tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post3181117214381205529..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Mosque at Ground Zero: Hitchens 1 - Coyne & Harris 0Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-82291145218962434552010-09-06T16:24:06.008-04:002010-09-06T16:24:06.008-04:00I would say that it is Harris and Coyne 1 - Hitche...I would say that it is Harris and Coyne 1 - Hitchens 0 for they prove to know well the real nature of islamic ideology (in the same league with Nazism and Bolshevism) and the extreme scarcity of the real muslim moderates, in the Western acceptation of this term (the 'nutcase' you talk about have actually very strong justification for their deeds in basic islamic traditions, although of course suicide bombimg is a novel method in the 'arsenal' of islam). As far as I know Hitchens also knows well islam so I am somehow puzzled of his stance, he is well aware of the fact that if islam ever gain some power no devout muslim (a vast majority) will be so generous with your successors...I would go well beyond Harris in fact the imam Rauf cannot be labeled 'moderate' (given his support for sharia, blamed the U.S. for the 9/11 attacks etc) and The Third Jihad, active action to overthrow your Constitution, is already in America (via the stealth jihad of CAIR, read for example the book 'Muslim Mafia'). The Ground Zero project should be moved elsewhere, The First Amendment is no excuse for inaction.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03860432436122780366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-15897234213762229162010-08-31T21:45:45.271-04:002010-08-31T21:45:45.271-04:00It took you 1091 words to say something you could ...It took you 1091 words to say something you could have said in 4: I agree with Hitchy.Huincahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16982673401388824986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50235223343734178252010-08-25T11:06:11.745-04:002010-08-25T11:06:11.745-04:00Jim,
You'll notice that there's no contra...Jim,<br /><br />You'll notice that there's no contradiction in the following sentence: "Though X should not be an issue, it nevertheless has become an issue, so here's my stance on X." There are lots of issues which, in my opinion, shouldn't be issues, but this does not mean that I will refrain from ever discussing them. I don't think that gay marriage should be an issue, <i>and yet it is</i>, and there are valid reasons to discuss it <i>now that it is an issue</i>. If you do not understand these distinctions now, I doubt very much that I can help you further.<br /><br />In Massimo's case, if I interpret correctly, he feels that the "Ground Zero Mosque" is a bit of demagogy from a particular sector of the Right and that atheists should easily recognize this. This being a moral argument, he uses widely-held values to reach his conclusion. What you accuse him of is treating such values as a "starting point", but Massimo (if I read his comments correctly) does not consider things like "the First Amendment should be upheld" to be starting points. We can debate values such as this and how we label them (liberal or not), but in rejecting those values, one should at least name those with which he disagrees if he wants to be understood.<br /><br />Massimo is treating First Amendment rights in a presuppositional way in the same manner that he treats the existence of an objective reality in a presuppositional way. It does not mean that lacks arguments in support of either.<br /><br />For Israel and Palestine, you and Massimo can debate the always fun question of "who started it" if you please, but if Massimo assigns Israel original fault, he might well be treating this as the outcome of a method instead of an ideological starting point. If political ideology is the problem, as you seem to imply, then you might ask yourself why you would feel the need to dismiss this post as irrational on the basis of a politically-charged example.<br /><br />Lastly, I'm not associating you with creationists as grounds for dismissing you. I only point out that you employ reasoning which you would presumably reject from others.Zachary Vochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06226360994749986604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-24127647202998240602010-08-24T18:05:13.031-04:002010-08-24T18:05:13.031-04:00So, when you trash Christianity and Islam, you'...<i>So, when you trash Christianity and Islam, you're not trashing Christians and Muslims? </i><br /><br />No, I am discussing ideas and in this case I think the ideas are incorrect. If people believe in these ideas so firmly that they shape their identity around them and attach their self-worth to these beliefs, then it's possible (probable even) that some people may take it personally but I don't see a way around that, do you?<br /><br />There are times when specific Christians push themselves forward to discuss their own ideas and then it's entirely appropriate to critique their impact on the world, just as we can criticize Bush or Obama in addition to criticizing their ideas. Here we're still dealing with individuals and not groups of people, even though some may be so attached to their political leaders that they feel personally offended. Again, I don't see a way around that, do you?Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-32761075863640875762010-08-24T16:05:56.115-04:002010-08-24T16:05:56.115-04:00Tyro: "Indeed. Curious how people equate crit...Tyro: "<i>Indeed. Curious how people equate criticism of Israel (the state) or Judaism (the religion) with criticism of Jews (the people).</i>"<br /><br />So, when you trash Christianity and Islam, you're not trashing Christians and Muslims? <br /><br />Tyro: "<i>I think that dishonest equivocation is politically motivated to silence criticism and has been all too effective.</i>"<br /><br />Agreed.Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15090734283426391023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50453747038523010012010-08-24T14:22:02.821-04:002010-08-24T14:22:02.821-04:00Indeed. Curious how people equate criticism of Is...Indeed. Curious how people equate criticism of Israel (the state) or Judaism (the religion) with criticism of Jews (the people).<br /><br />I think that dishonest equivocation is politically motivated to silence criticism and has been all too effective.<br /><br />Massimo 1 - Paisley 0<br /><br />:)Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-73539137764349136952010-08-24T14:08:46.063-04:002010-08-24T14:08:46.063-04:00I'll take my chances.I'll take my chances.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-14950247464680615022010-08-24T14:06:38.600-04:002010-08-24T14:06:38.600-04:00Massimo: " And the Israelis are committing sy...Massimo: "<i> And the Israelis are committing systematic atrocities against the Palestinians as we speak (who, in turn, keep committing acts of violence against Israeli civilians), and those atrocities are incited and justified by orthodox Judaism.</i>"<br /><br />You're walking a fine line here. Your statement could be interpreted as anti-semitic.Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15090734283426391023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38242183602210786142010-08-24T13:17:38.198-04:002010-08-24T13:17:38.198-04:00Zach,
I am sorry, your point it what? that its n...Zach,<br /> I am sorry, your point it what? that its not hipocritical to say something should be a non-issue and then write a post to make a complete arguement on the issue?(not on why its a non-issue for athiests, but for why one stance is correct). I am sure Massimo appreciates your defence, but I still fail to see the logic in it<br /><br /><i> I also hope that you understand the distinction between "this guy was incorrect", "this guy should have never said anything", and "I find it disturbing that atheists are even having this discussion at all." The last statement is emotive, but I took it as expressing the sentiment (which I share) that it is disturbing that some atheists are jumping aboard this political nontroversy for poor reasons</i><br /><br />Hey Zach, the post isnt about why athiests shouldnt join in with the political non-controversy. He makes an arguement as to why one stance is correct. So no, your point is not valid here. Massimo used it as a lead in, so that he could weigh in himself. This is because it is just as important to align himself with liberalism than it is rational thought or atheism or even more so.<br /><br /><i> You've made the worrying shift from "Massimo said that Israel has committed atrocities" to something like "typical liberal presupposition, always assuming that Israel is at fault." </i><br /><br /> The way it reads is that the Israeli are comitting atrocities against the Palestines (and then<i>in turn</i>the Palestinians do the reverse). Written this way, it is saying that the Israelis started it and the Palestines are reacting to the atrocities. Usually if the author wants someone to know that their is equal blame he doesnt write Joe puched Sam and then in turn Sam punched Joe back". He writes Sam and Joe punch each other, or something of that affect. If what you say is true, and M feels the Palestines are equally to blame Massimo should correct me.<br /><br /> And since he has weighed in so completely, I would still like Massimo to answer my origonal question. - Do you believe the claim that they want to build this "culture center" to improve Islamic/American relations? Given the controversy, is that even remotely logical? You defend them, finish the job.<br /><br /><i>Sorry, but this sounds all-too-familiar. It's a common denialist tactic to dismiss an opponent by labeling her position a presupposition and then treating the mysterious "middle" as automatically the reasonable position. If you had replaced the rest of your post with an argument for ID creationism, I would not have thought it out of place.</i><br /><br />Yeah yeah Yeah, then label me as a creationists so you can do the same? its comical you make the same mistake your troubled by in the same sentence. (Yes I realize your not labeling me, but trying to associate instead which is no different)Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-21499557960933625522010-08-24T10:51:42.286-04:002010-08-24T10:51:42.286-04:00Massimo: "But I object to and am terrified ju...Massimo: "<i>But I object to and am terrified just as much by the other two Abrahamic religions...Yes, the Crusades happened centuries ago, but nothing like that is possible for Christianity today because it no longer has temporal power and armies at its disposal, not because the religion is intrinsically kinder.</i>"<br /><br />You could make the same argument for those who espouse the ideology of atheistic materialism. I shudder to think what our society would be like if the "New Atheists" and their ilk ever secure and maintain political power.Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15090734283426391023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11503823360777479712010-08-24T08:45:25.768-04:002010-08-24T08:45:25.768-04:00Alex,
