Re: Coalition of the willing

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003, James Robertson wrote:

> > > Ok, that's just stupid.  We aren't about to drop 200 nukes.  More likely is
> > > a bunch of JDAMs aimed at the high command.  As in Afghanistan and Gulf war
> > > I, civilian casualties will be light.
> >[snip]
> > > >I trust the reductio is clear.
> >
> >I see now that you don't understand the argument form *reductio ad
> >absurdum*. Look it up. Learn to read and think. Try again.
>
> Sure I do.  I also understand that what you are attempting to do is utterly
> exaggerate what will happen in Iraq for effect

You assume that, which, frankly, is an complete nasty, unfounded slur
against me.

I mean it strictly as a *reductio*, and ask you respond to what I wrote,
as such, not to what wild distortions you project on me to discredit me
without attending to the *point* of my reductio.

Grow a brain. Why do you think I said *200*?! That's so utterly
implausible as to *clearly* not be a real possibility.

Let me point out an actual response: "Bijan, your example isn't relevantly
similar as *in that case* the evil of the action is *far* greater than the
evil of the inaction, and strictly unnecessary. So if you opposed it with
*no* support for a more reasonable alternative, then you would be *also*
siding with Iraq and not merely opposing the excess of the attack."

Oh, here's another: "Bijan, your reductio fails because in that case, the
evil of the action is greater than the evil of the inaction, which, by my
utilitarian principles, means that that action is *wrong*. In the current
case, the *inaction* is wrong. So I slightly mispoke when I said 'stand
with evil', I meant that you objectively *support the wrong action*."

(Of course, that fails to make me a fellow traveller with Hussien, which
is crucial to your smear job.)

Oh, here's another: "Bijan, well, you would stand with Hussein's evil,
still. You'd be on his side. But, in that case, you'd be standing against
a greater evil."

Note: I don't buy any of these arguments, but they are 1) coherent, 1)
way stronger than anything you've said, and 3) have the virtue of not
being mere insult, innuendo, and hysterical assertion of motive.

Are you even *trying* to have a converstation? To persuade? I don't see
*any* evidence of that.

Bijan Parsia.