Note: I did not see either the bombing or the big fire that occurred while I was in Spain’s capital. A few lovely folks emailed to see if I was OK. Thanks for your emails. I was miles and miles from both events when they occurred.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Strolling through a hilly part of Madrid with four friends after a long, well-wined lunch, we entered a small Plaza with five crooked streets radiating out sharply upward or downward. It was the sort of Medieval intersection you associate with commerce, history and intrigue. It lived up to that association, as upon entering the Plaza we were stopped in our tracks by a cinematic rush of excitement.
About two dozen young African immigrants, each carrying a bundle of knockoff goods wrapped in a blanket came running up the hill. "Here come the East Africans," said our friend Dr. I (an art historian whose father is Ethiopian and who’s spent many years in Kenya, Somalia, Tanzania, etc.).
At first, in my inebriated haze, I took their energetic jaunt up the hill as a sign of good-natured ambition. They were "rushing off to sell their wares" was my first thought. That was quickly replaced by reality as the police emerged from every avenue. They had ambushed the young immigrants. Cars with lights flashing roared in from three of the streets, officers with dogs emerged from other alley ways, and within seconds a good number of the Africans were trapped. Others managed to escape.
Dr. I was initially ready to confront the cops. To tell them to leave the young men alone, but she realized she was in no position to assess the situation or render judgment so quickly. Still, she began telling us the story of these immigrants who scrape together everything their village can spare to "send them to university" in Spain, which is essentially a ruse. Upon entering the country they disappear into the underground, selling goods on the black market and avoiding the police. If caught, however, the police in their home country will beat them brutally after the Spaniards send them back. So these men were not running solely to avoid an unpleasant arrest or ticket.
We hung around the Plaza for a few minutes as the Police herded the men they caught up the hill. A few moments later a visibly shaken young man with his goods in tow entered the Plaza and was obviously trying to decide which way to go. Dr. I greeted him with an African lingua-franca salutation and asked where he was from. Somalia was his answer. She’s very warm and approachable, Dr. I, so immediately the African seemed to trust her. She explained which way the cops had gone and we all jumped in to suggest he go the other way. He took our advice and headed away from the dragnet.
I don’t have strong feelings about knock-off goods other than to be stunned by how quickly they end up on corners in the world’s larger cities. The production processes their creators must have in place should be studied at our finer business schools. I do recognize that they represent theft and suppose if I were one of the manufacturers who lost money due to them I’d be more passionately opposed to the practice. In general, I don’t think the sort of consumer who can afford to spend more than $1000 for a purse would decide not to buy an original because a knock-off was close enough, though, so I’m not sure what their real impact is. I do believe that when it comes to copyright issues, you must be seen to be actively fighting infringement to keep your copyright sometimes (Von, feel free to jump in here), and I suppose pressuring the cops to crack down on the knock-off makers and sellers falls into that. Clearly, it would be better if the young immigrants drafted into selling them were selling legally manufactured goods instead (although, here, too, I’m not sure that’s why they police round them up…I believe it’s more a matter of not having a vendor’s permit, which brings into question more the issue of black markets versus open markets and their impact/morality).
Have I made it clear this issue is not something I’m well informed about?
So why share this anecdote? Because I’m way too partied out and jet-lagged to research the more important issues on my mind at the moment and I wanted to just say "Hi" to everyone. Feel more than free to discuss other things in this thread.
I don’t think the sort of consumer who can afford to spend more than $1000 for a purse would decide not to buy an original because a knock-off was close enough, though, so I’m not sure what their real impact is.
Well, companies spends millions and decades to make their name. Something like a Rolex is a status symbol, but when you see everyone and their mother wearing one then it’s prestige is diluted..
Also, knock offs are of a poorer quality, so if you see someone on a street wearing an “Armani” (which is a knock off, but you don’t know that) and it looks like crap, then your opinion of that company will be affected.
I don’t follow fashion, Stan, but my understanding is that those who do can spot a knock-off a mile away, so I’m not sure those who buy them are influenced they way you suggest. Perhaps those just coming into money and deciding to start consuming more high-end products are, but in the end, I think there’s a clear class division that works in the Rolex/Armani etc. manufacturers favor, no?
I was miles and miles from both events when they occurred.
I was fairly sure (on the “Bad news travels fast” principle) that this was most likely the case, but I’m relieved to know it.
Hope you’re having a good holiday!
Ed —
Stan’s right. Stealing is stealing. And the same doctrines that you’re referring to with respect to copyright protection — essentially, laches* and estoppel — also apply to trademark, trade dress, and patent protection. These are “use them or lose them” situations.
Incidentally, the trouble is not with folks who buy designer goods all the time — you’re right, they usually can tell the difference (or at least suspect, although styles do change). One significant problem, however, is with up and comers; folks who are entering the market and don’t necessarily know better. For instance, I’ve never bought a Rolex. I generally can’t tell the difference between a real Rolex and some of the better fakes. If I see a fake Rolex on a friend’s arm with a scratch on the “cystal” and (in my innocence) think that the watch is the real deal, I may very well conclude that there’s no way I’d buy a 5,000 watch that scratches so easily. Rolex has just lost a sale.
(Here’s a slightly off-topic example: For I long time, I thought that all foie gras came at pate. In general, I hate pate. I couldn’t believe that folks would spend so much on liver. It wasn’t until I was presented with a seared piece of foie gras as part of a degustation that I realized my mistake — and discovered that, whatever moral objections I may have to its creation, foie gras is undeniably delicious.)
There are other problems, of course. Some people would purchase a cheaper knockoff in lieu of the real thing if they thought they could get away with it — even though, in the absence of knockoffs, they have the means and mood to buy the actual item. Never underestimate the effect of a good “deal”; it does not go away just because someone has a couple bucks.
von
*Laches emerges from the old maxim that the law does not aid those who sleep on their rights. (Technically, the maxim is “equity does not aid …,” but it’s another three paragraphs to explain that equity is virtually the same as law for the purposes of this discussion.)
Welcome back, Edward!
The other issue with the counterfeit goods trade, at least in the US, is that it’s run by really bad people. While the ties to terrorist funding are tenuous, the involvement of some of the latest generation of the mob is well established.
Different topic:
Jonah Goldberg and Juan Cole had a recent dust-up. A lot of different issues got conflated and things got nasty.
Here’s my topic / question: To what extent is it appropriate for someone to argue for preventive warfare, when that individual elects not to join the military?
Here’s where I’m going. The Iraq war is a huge break in US tradition. Unlike Grenada or Panama, the US has committed virtually its entire ground force to the occupation of Iraq.
Those who volunteered to serve in the Army have had their trust broken — they were willing to serve in an Army which was used for small scuffles or otherwise defensively, but now they’re being used to remake the world.
sucks to be them. then again, soldiering pretty much always sucks, as best i can tell.
what about people like JG and those who wish to invade Iraq, yet are not willing to enlist? Is it unseemly to advocate that your fellow americans be sent off to war under a far more aggressive theory of hard power than has been policy since vietnam? if so why? if not, why not? does the fact that the various forces are now actually failing to meet recruiting targets change the analysis?
i guess what bugs me is that JG is advocating that our troops take a risk (a) that he is unwilling to undertake himself AND (b) that is a dramatic change from the circumstances under which our troops volunteered. [it’s not really just a risk — duty in iraq or invasion of iran is certain death and injury for a certain percentage.]
i think that sucks, but i’m not exactly sure why.
