dagblog - Comments for "Its a Small Thing, Its Right, Do It"

Most people are

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 04 Aug 2012 04:20:10 +0000

Most people *are* intellectually dishonest. Including me. Now that I'm fed up with Obama, it takes longer for me to give him credit where he deserves. With Obama in a continual fight w GOP, supporters may be reluctant to give comfort to the enemy, etc., and find themselves supporting normally unappealing policy positions or be less willing to admit policies are not just "complicated" - a weasel - but simply wrong Supporters of Joe Paterno probably had a tough time finding the right time to lose that support last year.

Peoples' beliefs are

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 22:42:44 +0000

In reply to So who is he trying to

Peoples' beliefs are influenced by their political commitments and identifications---

My expectations are influenced by the [apparent] political commitments of people in general and by politicians on the occasions when I believe them.

Now suppose I were to say that the reason you defend Manning is because you oppose Obama?

You would be wrong. I oppose Obama because of what I see as the indefensible way he has handled the Manning case.

BS, right? I mean, if you're intellectually honest, you'll admit that you have some biases just like everyone else, but you still have specific reasons for opposing Manning's treatment, and you believe that if it were some other president you would feel the same way.

Yes, I have my biases just like everyone else and when they take an unexpected stand, individually if prominent or as a group if it is an identifiable one, or no stand at all when I would have expected one, I then wonder if a bias is the explanation and I take the liberty of wondering what the nature of that bias is. Sometimes I conclude that they, 'they' meaning a vague conglomeration like liberal Democrats, are being inconsistent at best and maybe intellectually dishonest. That is no more a swipe at you as an individual than anything in my root blog was.

Well, surprise surprise, those who are critical of Manning feel the same way. They have their reasons, and while they might acknowledge some bias, they believe that their position does not depend on who happens to be president.

Presumably everyone does have a reason. I don't think people just spin a wheel of many reasons and take the one that the pointer stops on. But, for you to claim that they, which is an all inclusive 'they' as you put it, believe their position does not depend on who is President is as obviously wrong for SOME Democrats as it is for so many Republicans. Especially the pundits and those who let the pundits think for them.

Now there are certainly pure hacks out there--people who are such slaves to partisanship that they believe whatever benefits the party--but what's the point of arguing with them? As for the rest, by broad-brushing them as hacks, you eliminate the possibility of argument.

You are doing a bit of broad brushing as I see it. My comments were not directed at 'hacks' who would support anything their leadership did, it was intended to try to nudge those who can recognize that their leadership may be wrong about some things. Maybe some very important things. Maybe the leaders are making a mistake that a nonhack would like to see corrected even if they give that leader their overall support.

My position on Manning is complicated, as is my position on Obama,...

Perhaps you think my positions on Manning and Obama are simplistic.

Your response and my going back to see how you might have arrived at it does makes evident some problems with the construction of my blog but I stand by the mixed messages I was trying to convey.
I should have clearly separated at least two ideas.
First is the question of innocence or guilt. I believe Manning did the action, the release of the tapes, but is innocent of wrongdoing. I would argue that point in hopes of increasing the public support for him. I believe he both needs it and deserves it. I believe his case is very significant and should be paid close attention to. Its handling will continue to speak volumes about the nature of our national leadership as well as our national psyche in its various manifestations.
Secondly is the question of how he was treated after his arrest and, as a sub-topic, why he was treated the way he was for eleven months. The decisions to inflict that treatment in a very public way by whoever made it and then the decision to condone that treatment by the President who is Commander in Chief over those inflicting that treatment also says volumes.
I concede that my analogy was poorly constructed. Part of the evidence for that is the fact that you seemed to completely misunderstand it. I intended to draw parallels to the Penn State case with the highly emotional analysis aimed at understanding the crime, who were the criminals, and the right way to respond to it, with the many times more important case surrounding the reasons for Manning's document dump and his subsequent treatment. I did not 'airily' dismiss anybody's conclusions and I certainly did not airily dismiss your particular beliefs on the subject, I don't even know them except for what you said just above.