*nobody* is arguing that the developers hav...Alex,<br /><br />*nobody* is arguing that the developers have no right to build the center, not even Sarah Palin. But Coyne sees himself as advocating a different position from Hitchens', hence the whole point of his post.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89446438781465834432010-08-24T03:21:31.113-04:002010-08-24T03:21:31.113-04:00James:
Sorry, it seems I misunderstood you. Also,...James:<br /><br />Sorry, it seems I misunderstood you. Also, I was aware that i could not presume you to be American, so I put an "if you are" in front of it.<br /><br />Massimo:<br /><br />I must say, after reading through Coyne's comment again, I do not see how he has actually taken the position that the centre should not be build. He basically says that he considers it imprudent (an opinion everybody is entitled to) but that it is their right to do it. The latter point seems to be what is important.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72656260201539965802010-08-23T22:26:59.607-04:002010-08-23T22:26:59.607-04:00Tyro,
I appreciate the sarcasm, but I said in my ...Tyro,<br /><br />I appreciate the sarcasm, but I said in my original post that I often don't agree with Hitchens. His criticism of Rauf seems to me to be unfounded, based on what else I read about the guy. And of course the United States were partially responsible for the 9/11 attacks, as I also mentioned in my post.<br /><br />Still, there are significant differences between Hitchens' original post and Coyne/Harris' positions, regardless of whether you choose to ignore those differences or not.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-78782430807428464152010-08-23T20:10:48.459-04:002010-08-23T20:10:48.459-04:00@Alex SL
I think you might be getting my position...@Alex SL<br /><br />I think you might be getting my positions - of which I've said little - and Hitchens' positions mixed up. I opposed the Iraqi invasion, and also, I'm not an American - so, some of the assumed POV reads strangely to me. As I hoped to indicate, the problem, in my view, isn't that someone intervened, but that it was a nation rather than an international body. To use your metaphor: it was the observing neighbor who intervened, not the police, or some other legitimate organ.<br /><br />In Hitchens' view, the ethical imperative trumps all other concerns. I think this view is insufficient, which is a far cry from being wrong. I usually point to Samantha Powers as the poster child this sort of American doctrine (as opposed to Hitchens). This doctrine is guided by the notion that America, by virtue of the fact of its power, is a defacto global justice enforcement organ, and as such, has a duty to act on behalf the betterment of the world. Samantha Powers was Obama's foreign advisor until she said something mean and was kicked off of his campaign. Hitchens supported Obama, in part, for his apparent commitment to this doctrine (I'm reading between the lines a bit here).<br /><br />On a basic level, I agree with them: that a neighbor shouldn't be allowed to beat her husband whenever it suits her, but I disagree in so far as the Powers doctrine holds that the ethical imperative demands that America be an interventionist power, instead, I think it suggests, if anything, that the United States contribute their power to an international body that can legitimately undertake enforcement actions without national bias (or blowback).<br /><br />That some countries previously supported unappealing leaders is, in my view, irrelevant. What's more to the point is that military intervention is a necessary tool of world affairs. The question from there is a matter of legitimacy and structure, not whether intervention is a tool in a general sense (of course, particular interventions should always be assessed).Just Some Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11306519568976890754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48372959656025646142010-08-23T18:51:53.260-04:002010-08-23T18:51:53.260-04:00@Jim:
Note that this "lack of common ground&...@Jim:<br /><br />Note that this "lack of common ground" does not imply a fundamental inability to communicate and argue. Claims like "you are illogical" usually denote something like "your argument is inconsistent and/or incomplete". This is a demonstrable item independent of "I reject your premises". I don't think that you are correct in relieving yourself of the burden of reasonable argument. But you can, and apparently you have, rendering your comment a an insubstantial voicing of personal prejudices. Bravo?<br /><br />"Starting with your distain for athiests to weigh in and then perpetuate the issue by weighing in yourself (under the guise of answering other athiests that supposedly shouldnt have weighed in?). Thats what I mean by liberal thought overcoming your supposed rational thought. This issue of the mosque has become yet another divider where both the liberals and concervatives have taken opposite sides. Liberals taking the correct stance for the wrong reasons and concervatives taking the wrong stance (perhaps for the right reasons). Which is why you had to weigh in."