Francis
Stan’s right. Stealing is stealing. And the same doctrines that you’re referring to with respect to copyright protection — essentially, laches* and estoppel — also apply to trademark, trade dress, and patent protection. These are “use them or lose them” situations.
There’s also the simple economics of supply and demand. Part of the value of a commodity comes from scarcity. It’s a twisted system, but it’s the only one we’ve got at the moment. Don’t the same principles apply in the art world, Edward?
Personally, I think something is going to have to dramatically change in the realm of intellectual property law, and soon. I’m not sure the free market is capable of determining a fair price for an item whose supply is theoretically infinite. And before you make any assumptions, I’m a real hard-case when it comes to piracy, not some “information wants to be free” EFF idealist. What I’m worried about is business seeking out new models for profiting from intellectual property that don’t rely on purchase price (see product placement for a particularly odious example already in common practice).
Part of the value of a commodity comes from scarcity. It’s a twisted system, but it’s the only one we’ve got at the moment. Don’t the same principles apply in the art world, Edward?
To some degree yes, scarcity drives prices up, but it’s a bit different because there are signatures (which tell the experts where the fakes are normally) and the fact that most highly priced art is original (as opposed to photographs or other editioned work which, generally speaking, is not as expensive, although that’s changing) working to keep “knock-offs” from even touching the originals. It’s not like a purse where the expensive ones are still produced in “bulk.”
Stan’s right. Stealing is stealing.
I agree. I guess the question is the actual nonmoral impact. Even if it’s very low, I agree that stealing is stealing, but so often the case the companies with the copyright make (or at least the case we hear in the public dialog about it) is that they’re losing money due to this. I’m not sure exactly how though. Most of the folks buying the knock-off were never going to buy the real thing.
One significant problem, however, is with up and comers
Yes, I agree…they are the folks most likely to be impacted by the quality of knock-offs. About watches, though, you can generally tell the difference by the second hand. If it sweeps continously, it’s the real deal…if it ticks, it’s a knock off.
fdl: i guess what bugs me is that JG is advocating that our troops take a risk (a) that he is unwilling to undertake himself AND (b) that is a dramatic change from the circumstances under which our troops volunteered.
I think this is a difficult question, and it ends up coming down to whether or not you believe the war was truly elective. I do. Does Jonah Goldberg?
[it’s not really just a risk — duty in iraq or invasion of iran is certain death and injury for a certain percentage.]
(I this episode, the role of Gary Farber will be played by Gromit.) That is the very definition of a risk. Unless you mean to say that a certain percentage of the troops going over know for sure that they will not come back alive.
Okay, but Gary never would have misspelled “In”. Back to pedant school for me!
About watches, though, you can generally tell the difference by the second hand. If it sweeps continously, it’s the real deal…if it ticks, it’s a knock off.
Well, see, I didn’t know that.
“About watches, though, you can generally tell the difference by the second hand. If it sweeps continously, it’s the real deal…if it ticks, it’s a knock off.
Well, see, I didn’t know that. ”
I did – and when I saw a rolex fake that was a real good sweeper, I bought it for 15 dollars, and gave it to my dad as joke.
He thought it was real and was VERY suprised that I would just buy one for him for the holidays.
As with practically everything else, there are those for whom it sucks, and there are those that like it. Go read a milblog or twelve and decide whether it sucks to be a soldier.
I have bought fake Rolex as a gift for my friend in Chinatown. And she knew that was a fake watch, but proudly wearing and showing to all her friends.
Everybody was happy seller, me, my friend…..
slarti: i have. and i recognize that many soldiers have tremendous pride in what they do. the fact that they have that pride, and enjoy their work, doesn’t mean that the work doesn’t suck.
for sake of argument, i’d think that being separated from your family, fed lousy food, having to wear ridiculously heavy clothes, having to carry insane weight, sleeping in a dusty tent, following stupid orders, in extreme heat, oh and being shot at, would be a pretty good standard definition of a job that sucks.
ymmv.
Francis
If you want to break the law, it’s a good idea to be a big corporation.
It’s interesting how much truth leaks out when one isn’t paying attention.
I didn’t read the argument between Cole and Goldberg – neither one being among my favorites – but, absent conscription, I’m uncomfortable with Cole’s position as described by fdl.
Advocates of the Iraq War do consider it effectively defensive in nature, so from their point of view no trust has been broken. In fact, it seems to me that, even if this view is foolish, so long as the conclusion was arrived at in good faith no trust has been broken. Soldiers get no guarantee that the political decisions leading to their being sent into combat will be wise, any more than they are guaranteed that the tactical decisions of their commanders will be wise.
Or is Cole suggesting that we are required to enlist for any war we support? If conscription is used I agree. Otherwise, not so clear.
It is a silly argument, because Cole certainly would not be interested in having questions of war voted on only by people in the military–his positions are even less likely to prevail in a military-only political realm than they do in the general population.
I did not see either the bombing or the big fire that occurred while I was in Spain’s capital.
Hooray! [I guess; not so much for those involved.] Glad to know you’re safe and sound.
According to my knowledge of US IP law (based on years following Scientology’s legal fight against leakages of its higher-level nonsense), one does not need to persue copyright infringements in order to keep the copyrights. Trade marks (or was it trade secrets?) are different: you have to defend those in order not to loose them.
one does not need to persue copyright infringements in order to keep the copyrights. Trade marks (or was it trade secrets?) are different: you have to defend those in order not to loose them.
Have I mixed those up? If someone makes a watch that looks like a Rolex, is that a trademark infringement? Von?
Thanks for the clarification Otmar.
Murat and bender bring up a good point. What role/responsibility do those who buy knock-offs have in all this? If you know it’s fake but buy it anyway, are you morally/legally in trouble? It would be insane to arrest someone for buying a $15 watch, no?
Or is Cole suggesting that we are required to enlist for any war we support? If conscription is used I agree. Otherwise, not so clear.
Cole is stating that:
“It is a silly argument”
Agreed, with the possible exception being a hypothetical or conditional wherein Goldberg would have opposed the war if being subject to service in it. There is an unstated presumption of hypocrisy in the charges of “chickenhawk”. However, Goldberg himself probably can’t answer the question. None of us really can til the situation arises.
“To what extent is it appropriate for someone to argue for preventive warfare, when that individual elects not to join the military?”
An argument that is appropriate for anyone to make is appropriate for everyone to make. I also think “ad hominem” attacks are often appropriate, while they never dent the argument, they can sometimes can quiet unqualified proponents. This is not always a bad thing, to encourage the amateurs to listen to the experts.
This was not an intended “ad hominem” argument.
Wait…Cheney is a young man?
An interesting point which has just occurred to me, Felix: does this apply to women, too? Ought a young woman who’s very pro-war be expected to enlist?
