"Duck? Can you weigh in on whether this argument was, in fact, an “America can do no wrong” argument?"
No, it is not. In the hypothetical I proposed, there are completely-functional and demonstrably effective police and fire departments.
James Hanley's argument...well, I'm not sure what he's actually arguing. He seems to be inventing an argument that I didn't make and responding to that argument.
I guess if you insist on mapping my analogy one-to-one with consensus reality, then yes, I could be claiming that America fills the role for the world as a whole that is, on a local level, filled by police and fire departments. But...so? Is he saying that police and fire departments are unnecessary? Is he saying that the Chinese would do a better job of maintaining global order than America, and so we should let them do it? Even granting this extension, I'm left wondering where we're supposed to go with it.
Of course, the answer to my original hypothetical is "no", and that pretty much blows the shit out of his OP, so I can understand why he wouldn't want to engage it.
Are you seriously saying that WWI was an entirely ground-based affair, that no naval action of consequence occurred, and that naval issues were never more than a passing concern?
Indeed, let's put it a different way. Let's say that some private citizen decided that they were going to start their own police and fire departments, with a full range of equipment and installations, and they claimed the same traffic-control and law-enforcement priviledges as the extant departments.
Would we claim that this invalidates the notion of police and fire departments?
Perhaps they aren't fashionable to you, or socially acceptable in your preferred society, but "I don't like them" is not transitive to "they're not fashionable or socially acceptable".
There are historical records of German deliberations regarding hostilities and military buildups, and the general consensus was that Germany could probably beat Britain, but only if the United States didn't get involved. Wilson declaring that America wouldn't get involved in European wars was what allowed World War I to start in the first place.
Oh, and for another triumph of American nonintervention policy, see the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
I know it's very satisfying to claim that the enlightened, intellectually- and morally-defensible position is to let all the woggies kill each other, but we're well past the point in world societal development where America can close its borders and say "got mine, fuck you".
"Justin: the only fashionable, socially acceptable conspiracy theories seem to be anti-Russian. that in itself could form the basis of a very convincing conspiracy theory"
9/11 troofers? Birthers? Moon-landing-hoax? Exploding Pinto? There are plenty of "fashionable, socially acceptable conspiracy theories". Just because it's on snopes.com doesn't mean it's not a conspiracy theory; such thinking comes from the same place as urban legends.
After all, let's remember that Michael Moore has never told a factual untruth. Because casting aspersions is not a factual untruth. Clever intercutting and editing are not factual untruth. Statements prefaced with "maybe" or "I think" or "it's possible" are not factual untruths. "Just asking questions" is not factual untruth.
It's been my experience that "slippery slope" is more often used as a denial of a valid argument than it is properly identified. That is, people don't understand what the term means, and think that "a hypothetical series of consequences with which I disagree" is the same thing as "slippery slope".
HEATH: "If we can improve our methods, then we should!"
HANLEY: "But you can't prove that we can!"
HEATH: "But if we can improve our methods, then we should!"
HANLEY: "But you can't prove that we can!"
HEATH: "But if we can improve our methods, then we should!"
HANLEY: "But you can't prove that we can!"
As I understand it, the only nations that made Christian religious doctrine an overt part of the government were crazy-Catholic nations like Spain and Portugal. If that's the definition of "Christian nation" then I can certainly see how the FF would not want that.
When you say things like "...a friendly reminder that the U.S. government targets and kills journalists, just as the Russian government does, and even consulted with Blair on killing a great deal more of them" it's kind of hard to NOT conclude that you see all such incidents as cold, deliberate murder.
"Another part of me notes that arriving late is a distraction to other students and a theft of their investment in college."
But then, if you're taking the "life skills" approach, then maybe you'd be doing the on-time students a favor by giving them a chance to learn to avoid distractions and focus on the matter at hand.
Alternatively, you could take the attitude--as my employer does--that as long as you get your work done, nobody cares whether you show up on time, or at all.
*sigh* so in other words, it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye, sticks and stones can break my bones but (lack of) words can never hurt me, and a company that depends on communication services as the fundamental basis for its operations can't be said to be harmed--in any way!--by having those communications services shut off.
Alternatively, we could start thinking about what exactly it is that "privacy" is meant to protect, and ask ourselves why it is that we're so worried about this behavior that we want to hide it and pretend like it isn't happening.
Do you have a link to a news story about the event you describe? Because I've heard some pretty wild stories about stuff that happened to my friends' friends' friends. For example, "strip search" turned out to be "asked to take off sweater", and "groped my privates" turned out to be "touched the inside of my thigh".
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Wednesday’s Words of Wisdom”
And--just to make this absolutely clear--"policemen exist" is not an "America Fuck Yeah!" argument.
"
"Duck? Can you weigh in on whether this argument was, in fact, an “America can do no wrong” argument?"
No, it is not. In the hypothetical I proposed, there are completely-functional and demonstrably effective police and fire departments.
James Hanley's argument...well, I'm not sure what he's actually arguing. He seems to be inventing an argument that I didn't make and responding to that argument.
I guess if you insist on mapping my analogy one-to-one with consensus reality, then yes, I could be claiming that America fills the role for the world as a whole that is, on a local level, filled by police and fire departments. But...so? Is he saying that police and fire departments are unnecessary? Is he saying that the Chinese would do a better job of maintaining global order than America, and so we should let them do it? Even granting this extension, I'm left wondering where we're supposed to go with it.
Of course, the answer to my original hypothetical is "no", and that pretty much blows the shit out of his OP, so I can understand why he wouldn't want to engage it.