<br /><br />Pigliucci does not "disdain atheists who weigh in" on an issue as some general rule, at least not as I have judged by this or other posts. Now, he might agree and or disagree with particular atheists on some particular issue which is exactly what this post illustrates. I also hope that you understand the distinction between "this guy was incorrect", "this guy should have never said anything", and "I find it disturbing that atheists are even having this discussion at all." The last statement is emotive, but I took it as expressing the sentiment (which I share) that it is disturbing that some atheists are jumping aboard this political nontroversy for poor reasons. Why are we focusing on this `mosque'? What do we risk in joining the demagogues on this issue? Where do we stand on this and why? These are all questions worth answering and admitting disagreement, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to call Massimo out for "perpetuating the issue" as though he were guilty of some hypocrisy. <br /><br />Also, notice that the Israel-Palestine quote also refers to atrocities committed by the Palestinians. You've made the worrying shift from "Massimo said that Israel has committed atrocities" to something like "typical liberal presupposition, always assuming that Israel is at fault." Since when has Massimo claimed that "Israel is (at least partially) at fault" is a starting point? Might he have reasons for this (possibly which you could request) that trace back to "common ground"?<br /><br />"Again here is a example of liberal logic as your starting point rather than rational logic. If you took a no fault stance in this that would be one thing, but as liberals so often do, your starting point is with the Israelis being at fault.<br /><br />There is just no common ground to be found for us. If anything you (this blog in general) has given me clarity as to what I am fighting against in our country. I need to spend less time with the opposing side and more with the middle."<br /><br />Sorry, but this sounds all-too-familiar. It's a common denialist tactic to dismiss an opponent by labeling her position a presupposition and then treating the mysterious "middle" as automatically the reasonable position. If you had replaced the rest of your post with an argument for ID creationism, I would not have thought it out of place.<br /><br />Take that as an insult and dismiss it as such if you wish, but I'd rather you not miss the point.Zachary Vochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06226360994749986604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-78608207525536655612010-08-23T18:27:32.141-04:002010-08-23T18:27:32.141-04:00Hitchens has a follow-up in Slate: http://www.sla...Hitchens has a follow-up in Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2264770/<br /><br />He opens his second paragraph with: <i>From the beginning, though, I pointed out that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf was no great bargain and that his Cordoba Initiative was full of euphemisms about Islamic jihad and Islamic theocracy. I mentioned his sinister belief that the United States was partially responsible for the assault on the World Trade Center and his refusal to take a position on the racist Hamas dictatorship in Gaza. The more one reads through his statements, the more alarming it gets. </i><br /><br />Wow, that could almost sound like Sam Harris. Sure good to know that, despite his words, Hitchens really is so opposed to Harris and Coyne that they're on different teams and only Hitchens gets a point. We can stop reading here before we see Hitchens positively channel Coyne: <br /><br /><i>It would be nice if this were true. But tolerance is one of the first and most awkward questions raised by any examination of Islamism. We are wrong to talk as if the only subject was that of terrorism. As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind.</i><br /><br />That must bring the score to: Massimo 1, everyone else 0.<br /><br /><br />It's almost like you can defend people's right to speech and to practice religion like a modern-day Voltaire and still criticize their speech and their religion.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49982603907910021972010-08-23T12:43:53.405-04:002010-08-23T12:43:53.405-04:00Sorry Massimo, I guess I am failing reasonable deb...Sorry Massimo, I guess I am failing reasonable debate by not stating my arguement. There is so little common ground its beyond a lost cause. I figured in my two examples the reasoning of why it is certainly not apples to apples was obvious since your comparing apples to McDonalds cheesburgers. The post is just full off poor logic that I cant believe passes for a logical opinion. Starting with your distain for athiests to weigh in and then perpetuate the issue by weighing in yourself (under the guise of answering other athiests that supposedly shouldnt have weighed in?). Thats what I mean by liberal thought overcoming your supposed rational thought. This issue of the mosque has become yet another divider where both the liberals and concervatives have taken opposite sides. Liberals taking the correct stance for the wrong reasons and concervatives taking the wrong stance (perhaps for the right reasons). Which is why you had to weigh in.