I think it’s more than reasonable to ask why someone who is loudly and passionately advocating for war isn’t picking up a rifle and putting his money where his mouth is.
Goldberg’s excuses, about his need to make a living and his desire to spend time with his daughter, seem pretty thin considering the number of National Guard and Reserve members who probably didn’t figure on year-long deployments to Iraq when they signed up, not to mention the soldiers on IRR who have been reactivated after they thought their obligation was over.
re: a silly argument.
SH, you’re misconstruing. Cole is NOT arguing that issues of war should be argued only by those who served. Cole IS arguing that those who propose to use the military in a more aggressive way than historically should be willing to risk their own skin.
I think Cole was wrong to focus on the person. For someone to argue in favor of war, but not be willing to sign up, says something about the merits of the argument as well as the person.
Cole’s stronger point is, I believe, that by showing his unwillingness to enlist, JG is demonstrating that the case for preventive war is weak. JG certainly believes himself to be a patriot, with the best interests of this country at heart. Now that there is a shortfall in enlistees, a true patriot who is willing to argue for a more aggressive military posture should volunteer. Isn’t one of the first rules of leadership that a leader never asks someone do to something he isn’t willing to do himself?
Focusing on the individual, it seems to me that I can put JG on the horns of the following dilemma: either he is a coward, or he doesn’t believe his own argument about the seriousness of the risk. Regardless of whether he’s a coward or a liar, his opinions should have less merit. Cowards shouldn’t make national policy because their fears overcome rationality; liars shouldn’t make national policy because they lie — they cannot be trusted to be arguing in favor of the national interest.
I guess what i’m saying is that discussion about war is different from debates on other matters of national policy. Due to its terrible price, war should be a last option. Therefore, those willing to argue for it should be willing to lead by example.
Francis
Slarti, Cheney was a young man during the 60’s, when he was a strong advocate for the war in Vietnam, but was more than happy to let someone else be conscripted to fight in his stead.
JG may think that his blogging contributes more to the war than his enlistment could.
Here’s a quick, fun, cheap-shot compare-and-contrast:
The demands of justice are both rewarding and depleting. I take great personal satisfaction in the record which has been developed. The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved. The rule of law has been strengthened and upheld in the courts. Yet, I believe that the Department of Justice would be well served by new leadership and fresh inspiration. — John Ashcroft, in his letter to President Bush resigning the post of Attorney General, Nov. 2, 2004
. . .in return, we must provide you all the tools you need to do your job. And one of those tools is the Patriot Act, which has been vital to our success in tracking terrorists and disrupting their plans. Many key elements of the Patriot Act are now set to expire at the end of this year. We must not allow the passage of time or the illusion of safety to weaken our resolve in this new war. To protect the American people, Congress must promptly renew all provisions of the Patriot Act this year. — President Bush, remarks at the swearing-in of John Ashcroft’s replacement, Feb. 14, 2005
So . . . has the goal of securing the homeland been accomplished, or is it just an illusion? Could these people plese get their stories straight?
“Cole IS arguing that those who propose to use the military in a more aggressive way than historically should be willing to risk their own skin.”
Arguably Cole is defending an unusually narrow and less agressive use of the military than many countries have historically been willing to use.
We can each contribute to the war effort in our own ways. At the moment Congress has not authorized a larger military–and we could double the size of out military (return it to Cold War levels) without even thinking about conscription. The chickenhawk argument is a mirror-image reflection of the argument that those who oppose the war do so because they are cowards. If you are willing to make stuff up about your opponents, you can always win in your own mind.
JG may think that his blogging contributes more to the war than his enlistment could.
If so, one would think he would mention that reason when he was giving a list of them. He didn’t. He did, however, list “my family couldn’t afford the lost income” and “I have a baby daughter” as reasons. I wonder what a soldier pulled off the IRR years after he thought his enlistment was over thinks of those justifications.
In addition, if Mr. Goldberg honestly believed what he said about Iraq and the nuclear threat it posed to the United States, one would think that making money could wait for a short time. Some people have “other priorities”, though – as Cheney says he did during that unimaginable-to-Slartibartfast period when he was a young man.
fdl,
Couple things,
“..i’d think that being separated from your family…”
I think sitting in an office, with no windows, processing data, doing the 9-5 bump and grind would suck. It’s just a classic different strokes for different folks kind of thing.
“Focusing on the individual, it seems to me that I can put JG on the horns of the following dilemma: either he is a coward, or he doesn’t believe his own argument about the seriousness of the risk…”
Do we really want to focus on the individual? Do you oppose this war? Do you pay taxes that support this war? Are you willing to go to jail for not paying taxes that support this war? If so, I’d have to say that you’re on the horns of a dilema as well. That’s not a hit on you or anyone else but you can’t knock JG for being a coward unless you are willing to choose the hard right from your perspective.
I think sitting in an office, with no windows, processing data, doing the 9-5 bump and grind would suck.
you’d be right
How so? What on earth does JG’s life choices have to do with whether was was/is a necessity? If this is in fact Cole’s argument, then all that has to happen is this: one pro-war person has to go off to war. If going off to war validates the pro-war leanings of one person, then those same reasons for going off to war are globally validated.
No, I don’t actually believe this, but I can’t believe that someone with a Ph.D. behind his name is devoting any effort at all to polish up the chickenhawk ad hom, either.
Darth Cuddly: I think sitting in an office, with no windows, processing data, doing the 9-5 bump and grind would suck.
I don’t see nothing wrong with a little bump ‘n’ grind.
Of course, 9-5 would be exhausting.
If so, I’d have to say that you’re on the horns of a dilema as well
Argument one: I do not think the situation in Iraq is worth any American lives, and I do not want to risk my life or liberty for that opinion.
Argument two: I think the situation in Iraq is worth American lives, and I do not want to risk my life or liberty for that opinion.
Carefully examine the two arguments. I bet you are keen-eyed enough to spot a subtle, yet important, difference.
There are two kinds of people in the world: those that divide the world into two kinds of people, and those that don’t.
“I do believe that young men who advocate a war must go and fight it.”
This says nothing about aggressive war. There is no limitation at all on the wars Cole is talking about. (I wonder, BTW, whether he intends it to apply also to wars between foreign countries, where he feels that one side clearly is in the right?)
It also seems to say that the obligation is absolute and requires what I think the lawyers call “specific performance,” no buying your way out. Else a truly volunteer army pretty well eliminates the problem. As I said, this really is unclear to me. It has a vague sense of conscription about it that makes me uncomfortable, and it does not seem to impose any requirement on those who are not of military age.
Further, it does, indirectly, imply that only those of military age should be involved in making war-and peace decisions. Suppose others decide on war, and not enough soldiers show up. Then what? A draft? A raise in soldiers’ pay, treating military service as simply a profession, rather than soem sort of obligation?
At a gut level Cole’s point has appeal, but I don’t think it stands up to analysis.
Exactly. The idea that an argument can be valid or invalid depending on who’s doing the arguing is utter fallacy.
What on earth does JG’s life choices have to do with whether was was/is a necessity?
Those choices have to do with whether JG believed the war to be as much a necessity as he was publicly proclaiming it to be. JG is, as fdl argued, either a coward or a liar. I do not use the exclusive or here.
