Enjoy this look at "rational debate" here.
Sadly enough, this really is about the level I think a good portion of "debate" occurs on in our society today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This blog is dedicated to ethical debates regarding Just War Theory and the Profession of Arms as well as other issues of philosophical and ethical interest. Its primary contributors are future Air Force Officers currently attending the Air Force Academy. The views expressed in this blog are solely the opinions of the individual authors and not of the United States Air Force nor the Department of Defense.
4 comments:
I do not think this is serious...is it?
Well, maybe he is tapping into some deep Kantizm where the answer just is...maybe? A bone?
The first guy ends his article by saying that the war is morally wrong, but never brought up a single solid moral argument. He may have hinted at the effects that the war will bring, but he never really articulates the reason behind his opinions. So for the most part these days, that's the primary method of choice for many journalists who argue their point, namely relying on the emotional appeal of their topic. I would consider this closer to propagada than philosophy. It just is, and if anyone disagrees, you're wrong. You just are.
I can't help but laugh. Then I think about it, and I laugh again. How wise can both of these people really think they are? Spouting opinions off as fact (in BOTH cases) is nothing less than foolish.
Maybe they are smart people (if in fact they are serious) and they've thought through these rationally, but the presentation is foolish.
And again I laugh.
I think laughing is a good response to this one, but now I feel like I’m going to throw up. The first guy, Eckert, brings up some interesting points but asserts them in a way that involves only big words and no support. I feel like this is the typical “free speech” way of disagreeing with the war: big words with little to no support. Those how agree with this guy don’t agree with his argument (because he doesn’t have one). Instead they disagree with his position in opposing the war.
The response is where I get even sicker. Sheffer must be kidding…right? Well, maybe he’s mocking the position taken by the government in facing opposition? The phrase, “Trust me, it's all going to work out perfect. Nothing bad is going to happen. It's all under control” may to be used to frequently but maybe this is the impression received by the rest of the world on the US government’s position.
The little bit of light we can get from this is the importance of clearly communicating our intentions in Iraq. Hopefully this will give the guy with big words and no argument something to actually argue, or maybe make the other guy sound a little more intelligent in his counterargument.
Post a Comment