quote:Mr. Bush was in Colorado and Texas monitoring hurricane developments, and Mr. Cheney was undergoing surgery at George Washington University hospital.
One of the leaders of the protest said the following:
quote: "It's significant that Bush is out of town," said William Dobbs, an organizer of the march. "It shows that he's turned his back on the peace movement, which represents a majority of the American public right now."
Now I'm not a big fan of Bush and whatever his reasons may be for going to Texas (ie, to save face after Hurricane Katrina, etc), that quote just strikes a wrong chord with me. If he left town to go on vacation, yea I could say he's avoiding the peace movement. But why was he gone? Because there was another hurricane coming. Just because there was a protest and he wasn't there to greet them with open arms doesn't mean he doesn't know about it.
It could also be my slight aversion to uber activists that's causing me to feel like I'm defending Bush.
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
It might be the obvious political manipulation of the masses that turns you off. Not that many political agendas are free of it...
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Ask around ad people here will tell you...I am not a Bush fan. This seems to be a bunch of crap though.
Not that the war or the peace movment isn't important, but Bush wasn't going to appear at that rally anyway, and he DOES have a few other things going on right now, like a national disaster...
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
I'm honestly in favor of the people taking care of the people.
We don't and shouldn't need to rely on the government to wipe our bottoms.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Let me guess...you weren't affected by these storms, were you?
Feel free to run for office under that concept, I am sure you will do fine. Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Kwea: Let me guess, you are not in favor of a free market.
Just because people want a socialist environment does not mean that it is the best for everyone.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Governmentally-provided disaster relief has nothing in particular to do with a free market one way or the other. The notion many people have of a free market is wildly disparate from what most economists mean when they use the term, and in part due to widespread misunderstanding of Adam Smith.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
And just becasue some people ....those who start with the most money, usually...stand to benifit the most from a completely free market doesn't mean that it is always the best thing for everyone, or even for the majority.
I would say I am somewhere inbetween the two extremes, actually.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
In this case, teh governmet has a responsibility to use it's resources to help the victims of Katrina...that is something they promised, something that needs done, and something they had collected money for in the form of taxes.
So as it stand now, in the real world, Bush has a greater duty to teh victims than he does to teh anti-war protesters.
IMO, of course.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Holy cow, is this thread hilarious.
quote:Let me guess, you are not in favor of a free market.
Off the wall! I nearly sprayed red cream soda all over my monitor.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I find it funny that, in ten posts, a topic has managed to go from dislike of manipulative activists in general to an extremely partisian political argument.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
It is true that Bush-haters are *so* extreme they make even those who just don't like Bush defend him.
I'd be pretty lukewarm to Bush myself, except that those who attack him claim he wasn't elected, he wants to exterminate blacks and gays, he created Hurricane Katrina, he's a genocidal maniac, he has a war against women, he conspired with terrorists to destroy WTC, etc. Some of this is close to mainstream in the Democratic Party now.
BTW I saw a schedule of what Bush does on "vacation." It made me tired.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Actually Will, it was people like you who convinced me that Bush wasn't worth saving....not that it took much.
Except for the election thing, which has some validity, none of the rest of those arguments have been offered by anyone who matters...much like your defences of him...no one who matters, who has an objective bone in his body, would make those types of assinine remarks and expect to be treated with any sort of respect, at least in regard to his political views.
Funny...I keep hearing how intolerant of Bush I am, but on the rare occasion when I think he is getting too much blame and I defend him...or at least insist on the blame going to where it belongs....someone always tries to use that as proof that he is SO good that even a hater has to like him.
Couldn't possibly be that I am pretty fair most of the time...
...even when objecting to him or his actions, right?
Mainstream my a$$.
[ September 25, 2005, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: It is true that Bush-haters are *so* extreme they make even those who just don't like Bush defend him.
Wow. Out of interest, do you generally let other people determine your political opinions for you?
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
It's the angriest voices, and most appalling opinions that speak the loudest. The calm, rational folks just aren't interesting enough to pay any attention to.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I tend to place blame where it lies, as I see it. If most of the time it is Bush then that is where it goes, adn calling me a hater is disingenous at best, and a very poor smokscreen at worst.