As for the rest of your argument, there was no ad hom by Mr. Cole, there was a statement of moral beliefs, i.e., “I do believe that young men who advocate a war must go and fight it”. Why do you find this particular moral statement to be so troublesome?
Other than the fact that it attacks the character rather than the argument, and is by definition logical fallacy? Oh, not much.
Other than the fact that it attacks the character rather than the argument, and is by definition logical fallacy? Oh, not much.
Nonsense. It is a statement of principles, it does not attack character any more than “you shouldn’t steal” attacks thieves. Do you also find that moral absolute to be an ad hominem attack?
Ok, we could stipulate that Goldberg was a coward, and it still would not make the Iraq war right or wrong.
Ed & Otmar —
According to my knowledge of US IP law (based on years following Scientology’s legal fight against leakages of its higher-level nonsense), one does not need to persue copyright infringements in order to keep the copyrights. Trade marks (or was it trade secrets?) are different: you have to defend those in order not to loose them.
Umm, OK. This is an example of a little bit of knowledge being dangerous. Essentially, Otmar, you’re right: trademark protection, particularly at common law, is much easier to lose than copyright protection via nonenforcement. There are a whole bunch of reasons for this, which I’ll not get into. You can also, however, lose copyright protection through nonenforcement in certain circumstances. Again, the complexity level rises pretty fast, so I’ll not get too far into it.
I probably should have mentioned something along these lines when Ed first raised the issue, but, given my current workload, I’m not really in a position to do this topic justice. Suffice it to say that you can lose almost any intellectual property right through nonenforcement — although, all things being equal, Otmar is right to suspect that it is easier to lose trademark protection through nonenforcement.
Trade secret protection has a twist to it in that, if you fail to prottect a trade secret from disclosure (the ultimate form of “nonenforcement”), it’s no longer a secret and (therefore) generally not protected. But, again, the learning curve is steep and so I’ll not-so-gracefully leave it there.
Hi Edward — welcome back, and I’m glad you’re safe.
Knockoffs: it seems to me that the interesting question about the situation you describe is; why are all these guys selling knockoffs? Is it the only way they can make a living? If so, why? If not, why are they doing this? Answers to these questions might allow us to see what about this situation could be changed so that intellectual property rights are protected, and African immigrants don’t risk arrest every day. Surely the interests of the immigrants and the interests of Rolex don’t have to conflict.
I once spent a long bus ride in Turkey sitting next to a guy who made knockoff LaCoste shirts for a living. I brought up the intellectual property issues, and he was puzzled, as best I could tell genuinely: he pointed to the little T in a circle, next to ‘LaCoste’, and said: this means it’s made in Turkey. I said: no, it means ‘trademark’, and unless I am no judge of character at all, this was news to him. (He bought the labels in bulk from someone else.) He ended up giving me a shirt, and it did, as one might expect, fade much more quickly than a real LaCoste shirt.
Cole’s principles. But regardless of whose principles they are, principles have no place in logical argument, unless perhaps there’s some agreement that those principles are “true”.
And, I might add, the truth of this principle is probably subject to some variation. For instance, I’d imagine Cole would be of the mind that law enforcement is good, but I doubt he’s a member of the police force.
I’d imagine Cole would be of the mind that law enforcement is good, but I doubt he’s a member of the police force
if Cole was standing around telling all of us that the police ought to go take on a specific, yet very dangerous long-term assignment, even if there was considerable disagreement about the necessity of the assignment, who here would be surprised if someone said “hey Cole, why don’t you sign up and help em out your damned self ?”
Cole isn’t arguing that JG should go become a career soldier, he’s arguing that JG should go help implement a specific, yet very dangerous and possibly long-term, policy that JS has been standing on the sidelines cheerleading for years.
hmmm. on second though, maybe the distinction’s not as big as i thought.
oh well…
“Ok, we could stipulate that Goldberg was a coward, and it still would not make the Iraq war right or wrong.”
But that wasn’t Cole’s argument, he was saying Goldberg should shut up about it.
Actually, this discussion of ad hominem is pretty weird, because IIRC, it started with Goldberg attacking Cole’s credibility on Iranian vs Iraqi elections, then Cole responding in kind. In other words the whole dialogue between Goldberg and Cole was ad hominem. Now Cole did provide some evidence and arguments about the Iranian elections;not sure if Goldberg ever bothered.
Do we really want to focus on the individual? Do you oppose this war? Do you pay taxes that support this war? Are you willing to go to jail for not paying taxes that support this war?
I don’t think that holds up. Refusing to pay taxes to support the war accomplishes less than nothing. The upshot would be that the government winds up with even more of the objector’s money, because of penalties, etc.
[i’m beginning to know how Katherine feels.]
Slarti sez: The idea that an argument can be valid or invalid depending on who’s doing the arguing is utter fallacy.
BUT, the decision whether to go to war with Iraq / Iran is NOT subject to logical proof. JG apparently believes that it is a morally right thing for the US to invade foreign countries simply because they are hostile to our interests and may be developing nuclear weapons.
The decision to launch preventive war is a MORAL one, NOT a LOGICAL one. [Hilzoy, jump in any time here.] So, in my view it is appropriate to question the morality of those who advocate for war.
Hypothetical time: Person X advocates for war with Iran. Would any of the factors influence your decision to respect his argument:
a. he is utterly unfamiliar with the middle east, or
b. he has spent his life analyzing Iranian history, or
c. he has familiarity with Iranian weapons programs?
Francis
“if you fail to prottect a trade secret from disclosure”…von, above
allow me some fiction
Bob(Goldberg):Von is just dead wrong about trade secrets, and Von is only saying that because he is a communist
Von(Cole): Bob, have ever taken a class or read a book on the subject in your life?
Bob(Goldberg): Ad hominem! Ad hominem!
The decision to launch preventive war is a MORAL one, NOT a LOGICAL one.
I don’t follow this distinction. Don’t we make logical decisions about our actions based on our moral principles?
“Consider Juan Cole. You probably haven’t heard of him, but he’s the dashboard saint of lefty Middle East experts. President-elect of the Middle East Studies Association, Cole has made a new career for himself in finding the dark lining of every silver cloud. After the Iraqi elections he harrumphed on his Web site that he was “appalled” by the media’s cheerleading of the election. He absurdly declared that the 1997 Iranian elections were much more democratic (Iranian candidates had to be approved by the mullahs). He whined that Bush did not originally intend to have elections of this sort and only agreed when Ayatollah Sistani insisted. Suddenly, Bush the rigid ideologue is too flexible.
Most telling, Cole offered a world-weary sigh that “This thing was more like a referendum than an election.”
The original paragraph by Goldberg that Cole responded to. So can we stop already with poor Jonah being the victim of a vicious ad hominem attack?
No, I suppose not.
Don’t we make logical decisions about our actions based on our moral principles?
It’s the torture thread in sheep’s clothing!
(ps, please don’t take this as being snarky at Bernard, he just gave the right straight line)
Francis: The decision to launch preventive war is a MORAL one, NOT a LOGICAL one.
