Bush declares National Sanctity of Human Life Day

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

...But to expect a man not to behave according to his beliefs, and take that as yet another reason to dislike him? It makes no sense...

The posters complaining about Bush's "declaration" have not said they dislike him because he acts sincerely on his beliefs, but because of the content of the beliefs themselves. Achilleus and epeemike81 explicitly explained this, yet you continue to argue against the stance they haven't adopted. Odd.

[Inquartata]

If you believe that, then as usual you are not reading very closely.

Plus, my initial response was to Amadeus who said he found the proclamation emblematic of everything he disliked about Bush. Not the sentiments in the proclamation, but the proclamation itself.

[jeff]

Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension skills, Inq.

Consider the exact text of Amadeus's post: "and in one letter, bush sums up nearly everything i find wrong with his presidency (namely, the extremely conservative birth control and abortion opinions and the religion that keeps coming up in his speechs and opinions)" (emphasis added)

Here, Amadeus explicitly refers to the sentiments in the proclamation, to use your words, exactly the opposite of what you state. Nothing could be clearer, with him or the other posters.

Perhaps you haven't carefully read what others have written, or maybe it's a clever way to change discussions to one where you have a stronger position. For example,: change it from a discussion of Bush's policies to an argument about having "firmly held beliefs". It's much stronger position to argue that it's good to have beliefs (instead of being valueless), and harder for anyone to counter-argue that having none is good, than whether a specific set of beliefs is stupid or not. Or, on a recently neglected sub-thread to try to mis-represent Franklin aphorism as a claim that security and liberty are invariably contrrary - which he never said.

[achilleus]

Ya know, I was working out this detailed response to Inq, trying to explain the position clearly, and Jeff just stepped in and quite clearly said all that needs to be said on that minor debate.

Although, I doubt that's all that will be said...

[Amadeus]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

So you'd prefer a man with no firmly held beliefs? Or just one that would not act on them?

I don't care for the religious right's moralizing myself, and I am pro-choice, but honestly, how can you fault a person for acting on their convictions?

If i think that the president's beleifs are unconstitutional,

or if i think that he's trying to use his powers to imprint his beleifs on others,

or if i think that his ridiculous contraceptives stance is killing people in africa,

then i would rather that he had no firmly held beleifs, or did not act on them. One or the other.

(and i don't mean to make this into a separation of church and state thread or anything. I'm only explaning my opinion. I realize that many people disagree with me passionately on these last few statements.)

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Nothing wrong with my reading comprehension skills, Inq.

Self-diagnosis! Very reliable....

Here, Amadeus explicitly refers to the sentiments in the proclamation, to use your words, exactly the opposite of what you state. Nothing could be clearer, with him or the other posters.

Apart from a vat of tar, perhaps.

If it were that clear, I would not have gotten a chorus of answers ( amounting to defenses ) of my question about why a President following his convictions and doing as he said he intended to do should be yet another reason to dislike him. There would have been only one answer, and that the only one needed: "He didn't mean that, he meant Bush's beliefs were repellent, not that he acts on them".

But did anyone say that? No. Instead, they said things like

"Hitler had firm beliefs. Do you fault him for his strong convictions? Do you fault him for acting on these convictions?"

"If I dislike Bush's social policies, then this is a reason to dislike him."

"I'm basing my judgments on his actions. Actions like this, make me dislike him as president."

In fact, Jeff, you are the only one to this point who has said that the remark was a reference to the sentiments, rather than the acting on them.

And then you claim to speak for the other posters as well as yourself.

Perhaps you haven't carefully read what others have written, or maybe it's a clever way to change discussions to one where you have a stronger position.

Ah, but why would I bother to try "clever" ruses when there's a keen mind like yours around to see right through them?

I thought you were a fan of Occam, anyway?

It's much stronger position to argue that it's good to have beliefs (instead of being valueless), and harder for anyone to counter-argue that having none is good, than whether a specific set of beliefs is stupid or not.

I suppose it would be, if that were the argument at hand. But no one advanced the proposition that it's good to be without values...only that it's bad to act on them when they're Bush's...or maybe when they're not one's own. It's like saying you hate lions, and that you hate them even more for eating meat.

It's good to have beliefs, AND good to act on them. About the beliefs it is possible to disagree, but about the latter I don't think there can be much of a valid dispute. Indeed, I think that those who have convictions and DON'T try to act on them when they have the ability are amoral or weak-willed. "Lukewarm" was not and is not a compliment.