It doesn't qualify as original thought, or even unoriginal though, though.
When blaming Bush isn't just, and it stops the blame being passed on to the other people who share responsibility with him, I mention it. It is called being objective, or at least attempting to be objectiv.
I have even fought, midly, with my wife about some of that stuff. I try not to assume the worst of people in general, but to be honest I find it hard to not think the worst...not the crap you claim is rampent ih the Democratic party but some of the more reasonable stuff....of Bush because he so often lives down to my expectations.
However a lot of that is because he is a politician. They tend to not be my favorite people in general.
( Directed to the converstaion in general )
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
quote:I'm honestly in favor of the people taking care of the people.
We don't and shouldn't need to rely on the government to wipe our bottoms.
Aren't people part of the government? While I'd love to argue that Bush is less than a person (but we're not going there), in the case of a natural disastor such as Katrina, you need as much help as you can get and the government is able to provide money, assistance, and PEOPLE to help out.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Remember--We live in a civilized society.
Might does not make Right.
heck, even Right does not make Right.
Fright Makes Right!
Whoever scares the most people the greates is the leader.
Why do you think they put the elections so close to Halloween?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:adn calling me a hater is disingenous at best
Again we see the misuse of this word disingenuous.... Unless you're actually calling Will B a liar.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
quote:Why do you think they put the elections so close to Halloween?
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which grant[s] a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. -- James Madison, 1794
"The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well what if he neglect the care of his health or his estate, which would more nearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills." -- Thomas Jefferson
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Ok, what are you trying to say with those quotes? Just because those two presidents said that doesn't mean I personally don't think that the government should in such a circumstance as a natural disastor there should be aid provided.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
I'm reinforcing my previous statements with words of those that are greater than myself. They that are understood because they speak more clearly, and studied life and man to a greater extent than I.
Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
Next thing you know, you'll be suggesting we di away with univeral health care.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
raventh: I understood what you were trying to say, but no matter how many quotes you provide, I will disagree with you and you will disagree with me.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You do realize the Jefferson quotation has nothing to do with force majeure, and in fact hints at the exact opposite of what you're supporting?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It doesn't hint at the opposite, although it's not on point for raventh's argument, either.
The only positive statement it makes is that law should protect from injury caused by others.
It's entirely neutral on the subject of natural disasters.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It all depends on how you view "others"; recall that force majeure also goes by "acts of god".
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Staying in the path of a disaster is a choice some made. That has nothing to do with the disaster, but with that choice they made.
Some also were not in the place to make any other choice. I say that the responsibility falls to the people to do something about it, and not the government.
Dagonee: Inaction is still an action even when it comes to natural disasters. People are allowed to hurt themselves.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
fugu, how are you viewing "others" in this case then?
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
raventh: again I ask you, what makes up the government? Where does the government get its resources?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
For the original topic: I'd generally side with anti-war protesters at least in principle. But criticizing Bush for being out of town is pretty ridiculous on their part.
Even if there hadn't been a natural disaster or another good reason for the president to be in a different part of the country, even if he HAD stayed in DC during the protest... it's not like he (or any other president ever, mind you) was likely to come out to the protest, pull up a lawn chair, and listen to what they had to say. The most he would personally see of the protest would be glimpsing them on his way someplace else.
--Enigmatic
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lots of people were affected by these storms without remaining there, mark. Also, lots of people were not able to leave.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Nothing makes up the Government but the People. The Government does get it's resources from the people.
However, this line of thought is going to make you say. Well if the people are the government, and they are the source of the money for the ones in trouble does it not make the source of the money from the people?
No. The source is still from the Government which appropriated the funds without the consent of the People for this cause. The People should give on their own. Have you read Davy Crockett vs. Welfare ?
Fugu: So those that can help should if they choose, We shouldn't rely on the government to fix problems by tapping the resources of those that wish not to support them.
Why can't I have a choice in supporting someone?
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I'm aware that people should give on their own and I did my part to contribute to the Katrina Relief Fund. But when the government has money to give (ok, maybe the gov actually doesn't considering the debt, but let that slide for the sake of the argument please, k?), I think they should. Not everyone has loads of money that they are capable of giving, nor do they if they actually have the money. But everyone pays taxes to the government for use by the government.