I’m not particularly qualified to comment on whether the decision to launch a preventive war is a moral one, at least sufficiently more so than other political decisions to warrant the name. I am, however, qualified to say that the decision to launch preventive war was not a “logical” one for any reasonable definition of “logical”, simply because logic is a means whereby one derives inferences from premises and is not directly applicable to real-world calculations.
You can thus argue that the decision to launch the war in the Iraq was logical or illogical given the particular premises; you can argue that the premises were false (which thereby invalidates the argument) or that they were true (which does not necessarily validate it); you can even stretch the term a bit and argue that people’s behaviors were inconsistent with their beliefs; but you can’t claim that the decision was, in itself, “logical” or “illogical” because the terms don’t speak to the issue.
Slarti: The idea that an argument can be valid or invalid depending on who’s doing the arguing is utter fallacy.
As a matter of “truth”, it depends on the level of self-referentiality of the argument; as a matter of moral and political calculation, it’s more or less persuasive — as distinct from more or less “true”, whatever that means in this context — depending on the stature of the person doing the arguing.
[Pace hilzoy, I’m not sure one can easily extricate the notion of “persuasiveness” from the notion of “truth” in morality, at least within some reasonable boundaries.]
I’m generally of the opinion that people can advocate for whatever policy they feel like without having to personally volunteer, as long as they make honest arguments.
However, I find fdl’s dilemma compelling.
Given that a person advocates for a war on the basis that the safety of the nation is at stake, but does not volunteer, there are really only two possibilities:
a) the person does believe that the safety of the nation is at stake, but is unwilling to personally defend it.
b) the person does not believe that the safety of the nation is at stake, and is only engaging in belligerent rhetoric.
Is it wrong to ask Jonah which of a or b is true for himself? Is it wrong to suggest that a) indicates cowardice? Not rare cowardice, mind you, but cowardice nonetheless.
Ed,
Interesting post. I found it kind of interesting when I was in Barcelona that all along La Rambla there were stores owned by Indian merchants selling knock-offs of everything including FC Barcelona football jerseys. No one seemed to be interested. So that leads me to the question, what makes it so easy to get away with selling knock-offs of one of Catalonia’s greatest symbols? Is it not being African, being in Barcelona and being in a store instead of the street or a combination of all three?
“[Pace hilzoy, I’m not sure one can easily extricate the notion of “persuasiveness” from the notion of “truth” in morality, at least within some reasonable boundaries.]”
That’s an interesting thought. I’d say that moral arguments are persuasive thanks to their resonance with ethical axioms and empathies which most humans appreciate instinctually and surprisingly consistently (sociopaths aside). One does not have to be a skilled rhetoritician to make a persuasive moral argument. However, it is possible for a skilled rhetoritician to make an argument as persuasive as a moral argument. Therefore when persuaded by any argument it is worthwhile to take some to figure out whether you’re in the presence of morality or skilled rhetoric.
I don’t, because he’s defined it as a dilemma. Could be more lemmas in there that he hasn’t explored.
Do tell. As I phrased the dilemma, is it possible to a) think the safety of the nation is at stake and is not at stake or b) to think the safety of the nation is neither at stake nor not at stake?
Cole’s principles. But regardless of whose principles they are, principles have no place in logical argument, unless perhaps there’s some agreement that those principles are “true”.
This is exactly wrong. One does not need to agree with the assumptions being made to discuss the validity of an argument. One can assume the statement, “through a point not on a given line there passes not more than one parallel to the line” is either true, or false, and interesting discussion might follow either way. Then again, one could just claim anyone who took the opposite assumption was merely commiting an ad hominem attack, although I don’t see what the usefulness of that stance would be.
I’d say that moral arguments are persuasive thanks to their resonance with ethical axioms and empathies which most humans appreciate instinctually and surprisingly consistently (sociopaths aside).
For the periphery, sure: almost everyone is opposed to murder, for example, or theft or the other great “ethical axioms” that we find more or less instinctive.* Within the central domains, however… is it “moral” to live under a vow of poverty? Is it “moral” to kill in self-defense? Is it “moral” to work for a company of whose politics you do not approve? And so forth.
Within those domains, I’d argue that moral truths become somewhat hard to distinguish from moral persuasiveness. Which is a somewhat circumspect way of saying that I believe in a central core of moral relativism — if you want to live under a vow of poverty, knock yourself out — surrounded by an impenetrable shell of moral absolutism — you don’t get to kill people for the hell of it, period.** This isn’t to say that I don’t have opinions (sometimes very strong ones) about those central issues, but it’s qualitatively different than the opinions I have about, say, murder.
And that squishing sound there? That’s the sound of me trampling all over hilzoy‘s domain. Start writing your eulogies now, people.
* Though not nearly in the ways we sometimes believe; my half-sister’s studying moral codes of the Frankish nobility in the 8th/9th centuries and hoo boy, did they have some different ideas of what’s acceptable. On which note, hilzoy: Do you know of any studies of cross-culturual ethics? Comparative socioethics? Just how wide a resonance is actually found here?
** I’m not sure what it says about me that this is a core of relativism surrounded by a shell of absoluteness, but I am sure it’s not particularly flattering.
However, it is possible for a skilled rhetoritician to make an argument as persuasive as a moral argument. Therefore when persuaded by any argument it is worthwhile to take some to figure out whether you’re in the presence of morality or skilled rhetoric.
I’d say that’s always worthwhile, with the caveat that arguments whose premises and structures are less than mathematical in rigor need extra scrutiny.
I’m generally of the opinion that people can advocate for whatever policy they feel like without having to personally volunteer, as long as they make honest arguments.
I don’t agree with this as a general proposition. Policies have consequences. Is it really reasonable to advocate for policies whose costs are borne totally by others, while some of the benefits accrue to the advocate?
A good example, in line with the current discussion, is supporting a war which will be fought by conscripts. To my mind, this is a terrible, utterly immoral, position. I firmly believe that Cheney, Bush, et al, fully deserve all the criticism they have received on this point and more. It is simply unacceptable to argue that a war is such a good idea that others should be drafted to go and fight it.
Bernard,
Responding to the below post, which is a bit up thread now.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | February 14, 2005 07:43 PM
The argument boils down to “put up or shut up”. It deals with the consequences to the individual advocating an action, not necessarily the benefits/consequences others may get from it.
“Is it really reasonable to advocate for policies whose costs are borne totally by others, while some of the benefits accrue to the advocate?”
Here we return to the police metaphor again. Which is a good one, I think. If we were to try to apply a firefighter metaphor we would be wrong. Firefighters fight fires. There is very little decisionmaking process about what is and is not a fire. They go out and risk there lives fighting an obvious danger. The police fight crime. Generally we accept that though they bear almost all of the immediate risks, everyone else gets to define what crime is. Although we all share in the benefits of good crime-fighting, police officers who do it don’t get the ultimate say on what crime is. Saying that you aren’t a police officer doesn’t ban you from having an a perfectly good opinion on what ought to be a crime.
As for the ‘dilemma’ I would suggest: it was a serious enough problem to be dealt with, it had to be dealt with using military force, the military doesn’t need Goldberg, and his contribution elsewhere is probably better.