Or, on a recently neglected sub-thread to try to mis-represent Franklin aphorism as a claim that security and liberty are invariably contrrary - which he never said.

Still trying to get back to that one, but I never said that. I offered reasons why his dictum need not be true in all cases, and therefore why it is not the forceful argument-deciding quote some people seem to believe it to be. That was just one of those reasons. ( We might dig deeper, and argue about whether the "liberty" and "security" to which his aphorism was adduced as relevant is in the first case "essential" or in the second case " temporary". And then go on to discuss who gets to decide who "deserves" something based on any trade-off between the two. But let's not do that, it might be taken as libeling a national icon! )

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Ya know, I was working out this detailed response to Inq, trying to explain the position clearly, and Jeff just stepped in and quite clearly said all that needs to be said on that minor debate.

Although, I doubt that's all that will be said...

You are prescient! Or perhaps only experienced...

Anyway, considering that you've said several times now that Bush taking action consistent with his convictions is in itself a cause for dislike, nodding at Jeff's defense now seems quite revisionist.

However, anyone has the right to change his mind. Do you now aver that his acting on personal moral convictions, in accordance with those of substantial portions of the electorate that voted him in, is NOT in itself a separate reason to dislike him? I will be glad to leave it at that if so...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

If i think that the president's beleifs are unconstitutional,

or if i think that he's trying to use his powers to imprint his beleifs on others,

or if i think that his ridiculous contraceptives stance is killing people in africa,

then i would rather that he had no firmly held beleifs, or did not act on them. One or the other.

All of these things rest on value judgements. But the question is not whether you disagree with thus or such, or would prefer thus or such, but whether a man, ANY man, is the more to be disliked because he follows his convictions.

As I've said, I didn't like a lot of Clinton's beliefs, but I am aghast at the idea that having them he would not have tried to act on them---for whatever reason. The balance of powers requires a striving of values against offsetting values. If one side doesn't even try, the other wins by default. That is not a good thing for the country IMO.

In sum, it is fine to be a committed vegetarian, but foolish to hate your neighbor for having a burger.

[Amadeus]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

All of these things rest on value judgements. But the question is not whether you disagree with thus or such, or would prefer thus or such, but whether a man, ANY man, is the more to be disliked because he follows his convictions.

...

In sum, it is fine to be a committed vegetarian, but foolish to hate your neighbor for having a burger.

If i do not agree with his convictions, then yes.

this example seems to me to be completely unrelated.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Amadeus

If i do not agree with his convictions, then yes.

I trust that this will be clear enough to satisfy even Jeff.

this example seems to me to be completely unrelated.

If you disagree with the morality of eating meat, then according to your thesis you ought to increase your dislike of a meat-eater when he eats meat, no? The act is an offense separate and in addition to the philosophy, no?

[Amadeus]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

If you disagree with the morality of eating meat, then according to your thesis you ought to increase your dislike of a meat-eater when he eats meat, no? The act is an offense separate and in addition to the philosophy, no?

If i were a vegetarian who felt that eating meat is morally wrong, then i suppose that i would not like meat-eaters, maybe. The difference arises when president bush's actions opinions directly affect me, while the dietary habits of my neighbor do not.

If my neighbor ate meat and forced me to do the same, and i did not eat meat, i would indeed be upset.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Self-diagnosis! Very reliable....



Apart from a vat of tar, perhaps.

If it were that clear, I would not have gotten a chorus of answers ( amounting to defenses ) of my question about why a President following his convictions and doing as he said he intended to do should be yet another reason to dislike him. There would have been only one answer, and that the only one needed: "He didn't mean that, he meant Bush's beliefs were repellent, not that he acts on them".

But did anyone say that? No. Instead, they said things like

"Hitler had firm beliefs. Do you fault him for his strong convictions? Do you fault him for acting on these convictions?"

"If I dislike Bush's social policies, then this is a reason to dislike him."

"I'm basing my judgments on his actions. Actions like this, make me dislike him as president."

In fact, Jeff, you are the only one to this point who has said that the remark was a reference to the sentiments, rather than the acting on them.

And then you claim to speak for the other posters as well as yourself.
...

Well, Jeff seems to understand what I'm saying, and looking at the quotes you choose, I can understand your interpretation.

