« The Theology Of FreeCreditReport.com | Main | Pitching A New TV Series »
The Candidates And The War On Terror
September 11, 2008 | Permalink
Comments
This is offensive and stupid. But you get off on that kind of thing, don't you?
Posted by: Noumenon | Sep 11, 2008 7:17:05 AM
How about "Responsible Surrender"? Would that be better?
Posted by: Tom McMahon | Sep 11, 2008 7:42:12 AM
> This is offensive and stupid. But you get off on that kind of thing, don't you?
You know, it takes far less work to call something offensive and stupid than it does to actually justify why it's offensive and stupid. It also requires one actually BE able to justify why it's offensive and stupid with more than spluttering indignation at someone having DARED shine the flashlight on your precious candidate's ridiculous stance of "Peace at any price", which stands up there with "Peace for our time" as a pro-war meme to remember.
Tom:
You should follow it up with one that goes into the Lefty "Fight or Don't Fight" attitude vs. the realistic one of "Fight Now or Fight Later", assuming you haven't done that. I'll let you figure out how to graphically depict it.
Posted by: Obloodyhell | Sep 11, 2008 10:12:47 AM
Tom, it would have been better because I would have read it and thought, "Eh, I disagree," not "His sole purpose here is to piss me off."
You know, it takes far less work to call something offensive and stupid than it does to actually justify why it's offensive and stupid.
Exactly. And there's no point putting in the extra work trying to explain it to someone who is being offensive and stupid. Also, I'm arguing with a diagram that consists of two colors and two words. Brevity was called for.
Posted by: Noumenon | Sep 13, 2008 4:37:21 AM
> Exactly. And there's no point putting in the extra work trying to explain it to someone who is being offensive and stupid.
ANNNK. Thanks for playing.
Your presumption is that which is offensive, stupid, and *ignorant* to boot.
You assume that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, that they cannot have a justification for something which YOU are offended by which YOU miss the purpose behind. After all "they're stupid, you're not". Or, "They must be stupid, **I** never miss a thing!"
The word for this is ARROGANCE.
Hence, you need to specify WHY it is stupid and offensive, because that exposes your thinking to not only yourself but to others, and does two things:
1) Allows them reasons to reconsider *THEIR* position. Hey, maybe you're right!
2) Allows them to explain to you the flaws THEY perceive in YOUR position.
Granted, it means some work on your part, but you might even find that you don't have a leg to stand on ALL by yourself, which I'm willing to bet is the case with something like 90% of what you hold to be true.
================
I note that you did not even THINK to touch on my aside to Tom, specifically relevant to your "offense".
The standard liberal position, which I presume must be yours as it is the only reason I can see for being "offended" by the drawing, is that it is a choice between fighting and not fighting.
The more correct view is that it's between fighting NOW, with a substantial advantage, or fighting LATER, with a substantially reduced advantage (i.e., Saddam without anthrax, botulin, or nukes in 2003 vs. Saddam WITH them in 2009 -- as would certainly be the case if we did not take him out in 2003).
... or the third option -- *surrender*
--------------------
"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most times he will pick himself up and carry on..."
- Winston Churchill -
Posted by: Obloodyhell | Sep 14, 2008 5:01:57 AM