I go off to do some work, and what happens? Squishing sounds…
About cross-cultura; surveys: I don’t know. When I have tried to read some, I have generally been exasperated by what they take “a moral difference” to be. E.g.: it’s wrong, in Arab cultures, to point the bottom of your foot at someone; not here. A moral difference? Both here and there, it’s wrong to show disrespect for people gratuitously. There, pointing the bottom of your foot at someone is seen as an expression of disrespect; not here. A difference in etiquette, not morality. Among either the Hopi or the Navajo — I’m rusty on the details — it is, or was, believed that predicting that bad things will happen to someone makes those things more likely to happen. This presents problems in bioethics: normally, we think it’s important to inform someone of the risks involved in a procedure before asking that person to consent to it; but among the Navajo or Hopi, this is (or was) seen as harming them. A moral difference? No: a difference in beliefs about the likely effects of describing risks. If doctors routinely endangered us for no good reason, we’d mind too; and in fact this was, historically, one of the reasons given for not telling people they had a fatal disease (“it will make them lose the will to live”, etc.) Thus, when I read books about supposed moral differences, I usually find them confused, and not informative about what I’m interested in. General works of history work much better, for me; but they make my knowledge less comprehensive.
About the objectivity of moral claims: I think many can be objective, = justified by good arguments, where good does not mean just persuasive. But I will hold off on explaining why, unless there’s some sort of clamor for it (I try to wear the philosophy lightly, here…)
Which would be all well and good, except for when said hypothetical devolves into name-calling, viz:
>
Unless you’re of the opinion that coward and hypocrite arise naturally from this sort of geometrical discussion, in which case I give up.
Sebastian,
No, I don’t think the police analogy holds. Police are not draftees. The point I was trying to make is that advocating for a war which will be fought by draftees is immoral unless you are willing to fight yourself (subject to qualifications about ability to fight, etc).
The essence of the draft, clearly, is that it is coercive. To support a war fought by draftees is to say, “This is a cause so worthwhile that I am willing to force people, against their will, to fight it, with all the risks that entails.” To take that position, and to be unwilling to enlist for combat, seems to me plainly and seriously wrong.
Darth,
I honestly don’t understand your point. Perhaps you could clarify.
Anarch, you may want to read some of the literature on cross-cultural politeness in linguistics. The main text is Brown and Levinson (1987). By dealing with linguistic politeness rather than things like pointing one’s feet or touching the tops of children’s heads, I think it is easier to see how different strategies can collide and it separates us from really difficult questions about withholding medical advice or being placed in a position of killing someone.
Googling turns up this <, href+"http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ea/politeness/">link which I love not only because of the group’s name but for the title of the new publication.
Sorry about the screwy link.
Anarch, you may want to read some of the literature on cross-cultural politeness in linguistics.
Thanks for the reference — and I will check it out when I have the time (ha!) — but that’s not exactly what I’m after. Etiquette is one thing; I’m talking about (what I perceive to be) fundamental moral imprimaturs like “Don’t kill innocent people”.
“No, I don’t think the police analogy holds. Police are not draftees. The point I was trying to make is that advocating for a war which will be fought by draftees is immoral unless you are willing to fight yourself (subject to qualifications about ability to fight, etc). ”
Ok, but we aren’t talking just talking about that. We are talking about Goldberg supporting the Iraq war. That war, and any war requiring less than double our current forces doesn’t require us to worry about the draftee problem. We have police-like volunteers.
Although we all share in the benefits of good crime-fighting, police officers who do it don’t get the ultimate say on what crime is
They may however, at short notice decide that the life of crime-fighting is not for them, and pursue another line of work. If they decide that a law is passed that they do not wish to enforce, they may put down the badge, and walk away. A soldier does not get that choice – he is on the hook for almost a decade during which time he may be sent halfway around the world at any time to fight for a cause in which he may or may not believe. Do you notice that there is a difference? Specifically, Goldberg justified his decision by saying that he had a daughter, but many of the soldiers being pulled off the IRR also have family they do not wish to leave. Goldberg justified his decision by stating that his family could not afford the lost income, but many of the soldiers being pulled off the IRR have the same problems.
the military doesn’t need Goldberg, and his contribution elsewhere is probably better
As if the military doesn’t have openings for writers or propagandists. One could argue that Goldberg is a particularly poor propagandist, I guess, but since plenty of people are purchasing his product, perhaps the military would be a better judge of what use they could put him to, if he did not have “other priorities”.
And here I thought the construct was something like:
If you advocate policy X, you must either a) drop everything and make your life about pursuing X, or b) be a hypocrite.
I don’t think anyone at all was under the impression that being a policeman was really all that much like being a soldier, felix.
You know, this brings up a point that pissed me off about George Will as much as anything. It was in the discussions of women in the military and George Will was taking the line that it would degrade the military’s ability to fight, which he invoked over and over as ‘the sharp point of the spear’. Unfortunately, I think it is still not understood that we need to remake the US military into a global police force, and the inability for some to see how women could fit into the military highlights the inability to look at the military as something different than it was in the past.
This is off the track of wondering about Goldberg’s mettle, a topic of which I have less than zero interest. But it struck me that Seb made the comparison, though I’m pretty sure he wasn’t thinking along those lines. But our inability (and this is not to blame anyone, a lot of this was and is unavoidable) to rethink what our military needs to do seems to be highlighted when the comparison to a police force is made.
Sidereal: Is it wrong to ask Jonah which of a or b is true for himself?
No, and it appears, from what I’ve read here, that his answer is A.
Is it wrong to suggest that a) indicates cowardice? Not rare cowardice, mind you, but cowardice nonetheless.
Yes. You would first have to make the case that cowardice is his reason for being unwilling to fight, which isn’t self-evident.
And here I thought the construct was something like
You contradict yourself. You claim that you “don’t think anyone at all was under the impression that being a policeman was really all that much like being a soldier” while at the same time making a false generalization of Cole’s argument which implies that you do think that the argument made about the military should apply to the police as well if it is to be valid. Cole did not make a universal moral claim about all policies. He made a specific one about war.
I think you need to reach for that dictionary, look up contradiction, and then show me exactly what the hell you mean by that.
What, you need a cite? Consider this the cite.
It’s an analogy, felix. Analogues don’t have to be exactly the same. If you think they do, please let me know and I’ll stop this conversation immediately.
It isn’t just that Goldberg advocates a war as long as he doesn’t have to fight it.
It’s that, during the run-up to the war, he called anyone who didn’t buy the WMDs/nuclear weapons/Saddam-bin Laden-connection sales pitch for the war a fool, a traitor and/or a coward. It’s that he continues to call people who opposed and oppose the Iraqi Adventure fools, traitors, and/or cowards. (He had, and has, a lot of company in this, BTW.)
If anyone can find a shred of intellectual or moral integrity, or even coherence, in this, I’d be fascinated to hear what it is.
Is it somehow your position that Goldberg would stop advocating war if it meant he’d have to fight? Because I’m going to want a cite on that.
