding of Kos' point.

            Hell, most of the comments do too.

            That the diarist does not support a retaliatory strike is irrelevant to Kos' point. He was not responding to this diarist.

            He was responding to the arguments for a retalaitory strike.

            •  If Kos makes a bad argument in support (6+ / 0-)

              of a good cause, it remains a bad argument.

              Treating chemical weapons as no different than other weapons is a bad argument. Kos needs to find other, better arguments, and such do exist.

              I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

              by blue aardvark on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 11:42:19 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you insist on willfully misunderstanding it (0+ / 0-)

                Then sure.

                Properly understood, it is a very good argument.

                Indeed, a moral argument.

                •  Because there is no room for discussion (0+ / 0-)

                  and disagreement on this site.  Certain people set the Conventional Wisdom and if you are a "progressive" you will agree, no questions asked, no differing opinions allowed, no nuances permitted.  Those who dare voice their opinions, if outside the conventional wisdom, are either "lying" or "willfully misunderstanding" or "rallying the base" or any other of a number of dismissive titles.  The conventional wisdom can't be wrong, ever...because so many good progressive see the rationality in it and really anyone who is smart and thoughtful and progressive can't help but agree.  

                  OK.  I get it.  

                  The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall. -Nelson Mandela

                  by Tchrldy on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 02:32:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If you misunderstand the argument innocently (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    edrie

                    Then I should not criticize you.

                    Buk, if after having the argument and your mistakes in understanding the argument  explained to you, and you PERSIST in misstating the argument, then what is it?

                    IS it not WILLFUL misunderstanding?

              •  So you're A-OK with the firebombing of Dresden? (0+ / 0-)

                “It takes no compromise to give people their rights...it takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people freedom. It takes no survey to remove repression.” ― Harvey Milk

                by lucid on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 11:54:48 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Since I cited it elsewhere as a bad thing (1+ / 0-)

                  ... no.

                  That chemical weapons are bad does not mean that other things are not also bad.

                  I'm on a mission! http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1233352/51142428#c520 Testing the new site rules.

                  by blue aardvark on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 12:22:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Sorry - missed that (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Darmok

                    While Markos' diary might have been ineptly titled, I do agree with Armando here though. I think the diarist and many defending him are missing the point.

                    In my book, war is the moral obscenity period. I see no difference in the manner of indiscriminate murder. And especially in this context - one in which the US has been indifferent to chemical weapons use for many years - I find it quite hypocritical that we would somehow see this specific instance of chemical weapons use as a moral outrage.

                    Address the causes, not the consequences of war.

                    “It takes no compromise to give people their rights...it takes no money to respect the individual. It takes no political deal to give people freedom. It takes no survey to remove repression.” ― Harvey Milk

                    by lucid on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 12:38:27 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  One would think that a conviction that poison gas (0+ / 0-)

              is not just a particularly horrific way to die, but is qualitatively different--and worse--than other horrible deaths, would compel the diarist to support American intervention in Syria as an absolute moral imperative.

              The diarist avoids that clarity though, wanting to be deemed "moral" for drawing a line at the use of chemical weapons... and wanting to be deemed "moral" for opposing intervention as well...

              as though there is no conflict between the two.

              When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

              by PhilJD on Wed Aug 28, 2013 at 01:42:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Armando, (0+ / 0-)

      My comment isn't in the least disingenuous.  If it misunderstands Markos or this diary, then it doesn't do so willfully.

      And I certainly don't want to give comfort to the folks who would wish to bring us closer to war.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site