If you read my posts, in their entirety and not focus on only part of sentence, you'll get a different message. But, I doubt even that will end the debate, as you often act like a terrier...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Well, Jeff seems to understand what I'm saying, and looking at the quotes you choose, I can understand your interpretation.

If you read my posts, in their entirety and not focus on only part of sentence, you'll get a different message.

I didn't, obviously, but---very well. You only dislike Bush for his ideas, then, NOT additionally because he acts on them. Yes?

But, I doubt even that will end the debate, as you often act like a terrier...

At this point I consider it done. But I took a snippy tone with Jeff, so I daresay tha he will have a few follow-up remarks.

And anyway, I am more of a borzoi.

[epeemike81]

In sum, it is fine to be a committed vegetarian, but foolish to hate your neighbor for having a burger.

But Amadeus is not disapproving of GWB for being anti-contraceptive and anti-abortion, he's disapproving of him for trying to change government policies to force that view upon others.

In sum, if you're a vegetarian, it makes perfect sense to dislike politicians who try to pass laws mandating a quota of meat which every citizen has to consume.

try to keep your analogies more relevant. In your example, the neighbor should be chasing the vegetarian around trying to forcibly shove a burger down his throat, at which point the vegetarian's dislike of him is ANYTHING but foolish.

-m

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

But I took a snippy tone with Jeff, so I daresay tha he will have a few follow-up remarks. And anyway, I am more of a borzoi.

Demonstrating that you have some prescience as well, you snippy little thing, you. (I feel some sort of emoticon belongs here but can't think which one would be apt, alas) I'll be just a little snippy so you won't feel the effort was wasted.

It's obvious that "I dislike X's beliefs and policies" (the latter being acting on those beliefs) is a completely different proposition from "I prefer a man with no firmly held beliefs or who would not act on them if he had any". The latter proposition is the one you asked people to defend or address - I just recycled your words. Posts from achilleus, YankeeRebel, epeemike81 all understood that distinction and said so explicitly, even if you'd like to claim that I was putting words in their mouths. Plus some private comments I received.

It doesn't take a lot of insight to see that these two are different concepts, and that being opposed to policies you find repugnant doesn't mean you want insincere individuals with no beliefs at all. And of course, in debate it's much easier to win an argument if you change the subject to a much easier one, eg: if you distract people into defending insincerity...

Of course, this might just be an accident due to careless reading. Be more careful next time. Parsing only the second halves of sentences instead of reading them entirely might lead you astray, and who wants a stray borzoi off its lead?

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

And anyway, I am more of a borzoi.

I'm pretty sure you described yourself as terrier when given an opportunity to argue.

That said, in response what Jeff typed above about misreading...

I don't think he 'misread' anything. Inq's a smart guy who loves to argue, and arguing is very easy when you start picking apart posts. It, in my mind ends up with an almost Clintonian 'depends on your defintion of 'is' is' kinda sentiment, but if are looking to argue...

As I said, looking at the specific quotes Inq used from my posts, I see where he found ground to argue his point...

[jeff]

I did say I was going to be a little snippy in return, didn't I?

I don't really think it's accidental either - over-the-top lawyering and parsing more likely, but it distorts meanings from what is likely to what can be contrived (merely IMHO, of course)

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

But Amadeus is not disapproving of GWB for being anti-contraceptive and anti-abortion, he's disapproving of him for trying to change government policies to force that view upon others.

It cannot have escaped you that that's what government DOES. In fact it's almost ALL it does.

And Amadeus DOES, by his own admission, dislike Bush for his beliefs. And then additionally for trying to implement them. That's the part that I don't understand.

If it were ONLY about "forcing beliefs on others" he would have to dislike every politician and bureaucrat, because that's the business they're all in.

And finally, the proclamation which began this debate and for which Amadeus professes to dislike Bush ( more ) doesn't force anything on anyone. It's not law, it's a meaningless publicity stunt.

In sum, if you're a vegetarian, it makes perfect sense to dislike politicians who try to pass laws mandating a quota of meat which every citizen has to consume.

Again, the proclamation is not a law.

try to keep your analogies more relevant. In your example, the neighbor should be chasing the vegetarian around trying to forcibly shove a burger down his throat, at which point the vegetarian's dislike of him is ANYTHING but foolish.

-m

Now, why should I cloak my own analogy in straw when I have you to do it for me?