Just to be clear, this isn’t a defense of Goldberg. I couldn’t be less interested in that, and Goldberg’s got a sufficiently good position on the ‘net to defend himself more effectively (flipside: fail more spectacularly) than I ever could. Nope, this is just an attack on what I see as deeply, horribly flawed logic.
Oh, and the idea that Bush, as President, really ought to go and fight, himself? Any response I might have to this sort of silliness is sure to violate posting rules.
“It’s that he continues to call people who opposed and oppose the Iraqi Adventure fools, traitors, and/or cowards.”
I’ve seen him call people fools, but I think he saves traitor and coward for very exceptional cases. And that doesn’t help the chickenhawk argument anyway.
Sebastian: but I think he saves traitor and coward for very exceptional cases.
Does that mean like when someone actually is a traitor (like the person senior in the Bush administration who betrayed Valerie Plame’s covert identity to the public) or does that mean when someone says that Bush’s war in Iraq is going really badly?
And coward – When someone could volunteer to serve in Iraq, and refuses? Or when someone points out that the US can’t win in Iraq?
It’s an analogy, felix. Analogues don’t have to be exactly the same. If you think they do, please let me know and I’ll stop this conversation immediately.
Let’s see, you are making an analogy. Specifically, you are comparing policemen to soldiers. And, at the same time you are claiming, “I don’t think anyone at all was under the impression that being a policeman was really all that much like being a soldier”. This (and I suggest you yourself verify this with the aforementioned dictionary) is a contradiction.
If you still want to make the analogy, scroll back up to the post you responded to and you will find that I explained why generalizing the argument Cole made to peace officers was a false generalization. And this time don’t pretend nobody is saying one is that much like the other when your argument depends solely on one being that much like the other.
Well I’ll claim that they are very much alike. They both have guns. They both sometimes have to kill people. They both are subject to political decisions beyond their control. They both have a much higher chance of getting killed than most of us. And they are both volunteers.
I think the argument that if you support a war you ought to be prepared to fight in it was outlined by Robert Heinlein, in Starship Troopers (1959): in fact, he made it even more emphatic – if you support the state you live in, this novel suggested, you ought to be prepared to go fight for it in whatever war it dreams up. Heinlein served in the US Navy between 1929 and 1934, but was invalided out: he never saw combat.
Joe Haldeman presented the literary rebuttal to this argument in The Forever War (1974). Haldeman served in the U.S. Army between 1967-1969: he served in Vietnam and was wounded.
It’s an argument that belongs on a literary level, if you ask me (which of course no one did). People join the army for lots of reasons, mostly economic (as far as I can see): for one thing, it’s the only way most Americans are ever likely to get access to a socialized health service.
Why should Jonah Goldberg join the army and fight for the war he argues for? It won’t convince anyone he’s right, though it might convince doubters that he’s sincere.
And they are both volunteers.
And the difference in the sense in which a peace officer is a volunteer (he can quit his job at almost any time in response to a change in circumstances, environment, or attitude) compared to the sense in which a soldier is a volunteer (one choice, 8 years of consequences in the best case if I understand the IRR correctly) is one difference (among others) which demonstrates the silliness of the analogy in regards to Mr. Cole’s moral stance.
Although I will be interested to hear Slartibartfast’s counter-argument to your comparison, as he did not think anyone was under the impression that the two were that much alike.
I don’t think you know many cops.
Why should Jonah Goldberg join the army and fight for the war he argues for? It won’t convince anyone he’s right, though it might convince doubters that he’s sincere.
Because if the recruiters are not meeting their quotas (and they are currently not) joining is a matter of providing the military with the numbers of recruits it needs, and if the recruiters are meeting their quotas (and when the invasion of Iraq began, they were) attempting to enlist allows the military, at the margin, to obtain a higher quality force by choosing which volunteers to accept. If he believed the nuclear threat from Iraq were as dire as he claimed it was, I think the choice to volunteer would be an easy one, but it seems the thought never crossed his mind. The two most likely explanations are outlined in various posts above.
I don’t think you know many cops
How many Egyptian mystics do you think I know?
Uhh, Copts?
Uhh, Copts?
Nope, the Great Karnac.
“How many Egyptian mystics do you think I know?
Two. But one of them is a fake, and it isn’t the one you think.
Two. But one of them is a fake, and it isn’t the one you think.
Well, in the Great Battle for Total Incoherency, I must graciously admit you are the victor. And you still get the Karnak award to boot. A good showing all around. Bravo.
Since this is an open thread and Copts has been brought up, where is Charles and has he seen this?
In recent days, it has also brought them closer to possibly solving the slayings, which they now believe are likely about money and not the sectarian violence feared by many Coptic Orthodox community members.
“We’re getting somewhere that hopefully is going to give us a clear indication as to what the motive is,” said Hudson County Prosecutor Edward DeFazio. “And once you have motive, that helps lead you to the people involved.”
DeFazio still won’t discuss the intricate details of the case or explain why investigators are leaning toward a financial motive for the killings. But he did provide a glimpse into the probe, which has included assistance from an FBI profiler.
“The FBI does not think that, based on the information gleaned from the scene, it’s based on religious extremism,” the prosecutor said, without elaborating.
The article also notes that the family was killed by knifes found in the house, indicating a lack of planning, but also quotes a former employee who feels is was done by a middleman of a terrorist sleeper cell, which the reporter (who has written the other articles that Chas has cited) notes “has no supportive evidence”.
Retraction forthcoming, no doubt!
“Is it somehow your position that Goldberg would stop advocating war if it meant he’d have to fight?”
I honestly believe the answer is yes, but I can provide no evidence. . only the intensive study of human nature that has allowed me to retire and make millions playing poker.
When in doubt, you ought to probably ask. Allow me to quote myself, changing only HTML:
Still, if you’re expecting what’s being referred to by analogy to be the same in every way as what it’s being compared with, you and I aren’t even speaking the same language.
Oh, so this is a special case, then? Who made the rules? Where can I find these rules?
Since it’s an open thread, how many other people here would know what therianthropic means without looking it up?
therianthropic
Liking pronouns while being dyslexic?
Hmmmm…I’d want a cite on that. Everything I’ve seen indicates that’s an incorrect statement.
That took much longer to write than it did to find, too.
Ok, but we aren’t talking just talking about that. We are talking about Goldberg supporting the Iraq war. That war, and any war requiring less than double our current forces doesn’t require us to worry about the draftee problem. We have police-like volunteers.
Well, I personally have no interest in whether Goldberg enlists or not, Frankly, I suspect things will go better in Iraq without him.
My interest is in the question of whether we are obligated to enlist to fight any war we support, which I understand to be Cole’s position. After chewing this over I think Cole’s argument is essentially an argument for universal military service. The short version is that military service is unique, that it is a specific obligation for which nothing else can be substituted.
On the other jand, if we accept that it is legitimate to have a volunteer army, then we are saying that military service is a profession like any other, and we simply pay those who fight on our behalf, as we pay others who work for the government. After all, if Goldberg supported an expansion of the space program no one would argue that he was morally obligated to study rocket science (chuckle) and join NASA.