<br /><br /> <i>And the Israelis are committing systematic atrocities against the Palestinians as we speak (who, in turn, keep committing acts of violence against Israeli civilians</i><br /><br />Again here is a example of liberal logic as your starting point rather than rational logic. If you took a no fault stance in this that would be one thing, but as liberals so often do, your starting point is with the Israelis being at fault. <br /><br /> There is just no common ground to be found for us. If anything you (this blog in general) has given me clarity as to what I am fighting against in our country. I need to spend less time with the opposing side and more with the middle.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-15608955678377655782010-08-22T19:49:16.890-04:002010-08-22T19:49:16.890-04:00James:
What I want to say is that this is not onl...James:<br /><br />What I want to say is that this is not only an issue about whether you, as an outsider, should intervene if your neighbor is beating his family. Maybe you should not go and rough him up but instead call the cops and let the legal system, however imperfect, do its thing.<br /><br />But the situation with Iraq is more complicated: if you are a citizen of countries such as the USA or Germany, you have (or your father has, if you don't like this direct responsibility) pretty much handed that guy a club and told him to go on with it for years and years before he finally fell out of favor with you around 1990. On the one hand, it could be argued that this even increases our responsibility to finally remove Saddam from power, but on the other hand it comes across as pretty cynical to claim the moral high ground, and it should increase your sketpicism about the wisdom of this kind of foreign meddling in other countries' affairs in general.<br /><br />I am still uncertain about the best policy myself, but I have this nagging feeling that many countries in the world would be better off if they were just left to decide what government to have on their own, without somebody from the outside either propping up dictators, funneling money to guerrilas or installing democracy by force. Note that even the first two options were usually well-intentioned in a way, as they were often seen as the more benign alternative to those scary socialists who would do totally evil things like nationalizing the oil industry.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84852133344523227142010-08-22T12:35:16.064-04:002010-08-22T12:35:16.064-04:00@Alex SL
I have no idea what any of that means. Y...@Alex SL<br /><br />I have no idea what any of that means. You'll have to be more direct with me. Complete arguments will be satisfactory.Just Some Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11306519568976890754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-4767747937617343582010-08-22T12:31:44.415-04:002010-08-22T12:31:44.415-04:00@Massimo
I don't think Hitchens made the argu...@Massimo<br /><br />I don't think Hitchens made the argument for the United States particularly, but rather, for any civilized (I think he might himself use the word "civilized") nation. But yes, that translates into the United States. We might agree that this isn't the best solution - personally I believe the United States should transfer its military power, in a slow orderly manner, to an international body - but until the current situation changes, as the party with the military might in its fat little fingers, it ethically falls to the United States to supply military force where necessary.<br /><br />But why Iraq? I think there are a few reasons. Hitchens had a history of contact with the Kurds, and has for years been calling for military action against Iraq - it's one of his hobby horses. This doesn't make it a good idea though. But just because there are too many tyrants to depose, one aught not to conclude that none should be deposed, because, well, that would be derelict. So, why Iraq, why not another country? Since 1980, China, for example, has been trending away from human rights infractions (I have to note that much of what passes for human rights infractions is nonsense), and in general, doesn't interact with the world in a threatening manner. They don't even make the long list of regime's that must be disposed of (assuming one can even make a list), much less the short list. In fact, the contest for worst tyrannical leader in 2001 had some clear leaders. Flashback to the dreaded Axis of Evil speech - not as ridiculous as it sounded at the time. But was it necessary to go into Iraq specifically, right at that moment? <br /><br />I think Hitchens has argued that this is not a justificatory question. The moral imperative to depose Saddam makes any time the right time. The question of justification, if one accepts moral imperatives, has been met. The only question from there is feasibility.<br /><br />Every year I find it harder and harder to argue that Iraq was not feasible. Would Iraqis be better off right now had Saddam not been deposed? I'm not convinced that that is the case; however, it is the case conditions in Iraq are improving where they probably would not be improving if Saddam had not been deposed. Not only was Iraq feasible, but it might be quickly becoming a success story.<br /><br />I don't think the charge of "wrong" and "naive" is a very strong one. Certainly, it isn't an obvious one.Just Some Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11306519568976890754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9015071398888777922010-08-22T09:11:11.024-04:002010-08-22T09:11:11.024-04:00James,