So who is he trying to

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 21:24:58 +0000

In reply to Lulu lightly phrased it "one

So who is he trying to convince? Is there anyone who actually believes that the only reason they support the prosecution of Manning is b/c Obama said so. Everyone has their rationale, even if it's intellectually dishonest.

Lulu lightly phrased it "one

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 20:01:35 +0000

In reply to Peoples' beliefs are

Lulu lightly phrased it "one of the reasons", i think made it clear d oesnt apply to all. why attack him as if calling all who disagree obamabots? He didn't "airily dismiss" anything.

Peoples' beliefs are

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 18:46:16 +0000

In reply to That seems to me to be a

Peoples' beliefs are influenced by their political commitments and identifications--you, me, everyone. We tend to be more critical of people we oppose and less critical of people we support.

Now suppose I were to say that the reason you defend Manning is because you oppose Obama? After all you don't like or trust Obama, so it seems just as likely that you're biased against his administration.

BS, right? I mean, if you're intellectually honest, you'll admit that you have some biases just like everyone else, but you still have specific reasons for opposing Manning's treatment, and you believe that if it were some other president you would feel the same way.

Well, surprise surprise, those who are critical of Manning feel the same way. They have their reasons, and while they might acknowledge some bias, they believe that their position does not depend on who happens to be president.

Now there are certainly pure hacks out there--people who are such slaves to partisanship that they believe whatever benefits the party--but what's the point of arguing with them? As for the rest, by broad-brushing them as hacks, you eliminate the possibility of argument.

Personally, I think your analogy is flawed. My position on Manning is complicated, as is my position on Obama, but I'm not particularly inclined to explore either in a context where my beliefs are airily dismissed as team spirit.

.

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 07:26:36 +0000

In reply to I suppose it's a waste of

Attack poster's name?

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 07:25:11 +0000

In reply to I suppose it's a waste of

Attack poster's name? Check Other side worse? Check "Many here" abstract strawman? Check Blatant absurd claim? Check

I suppose it's a waste of

NCD — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 23:41:05 +0000

In reply to What 'deeds' of our guys and

I suppose it's a waste of time asking 'A Guy Called Lulu' serious questions.

Many here forget, or refuse to remember, who got the nation into our two failed wars, and who got our troops out of one of them, over the objections of GOP presidential candidates John McCain and Mitt Romney.

I like your 'if starting a war with Iran or anywhere is wrong'....decisive statement there alright-not. I would say starting wars IS wrong, and 'it would be more likely' the same Party that started the last two would be more likely to start another. Duhhhhhh!

But let's just bash Obama, a favorite activity around DAG.

What 'deeds' of our guys and

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 21:01:26 +0000

In reply to 'Now that our guys are the

What 'deeds' of our guys and their guys,...

The tortuous incarceration of Manning for eleven months was a crime. Doing it for the purpose of scaring other legitimate would-be whistle-blowers is a crime, or should be if it is not.

...and what crimes and what criminals did Manning expose?

Is that a serious question?

Does the treatment of Manning compare to the supreme international crime of starting an aggressive war in Iraq, or sanctioning starting another one with Iran?

No, Manning is just one person, but if your question is meant as a defense of Manning's treatment then isn't it true by the same implied logic that there has only ever been one crime and whatever that crime was will no longer be a crime, or at least should be accepted as insignificant, as soon as something worse is done? How could the start of an aggressive war in Iraq be a crime worth mentioning when Hitler started a bigger one? How could the public torture of one person be wrong when previously many had been tortured?
And, if starting another war in Iran or anywhere else is wrong, wouldn't it be more likely that it would happen if the ones who wrongly push for it can get away with lies and propagandistic bs under the cover of misused secrecy to monger for that war because legitimate whistle-blowers had been scared off.

'Now that our guys are the

NCD — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:17:23 +0000

In reply to That seems to me to be a

'Now that our guys are the doers of the deeds".

What 'deeds' of our guys and their guys, and what crimes and what criminals did Manning expose?

Does the treatment of Manning compare to the supreme international crime of starting an aggressive war in Iraq, or sanctioning starting another one with Iran?