Leaps of logic.

By rabidrobot Posted October 9, 2006 17:36:54

Another blogger here on JoeUser recently accused me of believing "the only good American is a dead American."

Why? Why would he say such a thing? Well, I'm not really clear on that.

I think he dislikes me so much that he has to reject out of hand anything I say.

Because what I said was: Nuclear weapons and their use is evil--more evil than the use of conventional weaponry.

Of course, it is absurd that I would have had to make that point in the first place. And it is even more ridiculous that to avoid any common ground with me, this guy then felt he had to argue against it. And even more asinine is his conclusion that because I believe nuclear weapons to be a bad thing, that I hate America.

I certainly don't follow it. It just makes no sense. Apparently everyone in the world, including President Bush, hates America. If you think nuclear weapons are more evil than conventional weapons, you hate America! I didn't say it, this other guy did.

(He also told me to learn the rules. I read the rules, but am unclear as to whether I should name names or provide links. I chose to not provide a link, if that was wrong, please let me know)

Most interesting to me though, are certain conclusions one would reach using this flawed logic. You see, the whole thing started when this blogger thought people were blaming Bush for North Korea having nukes. Of course, that is again absurd, North Korea has been developing and maybe even had nukes for decades. So, who, I wondered, was blaming Bush? If someone was doing that, I wanted to straighten them out.

Namless blogger argued that if I feel, and I do, that using nuclear weapons is more drastic than conventional invasion (this was a hypothetical argument originally, so I did not argue the either-or fallacy) that I placed no value on American life. You probably think I am making this up it is so apeshit, but that's the way it went down.

So, according to nameless blogger, anyone who would support convential invasion of a rogue state OVER 'simply' nuking them places no value on American lives. I keep wanting to clarify or explain this more, but this is literally the argument he made. Unlike him, I am not putting words into anyone's mouth, only bringing their own logic to a conclusion.

So, following this logic, President Bush, who supported and led an invasion of a rogue state, using American soldiers, hates America and Americans, because he could have just nuked Iraq.

Which is a very strange conclusion, because the whole discussion started because nameless blogger felt people were criticizing President Bush too much.

Here's the deal. I often disagree with President Bush and his policies. But I often also agree with him. We agree terrorists must be stopped, that terrorists 'hate freedom'. And we agree that nuking a country is more evil than invading a country (among other areas of common ground, such as the sky is blue, and apples fall from trees).

But, to avoid agreeing with me on anything whatsoever, nameless blogger suddenly had to argue that the sky was not blue, that nuclear weapons were not more serious than conventional weapons, and that Bush hated America. That is his argument, not mine.

I feel Bush loves America. I love America. We sometimes disagree on what is best for America, but we agree we want only the best for America and Americans.

Nameless blogger, though, feels that anyone who would use conventional invasion (among other options) to bring rogue states under control, rather than just nuking them and (in the short run) saving soldier's lives, hates America.

So. How about you? Do you hold the opinion that nukes are evil? Are you going to let this guy tell you that you therefore hate America?

If you want to disagree with him, make it quick, though. He doesn't take well to reasoned criticism. Or to "Screw you!" for that matter, which is my own fault.

0 Karma 19 Replies 8 Referrals

I don't think nukes are necessarily worse than conventional weapons - for example the firebombing of Tokyo was far more evil than the nuking of Hiroshima's industrial districts and surrounding areas - but it's certainly more dramatic. Nothing says power like being able to destroy an entire city with one weapon.

I don't know who the other blogger was but I wouldn't worry too much about it. Irrationality is one of the core values of JU, along with interesting articles, occasional insights and plenty of meandering discussion. You have to take the bad with the good.

Well lets see first if nuclear weapons are evil. According to dictionary.com, evil is (i'm only looking at adjectives here):

1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.

Going through these one at a time:
1. Appears to be a subjective test. What is morally wrong for some people, may not be morally wrong for others. On the assumption (that I concede may not be shared by others) that the use of nuclear weapons at the close of WW2 was not regarded as morally wrong, I also agree that nuclear weapons are not inherently morally wrong.
2. harmful or injurious? certainly, as are by definition every other weapon known to mankind.
3. accompanied by misfortune or suffering? again certainly (well at least when they are used, as opposed to sitting in a missile somewhere).
4. Due to bad conduct. Starts to get a bit hazy here. Has anyone seen a nuke with bad character? or good character for that matter?
5. marked by anger etc. never seen an angry nuclear weapon before, though i assume its something to be avoided.

Since to be evil you only really need to satisfy one definition, in this case #2, I agree that nuclear weapons are evil. along with spitballs. ergo I hate Americans.

Yes, cactoblasta, I am probably too sensistive. Also a bit quick to react sometimes, although I usually feel my general viewpoint is well argued and defended, I know I very often could use a more diplomatic tone. I'm working on it!

And your point of the firebombing of Tokyo, or the firebombing of Dresden with which I am more familiar through the works of Vonnegut, is an important one.

It ties in a bit with darth silliness' point about spitballs, if I may place more meaning into it than might have been intended.

That is, it is not the technology in and of itself which is evil, but the application thereof. With that said, perhaps a better wording would be, nuclear weapons have greater potential for evil misuse and more drastic, irreversible consequences than conventional weaponry and warfare. That is, while we could drop the equivalent amount, in destructive power, of TNT on a city, that process could be stopped at any time, while a nuke is a nuke.