if Hitchens was in favor of invading Iraq ...James,<br /><br />if Hitchens was in favor of invading Iraq even before 9/11 (and I don't doubt what you wrote) then he is even more naive than I thought. Why Saddam and not China, if we are talking about being the world police of human rights? Or Chad, if we only go after small potatoes? Etc.<br /><br />Alex,<br /><br />this is not *that* discussion, but as you know, I really don't think I'm misrepresenting Coyne, Dawkins and the like, and I do think that our philosophical differences, while subtle (I mean, it's not like I'm religious, or a creationist!) are most certainly not inexistent.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9457414557458971862010-08-21T21:34:48.836-04:002010-08-21T21:34:48.836-04:00James:
Perhaps it would be more morally defensibl...James:<br /><br />Perhaps it would be more morally defensible not to depose such dictators if they had not so often been installed and propped up by the USA in the first place.<br /><br />But well, apparently nobody is able to keep their hands out of weaker countries' internal affairs, from China in North Korea to Pakistan in Afghanistan or Syria in Lebanon. Makes it much harder to use the old proverb that every people has the government it deserves...Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-70012235052725511712010-08-21T16:58:47.484-04:002010-08-21T16:58:47.484-04:00Alex, a bit sensitive, perhaps?
To the repeated i...<i>Alex, a bit sensitive, perhaps?</i><br /><br />To the repeated implicit to explicit assertions that nearly everybody who disagrees with you on this issue is either an uncritical groupie of a different blog or wants to destroy the humanities? Why, yes.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40034416356294158372010-08-21T15:18:21.089-04:002010-08-21T15:18:21.089-04:00Massimo, re: Hitch and Iraq
I know, this is a l...Massimo, re: Hitch and Iraq<br /><br /> I know, this is a little tangential, so, I apologize in advance.<br /><br /> It shouldn't be surprising that Hitch was in favour of the Iraq invasion LONG before 911; he's been calling for Saddam's removal since the 1970s. In the swamp of details that flooded the post-911 scramble for justificatory power, Hitchens' position can be easily diluted, but considered in its most general form, it's not so easy to argue that Hitch was "wrong".<br /><br />As is often the case with Hitchens, his position was fundamentally structured on moral premises. To paraphrase: Saddam was the sort of totalitarian dictator that civilized people ought not to tolerate. His argument for invasion was always that there was a duty to do so, and that the worst that could be said about an invasion to forcibly depose Saddam was that it had been too long delayed.<br /><br />I'm not convinced that Hitch is necessarily right, in fact, I'm generally a little more pragmatic when it comes to military intervention, but I don't think the question of whether or not there is a moral duty to depose dictators has been so obviously settled. Is it naive, if one believes there is a moral imperative to depose, to actually follow through on that imperative? His rightness or wrongness turns on the imperative.Just Some Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11306519568976890754noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-43407709067347113922010-08-21T12:37:34.967-04:002010-08-21T12:37:34.967-04:00I'd note, first, that every article or opinion...I'd note, first, that every article or opinion piece or whathaveyou I've read on the mosque issue has each employed a number of analogies in an effort to understand "what is at stake".<br /><br />Is it possible to debate the mosque issue without using analogies? <br /><br />Myself, the first analogy that came to mind was Japan post-WWII: the Yasukuni Shrine. For me, the whole "mosque issue" was patently absurd, not even worth discussing. So, too, was the Yasukuni Shrine issue, the first time I'd heard of it. And yet, during Koizumi's time, I saw how this issue that seemed silly to me had the power to shape foreign policy. Indeed, there were numerous times when Koizumi's position on Yasukuni got in the way of relations with Korea and China. His stubborn (religious?) persistence in visiting this shrine ended up creating very real foreign policy roadblocks. <br /><br />So that, for me, is the issue. My initial reaction to this whole thing was that it is kind of ridiculous. But things that are ridiculous can often end up shaping foreign (and, of course, domestic) policy. And that, to me, is the real issue at stake. Now, of course, I am still all for the mosque; yet, I still see how this issue could shape policy. <br /><br />But perhaps that is only because of the particular analogy I chose (Yasukuni Shrine). Who knows what I'd think of the whole issue if I thought of it without analogy (alas, it is too late for that).Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02380037523910257491noreply@blogger.com