The People elect the Senate and the House, who gave the consent to allot this money to the hurricane relief. What is so wrong about that?
Also, do the People care about the welfare of all the People? I don't actually think so.
No I haven't read that case.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
We were talking about the Jefferson quotation, which doesn't support your position. Jefferson favored plenty of things you're deriding.
You do get choices, but not on every atomic decision. You get to vote for the people who make governmental decisions, and you are free to leave.
By remaining part of this society you have opted in to those actions the society takes collectively, including government aid to those desolated by disaster.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
I am also free to stay and try to put things in better order as well.
The Government has no power except what The People give it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Note what I said about voting, I don't deny you get to do so.
But as long as you're here, you have consented to the uses the government puts its money, even if you don't like them.
And the People have given the Government the power to use money it appropriates to aid in disaster relief.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
There's also the point about what is best for everyone. My original point is that socialism is not what is best for everyone.
I'm sure you've heard Benjamin Franklin's quote on what Democracy is. (Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yep, and by democracy he meant more along the lines of what you're advocating. Franklin was a staunch supporter of the republican form of government.
As for disaster relief being socialism, I suggest rereading The Wealth of Nations, you have a twisted notion of what capitalism is.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Actually I subscribe to Hayek, not Caines.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The Wealth of Nations is by Smith, father of modern economics and first person to effectively lay out the principles of what we now call capitalism.
(edit: and its spelled keynes, and he disagreed greatly with Smith on many things)
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Maybe you should read The Road to Serfdom. I'll pick up a copy of The Wealth of Nations.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:There's also the point about what is best for everyone. My original point is that socialism is not what is best for everyone.
But, really, are you serious?
I can't figure out if you believe this stuff or if you're just kidding around.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It all depends on how you view "others"; recall that force majeure also goes by "acts of god".
It actually depends on how Jefferson viewed "others," and there's very good reason to believe he didn't view storms as acts of God.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
On the contrary, Jefferson's strong deistic views suggest he thought hurricanes very literally an act of God, albeit at some remove.
edit: plus, a text (in this case, a quotation) can hint at or suggest something without author intent. I was pretty careful in my phrasing; I talk about what the quotation says or hints at, not what Jefferson did. While what Jefferson consciously willed in his construction of the quotation is certainly very important in considering the quotation, it is hardly the final word. We are constantly finding new interpretations of texts which have been around a very long time but were not (and in many cases could not have been) applied to the situations implicated in the interpretation.
[ September 25, 2005, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote:adn calling me a hater is disingenous at best
Again we see the misuse of this word disingenuous.... Unless you're actually calling Will B a liar.
LOL, I know the meaning of the word, Kwea. Just out of curiosity, when you read the definition --
(Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: “an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who... exemplified... the most disagreeable traits of his time” (David Cannadine). Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.)
-- what makes you think it means "incorrect"? As opposed to what it actually means, which is like this... If you are being disingenuous, you are saying something you know to be untrue..?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:plus, a text (in this case, a quotation) can hint at or suggest something without author intent. I was pretty careful in my phrasing; I talk about what the quotation says or hints at, not what Jefferson did. While what Jefferson consciously willed in his construction of the quotation is certainly very important in considering the quotation, it is hardly the final word. We are constantly finding new interpretations of texts which have been around a very long time but were not (and in many cases could not have been) applied to the situations implicated in the interpretation.
In that case, it "hints" as strongly in raventh's favor as yours.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'd love to see your explication of that .
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I was implying that the truth should be fairly obvious (as this is hardly the first time I have defended Bush's actions, and stated more than once, in discussions that Will participated in, that I didn't hate Bush at all, I just didn't agree with much he had to say), and that one of the possible reasons for continuing to call ne a "hater" was he was being deliberatly obtuse about it.
In other words I used the word correctly. . .it was you assumptions about my ignorance of the definition of the word that was incorrect.
I was pointing out a trend in someones behavior, and wondering if it was an unconsious pattern of behavior or if he was doing it on purpose, just to further his own political agenda .
I am leaning towards the second idea.
Which would make his comments disingenious. Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Oh, okay, so you were calling him a liar. See, I made room for that possibility in my original post.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote: I was pointing out a trend in someones behavior, and wondering if it was an unconsious pattern of behavior or if he was doing it on purpose, just to further his own political agenda .
