03-01-2018, 09:19 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-01-2018, 10:02 AM by John J. Xenakis.)
(03-01-2018, 12:26 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: > Advocating against a policy is still advocacy, even if you don't
> advocate for a specific alternative. In context, though, you
> appear to be advocating military intervention, since that's what
> happened in the other cases you mention.
Wow! You've come up with quite a mind-boggling chain of logic
here:
- You say that I'm advocating against a policy (which isn't true)
- Therefore I'm advocating for some alternative (which isn't true)
- Therefore I'm advocating for military intervention (wow!!)
Here's the correct chain of logic in most cases:
- I describe what's going on and why it won't work
- I ridicule the politicians for pretending that it will work, or
for lying about what's going on, when it's obvious to them and
everyone else that it won't work, or that they're lying
- I don't advocate any alternative policy, but imply that the
outcome is inevitable, no matter what policy is adopted. In other
words, no alternative policy will make any difference.
- If I imply advocacy of anything, it's that politicians should stop
running around like idiots, and should at least be honest about what's
going on.
That's not advocating a policy, and certainly not advocating
military intervention.
By the way, take a look at the last three paragraphs of today's
article, where I advocate stuff.