"
Here's the part where you explain why the analogy is bad and why its failures render it useless as an argument.
"
Are you seriously saying that WWI was an entirely ground-based affair, that no naval action of consequence occurred, and that naval issues were never more than a passing concern?
"
Indeed, let's put it a different way. Let's say that some private citizen decided that they were going to start their own police and fire departments, with a full range of equipment and installations, and they claimed the same traffic-control and law-enforcement priviledges as the extant departments.
Would we claim that this invalidates the notion of police and fire departments?
On “Conspiracies and Pseudo-Skepticism, Part I”
Perhaps they aren't fashionable to you, or socially acceptable in your preferred society, but "I don't like them" is not transitive to "they're not fashionable or socially acceptable".
On “Wednesday’s Words of Wisdom”
There are historical records of German deliberations regarding hostilities and military buildups, and the general consensus was that Germany could probably beat Britain, but only if the United States didn't get involved. Wilson declaring that America wouldn't get involved in European wars was what allowed World War I to start in the first place.
Oh, and for another triumph of American nonintervention policy, see the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
I know it's very satisfying to claim that the enlightened, intellectually- and morally-defensible position is to let all the woggies kill each other, but we're well past the point in world societal development where America can close its borders and say "got mine, fuck you".
"
Because American isolationism worked out so well in 1914.
On “Conspiracies and Pseudo-Skepticism, Part I”
"Justin: the only fashionable, socially acceptable conspiracy theories seem to be anti-Russian. that in itself could form the basis of a very convincing conspiracy theory"
9/11 troofers? Birthers? Moon-landing-hoax? Exploding Pinto? There are plenty of "fashionable, socially acceptable conspiracy theories". Just because it's on snopes.com doesn't mean it's not a conspiracy theory; such thinking comes from the same place as urban legends.
On “Michael Moore posts bail for Julian Assange”
So you're just asking questions, then?
"
After all, let's remember that Michael Moore has never told a factual untruth. Because casting aspersions is not a factual untruth. Clever intercutting and editing are not factual untruth. Statements prefaced with "maybe" or "I think" or "it's possible" are not factual untruths. "Just asking questions" is not factual untruth.
On “Self-Serving Slippery Slopes”
I'm looking forward to the end result of all this, where for legal insurance-coverage reasons we are required to marry our boss.
"
It's been my experience that "slippery slope" is more often used as a denial of a valid argument than it is properly identified. That is, people don't understand what the term means, and think that "a hypothetical series of consequences with which I disagree" is the same thing as "slippery slope".
On “Trading Off Security for (Relative) Privacy”
"Terrorists can do just as much damage by blowing up a cruise ship or bus on the freeway..."
It would take one hell of a bus explosion to kill 4000 people.
"
It is amusing, though.
HEATH: "If we can improve our methods, then we should!"
HANLEY: "But you can't prove that we can!"
HEATH: "But if we can improve our methods, then we should!"
HANLEY: "But you can't prove that we can!"
HEATH: "But if we can improve our methods, then we should!"
HANLEY: "But you can't prove that we can!"
(repeat for twelve posts deep)
On “Not as Straightforward As You Think”
As I understand it, the only nations that made Christian religious doctrine an overt part of the government were crazy-Catholic nations like Spain and Portugal. If that's the definition of "Christian nation" then I can certainly see how the FF would not want that.
On “Monday Jukebox and Press Release UPDATE: ANONS FACE MASS ARRESTS”
When you say things like "...a friendly reminder that the U.S. government targets and kills journalists, just as the Russian government does, and even consulted with Blair on killing a great deal more of them" it's kind of hard to NOT conclude that you see all such incidents as cold, deliberate murder.
On “Thucydides: The Peloponnesian War, Empire and Democracy”
"...when you compel men by force, they think of you as a superior, but when you rule them by laws, they feel cheated by an equal."
Like the man said, it's better to be feared than to be loved.
On “Slippery Slopes to Nowhere”
Nobody likes to think about how much of their personal morality is based on "ew, that's gross!"
On “Markets in Procrastination–Corrupted Term Papers”
"Another part of me notes that arriving late is a distraction to other students and a theft of their investment in college."
But then, if you're taking the "life skills" approach, then maybe you'd be doing the on-time students a favor by giving them a chance to learn to avoid distractions and focus on the matter at hand.
Alternatively, you could take the attitude--as my employer does--that as long as you get your work done, nobody cares whether you show up on time, or at all.
On “Tough Crowd”
"Finally, I just answered that people who actually know what is going on support WikiLeaks. "
Nice, an Argument from Authority to support an indefensible position.
If you can't explain something to a reasonable person, then maybe you don't understand it as well as you ought to.
On “Anonymous preparing for new Wikileaks effort”
*sigh* so in other words, it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye, sticks and stones can break my bones but (lack of) words can never hurt me, and a company that depends on communication services as the fundamental basis for its operations can't be said to be harmed--in any way!--by having those communications services shut off.
That's what you're saying here, right?
On “Wikileaks and the Tea Party”
Alternatively, we could start thinking about what exactly it is that "privacy" is meant to protect, and ask ourselves why it is that we're so worried about this behavior that we want to hide it and pretend like it isn't happening.
"
But sometimes it really hits the fan, and *then* what do you do?
On “Trading Off Security for (Relative) Privacy”
Do you have a link to a news story about the event you describe? Because I've heard some pretty wild stories about stuff that happened to my friends' friends' friends. For example, "strip search" turned out to be "asked to take off sweater", and "groped my privates" turned out to be "touched the inside of my thigh".
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.