And by the way, in order to point something out, you've got to, you know, actually do it. You know?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I did...I called him disingenious.
Also, I was simply mentioning that it was a possibility...not actually accusing him of it.
I have no idea how else everything would always be twisted around to defend bush from attacks, even when they ARE warreneted.
If I call Bush on something, I am a hater because I did so...but if I support one of his desisions I am showing how ownderful, because even a hater HS to like (whatever he is doing right now)....
See? It turns out that it becomes impossible to disprove anything they don't want to believe...and I think that most of the people who do that type of circular, nonsense argument have at least a clue what they are trying to do...and are, by definition, being disingenious about their agenda, not to mention their actual actions.
It isn't just Will, or just Bush supporters, although the people I see do it the most are his supporters these days.
It is actually possible to refute someone without smashing their beliefs, and to have a discussion about the topics....rather than go off on these wild goose chases about who is and isn't a Bush hater....and dismissiing an argument just because it comes from someone who doesn't like Bush doesn't serve much purpose.
Kwea
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Well, that's not even a word. But what you actually called him was disingenous, which also is not a word.
So....
*shrug*
Okay.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Sorry about the lack of spellcheck.
Well, sort of sorry, anyway.
Good refutation, btw, on point....
Or as on point as the rest of this discussion. Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Actually, it was on point.
Everything I have said in this thread is 100% correct. There is no room for argument.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
What bothers me is the fact that he ignores protests when he is in town. For me, Mr Yeltsin set the par for handaling any protest: go out there and speak.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I'd love to see your explication of that .
Easy. The quote says:
quote:Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves.
It states what laws do provide against (injury from others) and lists one specific category of injury laws do not provide against.
It leaves entirely open the status of injuries caused by neither other persons or the victims themselves. Therefore it hints as strongly in each direction.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:It leaves entirely open the status of injuries caused by neither other persons or the victims themselves. Therefore it hints as strongly in each direction.
Your therefore is not logically supported. That something is unclear on a question does not mean there are suggestions of supporting all things it is unclear on equally.
For instance, I have already pointed out a way in which "others" could be interpretted which would include hurricanes and other natural disasters. This is not a strong interpretation, but neither is it unsupportable. Can you present an argument of similar strength for mark's position that governments should have nothing to do with aid in the case of natural disaster?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sure - as a deist, TJ thought natural events were not caused by God.
Further, in distinguishing between "others" and "ourselves," there is a strong suggestion of kind. When one uses "others" in opposition to a particular noun, one supposes that the "others" are of a similar kind.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sure - as a deist, TJ thought natural events were not caused by God.
Further, in distinguishing between "others" and "ourselves," there is a strong suggestion of kind. When one uses "others" in opposition to a particular noun, one supposes that the "others" are of a similar kind.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That's not a positive interpretation in favor of mark's position, that's a reason the interpretation I suggested isn't particularly strong. Note that you said that even if my statement about TJ's opinion not being included was accepted the quotation was equally supportive of both sides.
And as for the deism, again, I point out that Deism entails natural disasters most definitely being caused by God, just at a large temporal remove. This would be particularly true in TJ's period, before we understood how much weather could be influenced, when it seemed but part of the natural mechanism of the planet.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
fugu13: I've been watching Commanding Heights on PBS.
It's 3 two hour episodes. I've watched the first and most of the second.
And as far as deism, I don't think most of our forefathers were deists.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Looks pretty interesting, although it is pretty clear waht the bias of it will be...I think.
Thanks for linking to it, I will prbably watch all of it. . . after my move though. Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Upon further inspection it looks like you can't. I'll figure it out in the morning.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That's not a positive interpretation in favor of mark's position, that's a reason the interpretation I suggested isn't particularly strong. Note that you said that even if my statement about TJ's opinion not being included was accepted the quotation was equally supportive of both sides.
I've read this five times and can't figure out the point you are trying make. This is exactly what I've been saying: that the quotation is equally supportive of both sides. You asked me to explain why. I showed that any argument you can make for it to hint at showing the opposite can be made equally strongly in the other direction. I think it's pretty clear I've been saying both things here: 1.) There is no strong positive interpretation of that quotation to support raventh's position. 2.) There is no string positive interpretation of that quotation to support your position.