Another way to arrive at this conclusion is to ask what is so special about military service. Clearly, it is the high risk of death (or serious injury). But that risk is present even if one joins in peacetime. Wars may break out at any time, so even the peacetime enlistee bears substantial risk. This may be especially true of defensive wars, which have the characteristics that they are started by someone else and that they generally are overwhelmingly supported. So if you would support defensive war you are obligated to bear the risks associated with it, and the only way to do that is to enlist, even in peacetime. (Also, as a practical matter, you must allow time for training, etc. It may do no good to wait for the outbreak).
So I think that the question comes down to one of universal military service vs. volunteer army. So long as the US policy is the latter it is hard for me to agree with Cole.
I wrote: “i guess what bugs me is that JG is advocating that our troops take a risk (a) that he is unwilling to undertake himself AND (b) that is a dramatic change from the circumstances under which our troops volunteered.”
I stand by that position — there was a photo early in the war of a truck, clearly driven by a Guardsman, which said something to the effect of “Two weekends a month MY ASS”. Yes, a lot of those Guardsman voted for Bush, so you could argue that their vote expressed a willingness for a change in military policy. But that’s pretty thin gruel.
The Iraq war, as so eloquently argued here and elsewhere, was PREVENTIVE; we could not wait, per the admin., for the threat to become imminent.
That is a major change in policy, and so I think there’s something really pretty awful about smart youngish men arguing in support of that change in policy — which is killing americans every day — when they’re not willing to bear that risk.
the police analogy is atrocious, really.
a. the purpose of the police is to keep the peace, not make war. VERY few police officers die in the line of duty.
b. police officers can quit at any time.
c. the changes in which the LAPD, for example, are deployed are NOT likely to result in massive increased casualties among the LAPD.
Death is different; police work is not soldiering, in 2005.
Francis
Another way to arrive at this conclusion is to ask what is so special about military service.
That they’re not allowed to quite before their contract time is up. (Without going to jail). That their contract time may be extended without their consent.
What other profession is like that?
Still, if you’re expecting what’s being referred to by analogy to be the same in every way as what it’s being compared with, you and I aren’t even speaking the same language.
The strength of an analogy depends solely on the criteria of whether the things being compared are alike. To make an argument by analogy while also arguing the things being compared are not that much alike is contradictory, whatever you think your bold tag implies notwithstanding.
Hmmmm…I’d want a cite on that. Everything I’ve seen indicates that’s an incorrect statement.
CNN claims, for example, that the National Guard met only 56% of its recruiting goals last month and that the Marines missed their goals last month for the first time in a decade.
That also took longer to write than find, perhaps you are using a different version of Google than I am.
Oh, so this is a special case, then? Who made the rules? Where can I find these rules?
It’s a statement of moral belief. You’ll have to ask Mr. Cole what the basis of his are.
Was Goldberg’s POV perfectly valid for the other eighteen months or so?
No, as was explained earlier in the thread (February 15, 2005 07:19 AM).
Oh, you’re talking about beliefs. I sensed somehow that this was not a logical argument
Yes, we are talking, among other things, about beliefs, as was explained earlier in the thread (February 14, 2005 10:49 PM). And the idea that assumptions (for example, moral beliefs), play no part in a logical argument was also dismissed earlier in the thread (February 15, 2005 01:46 AM).
Got anything new?
I thought it made a difference for the people who are with the reserve.
I would expect those to take up arms to defend their country, and most of those in favor of the war argued that de war in Iraq was in defense of the country.
With hindsight for those people and with common sense for most others it was not self-defense. That changes the premisse I think.
FWIW: our soldiers were in majority against the war in Iraq, but they still went since it was their job. But they are not forced, and they can always quit AFAIK.
votermom,
Another way to arrive at this conclusion is to ask what is so special about military service.
That they’re not allowed to quite before their contract time is up. (Without going to jail). That their contract time may be extended without their consent.
What other profession is like that?
Good points. My argument was in the context of a purely volunteer military.
You are saying that we do not have a purely volunteer military, that there are elements of conscription. That’s worth thinking about.
Slarti: But really, one month of missed quotas, that’s what you’re looking at?
I thought it was generally accepted that there was a manpower problem in the US army, thanks to the war in Iraq, and that it’s only going to get worse – unless Bush instigates a draft.
I know what therianthrope means, but never realized until now that I can’t figure out the etymology. The second root in the word is obvious, but what’s the first?
As far as I can tell, there is no 7:19AM post. Timestamps in preview seem to be screwed up, felix.
Again, you’re going to have correct this because of the timestamp problem.
There was, I believe, some discussion about beliefs/morals, not that it ever amounted to anything definitive. Not dismissing Anarch‘s and hilzoy‘s contributions, just saying they do rather less to support your point than you might like.
No, but I don’t actually need anything new.
The word combines the Greek therion, wild animal, with anthropos, human being.
from world wide words
( I had to look it up 😉 )
Glad you asked, LizardBreath! “Therion” is Greek for “wild animal”.
“I thought it was generally accepted that there was a manpower problem in the US army, thanks to the war in Iraq, and that it’s only going to get worse – unless Bush instigates a draft.”
Umm, no not at all. There has been minor difficulties with National Guard retention–unshocking since the chances of being deployed as a Guard member have gone from near-zero to near-certainty. There has been no trouble meeting main-force quotas, and recruiters estimate that they could easily double the size of the national forces if authorized. The key manpower shortage is because Congress and the Administration have not authorized money for a larger force. Which is a completely legitimate criticism of both, and has nothing to do with the draft.
And here I was thinking theremin.
I’d heard that part of the Guard problem was self-inflicted; that since Rumsfeld’s retention policy was keeping people from rolling out of federal service and into the Guard, that enrollment was suffering. Not saying this makes anything any better, just that it’s a cascade effect.
FYI, Greek “ther-” is cognate with Latin “fer-” (whence English “feral”, “fierce”). Also Slavic zver-, for the Russian speakers among us.
Ah — so I guess it’s a little broader than just werewolves.
While we’re on the subject of werewolf trivia, did anyone else know that the “werewolves can’t stand silver/can only be killed by a silver bullet” thing is not in fact folklore, but rather dates back only to a 1941 Lon Chaney movie? I found this out after musing idly in a medieval lit class, “Funny how there aren’t any stories from before handguns about killing a werewolf with a silver knife.”
Werewolves are serial, the term seems to be originally intended more for Anubis or the Minotaur than werewolves.
As a Buffy fan I suspect all “common knowledge” about the mystical beings of evil 😉
dutchmarbel: werewolves are serial killers? Like Ted Bundy? or Capn Crunch?
Francis
Francis: they are serial as in first human, than animal. Originally the term therianthrope seems to be used for beings that were part god or man, and part animal at the same time 😉
Wouldn’t that be a chimera though?? I now start to wonder?
A chimera is an animal composed of parts of two or more other animals, of which none need be human; a therianthrope would, from the etymology of the word, need to be at least part human. (I.e., any therianthope would be a chimera, but a griffin — part lion, part eagle — would be a chimera but not a therianthrope.)
I, tnxs LizardBreath, you are right. Centaur = theriantrhope, hippogriff = chimera.