"HypocrisyLine" comments continued
This is continued from comments on IsThatLegal? concerning the post HypocrisyLine.
I would like to refocus the discussion to the main point that I'm interested in. I may get to some of the others later if I have time. Anyway, the point is the difference between Kerry saying foreign leaders supported his candidacy and Kerry's opposition saying that foreign enemies support his candidacy.
Support from allies/enemies
I said: “Back to the original post, Mr Thorley, isn't there a difference between saying, "Our mutual allies would vote for me." as Kerry did and, "Our mutual enemies would vote for Kerry." as these bumper stickers and suchlike do?”
Thorley Winston said: "Not really, it seems more of a case of Kerry picking a fight on an issue (or non-issue if you prefer) as he did by trying to drag our country through the Vietnam War (again) and not liking it when someone actually has the temerity to challenge him on it and when what he thought would be a winning (non)issue ends up becoming a losing one for him."
The only part of your answer I'm interested in is the "Not really" part because the rest of it is immaterial to the question I posed. I'm really not interested in whether this is a case of someone picking a fight they can't win. I honestly just want to consider the difference between the two statements and their relative propriety. I don't know quite enough about historical elections to evaluate the propriety of Kerry's statement in comparison to other campaigns. I can, however, more justifiably consider Kerry's statement vis a vis the comparable statement from his opposition to arrive at an opinion of their relative propriety. So, the fact that these two statements are being considered in more or less a vacuum is an admitted weakness, but one I can't avoid for right now.
A pretty reasonable assumption I'm making in my argument:
Kerry had allies in mind and not foreign leaders like Kim Jong Il.
If you can't accept this assumption there's probably not much use in reading further. It gives a hint of what I can accept as reasonable and if our ideas of what is reasonable aren't at all compatible then discussion isn't really an efficient use of my time.
And a limitation:
I'm not concerned with the truth value of the statements because I'm interested in what the speaker is trying to say with these statements and the propriety of that attempt.
My view, obviously, is that there is a profound difference between appealing to the opinion of allies and the opinion of enemies. The difference is between convincing and coercing. One appeals to an ally for the same reason that Coke hires Michael Jordan. You have certain feelings about Michael Jordan and Coke wants you to associate its product with those positive feelings. You like ally; ally likes me; you should like me.
On the other hand, when one appeals to an enemy's opinion the intention is different. The enemy is someone who hates us and has killed our citizens out of that hate. He would kill you or me if given a chance. He is dangerous and holds the polar opposite of our values. His thoughts are preoccupied on killing people and when he has opinions they are bent on bringing death to you and people like you. His opinion about the presidential candidates is support for John Kerry. Enemy hates you; enemy likes John Kerry; you shouldn't like John Kerry because he would only be supported if it was useful toward your death; people who do support John Kerry are supporting the same thing as our enemy, namely, your destruction and, unwittingly, their own. That, it seems to me, is what people are trying to do when associating the enemy with Kerry. That's why I called it intimidating. I said: “Saying the enemy would vote for Kerry is intimidating in a way that saying traditional allies support Kerry's candidacy doesn't even approach.”
To which Thorley Winston replied:"If it’s intimidating, it probably because there is a bit more than a grain of truth to it. During the Cold War, Kerry was almost always on the side of the doves and voted repeatedly to gut our military capability, against supporting anti-communist opposition during the Cold War and post-Cold War voted against removing Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. On North Korea, for some strange reason he seems determined to make the same mistakes of bilateral negotiations that Carter and Clinton did which incidentally is what the North Korean regime wants. With the exception of Afghanistan and the second phase of the Iraqi conflict, he has pretty consistently voted against authorizing the use of force whenever there is a US interest at stake and IMO it’s fair game to point this out."
I've again colored purple the portion of your response which is irrelevant to my initial point. There was apparently a misunderstanding of what I meant by intimidating. You seem to think that I am using intimidating as a rough synonym for daunting or discouraging, as a description for the way the object of intimidation feels. But in fact I'm using it as a description with negative connotation of the behavior of the subject. I mean that the statement is intended to intimidate, "to coerce or inhibit by or as if by threats." (Am. Her.) In this sense the statements are intimidating despite the fact that I'm not intimidated by them. The problem is that the statements by Kerry's opposition are meant to intimidate whereas Kerry's are meant to convince.
I realize I didn't really respond to almost anything of what Thorley Winston said. This mostly is a clarification of my own views because they apparently weren't clear enough to have been responded to earlier. Hopefully I've fixed that and there are points in his above responses that, though completely unrelated, are also interesting and warrant some discussion. Such as, he has pretty consistently voted against authorizing the use of force whenever there is a US interest at stake and IMO it’s fair game to point this out. I agree that this is fair game, but it's also quite different from equating someone with the enemy.