However, I get the feeling you were making a point, not merely restating my position. I can't figure out what that point is, however.
quote:And as for the deism, again, I point out that Deism entails natural disasters most definitely being caused by God, just at a large temporal remove. This would be particularly true in TJ's period, before we understood how much weather could be influenced, when it seemed but part of the natural mechanism of the planet.
You are really reaching, and I'm pretty sure you know it. Since TJ was smart enough to know that anything that was caused by a person's lack of foresight also involved causation that could be traced to God, you would have to point to something in the statement that shows TJ was even evaluating God-causes when he made it.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
A weak but extant interpretation is not identical in strength of support to absolutely no interpretation. I have presented a weak but extant interpretation of the quotation supporting the notion of government providing aid to those inconvenienced by disaster. No interpretation at all has been suggested supporting the government specifically not providing aid to those inconvenienced by disaster.
quote:I showed that any argument you can make for it to hint at showing the opposite can be made equally strongly in the other direction.
You did not. You laid out some reasons my argument was weak, none of them supported any argument for specifically not providing aid to those inconvenienced. Negation of one argument is not positive argument for another position.
quote:Since TJ was smart enough to know that anything that was caused by a person's lack of foresight also involved causation that could be traced to God, you would have to point to something in the statement that shows TJ was even evaluating God-causes when he made it.
No, I wouldn't in this discussion, the simple reason because of this:
quote:
quote:plus, a text (in this case, a quotation) can hint at or suggest something without author intent. I was pretty careful in my phrasing; I talk about what the quotation says or hints at, not what Jefferson did. While what Jefferson consciously willed in his construction of the quotation is certainly very important in considering the quotation, it is hardly the final word. We are constantly finding new interpretations of texts which have been around a very long time but were not (and in many cases could not have been) applied to the situations implicated in the interpretation.
In that case, it "hints" as strongly in raventh's favor as yours.
You're arguing on terms where TJ's evaluations aren't the be-all-end-all. There are plenty of people for whom natural disasters are very much the work of a "someone"; a reading which includes that notion is a possible reading of the quotation.
Also, TJ's Deist beliefs included a strong belief in free will for humans and a strong belief in a clockwork universe. That is, those things which humans did not impact proceeded as if like clockwork from God's initial "winding" of creation. In the science of the day, natural disasters very much fell under that clockwork. This explains perfectly well the interpretation I have supported.
I don't think TJ had it in mind. I think he could have and I think there are readings of the quotation (even if it coudl be shown he didn't) which reasonably include a similar dichotomy.
Therefore I think that the interpretation I am laying out, while weak, is extant and has a small force. It is something the quotation "hints" at, no more.
You have not laid out any interpretation which even "hints" at the position mark takes, where governments should not provide aid to those inconvenienced by disaster.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You have not laid out any interpretation which even "hints" at the position mark takes, where governments should not provide aid to those inconvenienced by disaster.
Yes. I have. You specifically brought up the deist/other argument. I gave a specific reasons why that interpretation is unlikely. The quote lists the types of injuries for the law to provide against. The type of injury at issue here is not included in that list.
In addition, if one is going to suppose such long, fragile chains of causation, then there are shorter chains which put the person who loses their house to a storm closer in the causal chain. For example, had the person either not moved to a place where hurricanes are likely or moved away if they were born there, the storm would not have affected them.* This is a much shorter causal chain than any involving clockwork from the beginning of the universe. Therefore, it is more likely that these injuries fall under the specifically excluded realm of self-caused injuries if one is invoking such indirect causation.
Further, the law "provides against" injuries caused by others; in this usage, it creates a cause of action against the other causing the harm - either criminal or civil. A right of action against God is not something that is easily read into that quote.
*No, I'm not saying it's the Katrina victims' fault. We're talking about very indirect causation.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Yes. I have. You specifically brought up the deist/other argument. I gave a specific reasons why that interpretation is unlikely. The quote lists the types of injuries for the law to provide against. The type of injury at issue here is not included in that list.