Thanks for reading and responding, the both of you. I'm certainly aware that the vast majority of people care neither about me nor my opinions. I didn't want to leave the impression that I felt particularly persecuted. Just a bit surprised, I guess. And, I suppose, since I was not allowed to respond to the hating America accusation on the post in which it was made, I needed to somewhere.

Why? Why would he say such a thing?

it's called 'the best defense is to act all offended'--and the reason you've been singled out is cuz it's pretty clear (to anyone who's been paying attention) you're very bright as well as an excellent writer.

as far as leaps of logic go, you ain't seen nothin yet.

you're very bright as well as an excellent writer.

I'd second that. I've only seen a few posts of yours, but you seem to know your stuff. It's always good to have another voice which isn't as monotonous as Col Gene or drmiler (For a long time I've held the suspicion that both are actually one and the same person as their vitriol is so remarkably similar).

Col Gene or drmiler (For a long time I've held the suspicion that both are actually one and the same person as their vitriol is so remarkably similar).

Thanks a LOT! You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. You obviously do not read my posts or replies. Otherwise you would know that I stand for everything he hates. "Including" President Bush.

Or is it because I continually bash on those I consider to have a liberal agenda?

Heh, heh. Thanks kingbee, cactoblasta, I appreciate the encouragement very much.

If it is any consolation, drmiler, I don't think you are the same person as COL Gene. But people on "both" sides of the political spectrum would sometimes do well to focus more closely on the issue being discussed rather than concentrating so much on denying whatever a certain person says.

f it is any consolation, drmiler, I don't think you are the same person as COL Gene. But people on "both" sides of the political spectrum would sometimes do well to focus more closely on the issue being discussed rather than concentrating so much on denying whatever a certain person says.

I have the tendency to do that, don't I?

Otherwise you would know that I stand for everything he hates. "Including" President Bush.

I know. That's the point. I've never met any two people who have no common ground. Hence the suspicion.

You must have missed the one where I threatened him with physical violence were we ever to meet in person!

And just an fyi.... I have agreed with him on "exactly" 2 replies.

You see, the whole thing started when this blogger thought people were blaming Bush for North Korea having nukes.

Of course, that is again absurd, North Korea has been developing and maybe even had nukes for decades. - RabidRobot

It can be easy for people to get this messed up, your friend was close but not correct in saying it was President Bush that aided North Korea in obtaining nuclear capabilities.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea or North Korea entered in to the October 1994 Agreed Framework with the Clinton Administration establishing Kedo, which is supposed to offer training, monetary aide, and nuclear technology to North Korea to aide in their ability to provide electricity for their citizens.

WWW Link">Link

ABB, a Swiss Company was interested in profiting from the Agreed Framework in 2000. Enter ABB chairman, WMD's broker and warmonger Donald Rumsfield. ABB sold two Light Water Reactors (LWR) with Rummy supposedly helping broker the deal. Later, when N.Korean Nukes became a hot topic, Rumsfield denied even knowing the deal had been put before the board that he sat on.

Rumsfeld's office said that the [then]Secretary of Defense did not "recall it being brought before the board at any time". But ABB spokesman Björn Edlund told Fortune that "board members were informed about this project."

[link="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld#ABB_and_North_Korea"]WWW Link

So there you have it, the Clinton Administration set the stage, then Rumsfield, at the behest of ABB played it out.

Can you make nukes with light water reactors? Were the reactors ever built?

You know the answer, they were working on the building until they were suspended. LWR alone cannot produce a nuclear missile.

You are intentionally dodging the point, the access to plans and training applicable to nuclear production cannot be taken away from N. Korean minds and hands. Kedo and ABB aided Korea in their nuclear capability as I stated:

...that aided North Korea in obtaining nuclear capabilities.

nuclear power capabilities, which there's no problem with. Not nuclear weapon capabilities, which you want people to assume. You know full well that nothing Rumsfeld did got them any closer to having nuclear weapons, so the only reason to bring it up in the context you did was to mislead people.

"So there you have it, the Clinton Administration set the stage, then Rumsfield, at the behest of ABB played it out."

So unless you were talking about North Korea just having legal nuclear power, that was intended to smear, right?

Absolutely not. The record is there for all those to see. Rummy says hello. And thanks, the check is in the mail.

Didn't that guy get fired right after elections?

Oh, no, he stepped down.

He's done enough damage.

lol... you kind of dodged that. You implied above that we have Rumsfeld partially to thank about the situation with Korea. Then you admitted that Rumsfeld did nothing to help them make nuclear weapons.

I don't think it serves your argument to spread the DU 'lying for justice' propaganda. It makes your hands smell bad.

Bakerstreet, I think you know a bit better then to consult or visit the 'Democratic Underground'.

Rumsfield has played his hand throughout his 'illustrious career' and deserves to be called on for it.

If you and Rummy wanna' play paddy-cake, go ahead, but don't think I won't have to point to his history to prove the guy a shill.

Prove what, in particular? That he was in cahoots with... what Clinton wanted done? I've seen people make your insipid 'rumsfeld sold nuclear technology to the North Koreans' crap all over the place. If you want to stoop to the moonbat equivalent of hannity rhetoric, fine, but remember your established level integrity when you start judging your mirrors on the right.

No moonbatting about it, Rumsfield is a shill.

Clinton? I thought you knew. Clinton is a piece of shit. Don't tell me he did things I agree with.