I would like to refocus the discussion to the main point that I'm interested in. I may get to some of the others later if I have time. Anyway, the point is the difference between Kerry saying foreign leaders supported his candidacy and Kerry's opposition saying that foreign enemies support his candidacy.
Support from allies/enemies
I said: “Back to the original post, Mr Thorley, isn't there a difference between saying, "Our mutual allies would vote for me." as Kerry did and, "Our mutual enemies would vote for Kerry." as these bumper stickers and suchlike do?”
Thorley Winston said: "Not really, it seems more of a case of Kerry picking a fight on an issue (or non-issue if you prefer) as he did by trying to drag our country through the Vietnam War (again) and not liking it when someone actually has the temerity to challenge him on it and when what he thought would be a winning (non)issue ends up becoming a losing one for him."
The only part of your answer I'm interested in is the "Not really" part because the rest of it is immaterial to the question I posed. I'm really not interested in whether this is a case of someone picking a fight they can't win. I honestly just want to consider the difference between the two statements and their relative propriety. I don't know quite enough about historical elections to evaluate the propriety of Kerry's statement in comparison to other campaigns. I can, however, more justifiably consider Kerry's statement vis a vis the comparable statement from his opposition to arrive at an opinion of their relative propriety. So, the fact that these two statements are being considered in more or less a vacuum is an admitted weakness, but one I can't avoid for right now.
A pretty reasonable assumption I'm making in my argument:
Kerry had allies in mind and not foreign leaders like Kim Jong Il.
If you can't accept this assumption there's probably not much use in reading further. It gives a hint of what I can accept as reasonable and if our ideas of what is reasonable aren't at all compatible then discussion isn't really an efficient use of my time.
And a limitation:
I'm not concerned with the truth value of the statements because I'm interested in what the speaker is trying to say with these statements and the propriety of that attempt.
My view, obviously, is that there is a profound difference between appealing to the opinion of allies and the opinion of enemies. The difference is between convincing and coercing. One appeals to an ally for the same reason that Coke hires Michael Jordan. You have certain feelings about Michael Jordan and Coke wants you to associate its product with those positive feelings. You like ally; ally likes me; you should like me.
On the other hand, when one appeals to an enemy's opinion the intention is different. The enemy is someone who hates us and has killed our citizens out of that hate. He would kill you or me if given a chance. He is dangerous and holds the polar opposite of our values. His thoughts are preoccupied on killing people and when he has opinions they are bent on bringing death to you and people like you. His opinion about the presidential candidates is support for John Kerry. Enemy hates you; enemy likes John Kerry; you shouldn't like John Kerry because he would only be supported if it was useful toward your death; people who do support John Kerry are supporting the same thing as our enemy, namely, your destruction and, unwittingly, their own. That, it seems to me, is what people are trying to do when associating the enemy with Kerry. That's why I called it intimidating. I said: “Saying the enemy would vote for Kerry is intimidating in a way that saying traditional allies support Kerry's candidacy doesn't even approach.”
To which Thorley Winston replied:"If it’s intimidating, it probably because there is a bit more than a grain of truth to it. During the Cold War, Kerry was almost always on the side of the doves and voted repeatedly to gut our military capability, against supporting anti-communist opposition during the Cold War and post-Cold War voted against removing Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. On North Korea, for some strange reason he seems determined to make the same mistakes of bilateral negotiations that Carter and Clinton did which incidentally is what the North Korean regime wants. With the exception of Afghanistan and the second phase of the Iraqi conflict, he has pretty consistently voted against authorizing the use of force whenever there is a US interest at stake and IMO it’s fair game to point this out."
I've again colored purple the portion of your response which is irrelevant to my initial point. There was apparently a misunderstanding of what I meant by intimidating. You seem to think that I am using intimidating as a rough synonym for daunting or discouraging, as a description for the way the object of intimidation feels. But in fact I'm using it as a description with negative connotation of the behavior of the subject. I mean that the statement is intended to intimidate, "to coerce or inhibit by or as if by threats." (Am. Her.) In this sense the statements are intimidating despite the fact that I'm not intimidated by them. The problem is that the statements by Kerry's opposition are meant to intimidate whereas Kerry's are meant to convince.
I realize I didn't really respond to almost anything of what Thorley Winston said. This mostly is a clarification of my own views because they apparently weren't clear enough to have been responded to earlier. Hopefully I've fixed that and there are points in his above responses that, though completely unrelated, are also interesting and warrant some discussion. Such as, he has pretty consistently voted against authorizing the use of force whenever there is a US interest at stake and IMO it’s fair game to point this out. I agree that this is fair game, but it's also quite different from equating someone with the enemy.
posted by joe at
7:39 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home