You had pointed out that there is a strong interpretation for which situations not caused by anyone are completely uncovered by the quotation, but you had not put forth anything that could be interpreted as an interpretation positive towards not providing aid to those injured by hurricanes. You said specifically:
quote:It states what laws do provide against (injury from others) and lists one specific category of injury laws do not provide against.
It leaves entirely open the status of injuries caused by neither other persons or the victims themselves. Therefore it hints as strongly in each direction.
Nowhere in there could one insert anything like "therefore the quotation supports not providing aid to victims of disaster", which is rather necessary for there to have been such an argument.
You have finally made such an argument, which you had not laid out before:
quote:there are shorter chains which put the person who loses their house to a storm closer in the causal chain.
However, what follows misses part of what I was saying
quote:This is a much shorter causal chain than any involving clockwork from the beginning of the universe.
In addition to the tiny possibility TJ might think such a thing as I was suggesting, I was pointing out there are plenty of people for whom hurricanes would be most immediately an act of God, and that thus my interpretation is possible from that angle as well. In such a case God would be far closer in the causal change than the person not having moved, therefore your objection about causal change length is not particularly persuasive as to which interpretation is more reasonable.
However, as I reject that causal chain length is an adequate determinant of "cause", this does not mean that I think the interpretation I mentioned is particularly stronger than the one you just did.
(That someone forgets to put on a parking brake, leading to me being hit by a runaway truck while sitting on a bench, does not make me the most important cause of my death, despite being slightly nearer in the chain of causation than the parking brake forgetter (only one step to not sitting there, whereas we go out to what caused the vehicle to start rolling and then the parking break forgetter on the other chain).)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Nowhere in there could one insert anything like "therefore the quotation supports not providing aid to victims of disaster", which is rather necessary for there to have been such an argument.
My claim was that it hinted "as strongly" in each direction. This can be shown both by enhancing the hinting done in one direction and weakening the hinting done in the other. I have specifically dealt with the "acts of God portion" now on numerous ocassions. As this is the only argument you have advanced, I have been making this case from the beginning.
Frankly, the "others" argument alone is enough to dismiss it entirely. Couple that with an ambiguous statement and my original contention stands - it hints as strongly in each direction.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:(That someone forgets to put on a parking brake, leading to me being hit by a runaway truck while sitting on a bench, does not make me the most important cause of my death, despite being slightly nearer in the chain of causation than the parking brake forgetter (only one step to not sitting there, whereas we go out to what caused the vehicle to start rolling and then the parking break forgetter on the other chain).)
If you went to a beach where experts warned for 50 years that a car might come rolling down the hill, your responsibility would be increased.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Uh, Dagonee -- I stated that I now thought you had demonstrated an interpretation which was equally reasonable in the other direction. I also quoted your previous post and pointed out it gave no such interpretation.
Weakening an argument in one direction does not show equal arguments in both directions if there had never been an argument in the other direction. I can show an argument is very weak all I want, but that does not mean another argument exists at all.
And my example was for why I said this: 'I reject that causal chain length is an adequate determinant of "cause"', not something specifically relating to this situation.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, if you don't like it and refuse to consent to it, leave.
Note the first part of my statement
quote:You get to vote for the people who make governmental decisions
That clearly involves staying even if you don't like it. Your interpretation of my statement is incorrect.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Weakening an argument in one direction does not show equal arguments in both directions if there had never been an argument in the other direction. I can show an argument is very weak all I want, but that does not mean another argument exists at all.
Weakening one interpretation to nullity shows other interpretations to be at least as strong. Specifically, without that take on "others" provided by your deist argument, raventh's contention that victims of the storm had committed self-injury was already extant. I thought that was clear.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
My take on others, as I have mentioned several times, does not rely on the deist argument; that's a very tenuous aspect of it. The much stronger (though still pretty weak) reliance is on there being a not uncommon view among a decent number of people that God is the direct, immediate cause of natural disasters.
For this, reading "others" as including God is not nearly as tenuous as for the deist position.
Mark contended that certain victims of the storm had committed self-injury, but not all -- he conceded that
quote:Some also were not in the place to make any other choice.
My interpretation could happily include only such people. Your argument, also including such people, is different from his, which excludes such people.
.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)