Dagger in hand
A man of prodigious fortune, coming to add his opinion to some light discussion that was going on casually at his table, began precisely thus: "It can only be a liar or an ignoramus who will say otherwise than," and so on. Pursue that philosophical point, dagger in hand.
--Michel de Montaigne, Of the art of discussion.
Stab back: cmnewman99-at-yahoo.com
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
Sully reposted for general opprobrium this eloquent post from Democratic Underground:
The only way to get rid of this slime bag WASP-Mafia, oil barron ridden cartel of a government, this assault on Americans and anything one could laughingly call "a democracy", relies heavily on what a shit hole Iraq turns into. They need to die so that we can be free. Soldiers usually did that directly--i.e., fight those invading and harming a country. This time they need to die in defense of a lie from a lying adminstration to show these ignorant, dumb Americans that Bush is incompetent. They need to die so that Americans get rid of this deadly scum.Right after reading this, I read Sully's own essay on Bush's seemingly buoyant reelection prospects. In it appears the following passage:
Hmmmm. Am I the only one to note an interesting parallel here? Don't get me wrong. I'm not asserting that the two are morally equivalent. The DU poster obviously resents U.S. soldiers and views the prospect of their deaths with satisfaction even beyond the instrumental value she sees them as having. Sullivan has no such animus toward the Iraqis and does not celebrate their suffering. But he does describe the fact that they are now being targeted by Islamist terrorism as having an "upside." He too is looking at the deaths of innocent people as a salutary development, a catalyst for bringing about a desired change in the political state of affairs.
Had the DU poster written her piece without the bile, and merely taken the position that while our soldiers' deaths are tragic, they nevertheless have an "upside" in helping people realize the failings of the Bush administration, I think it would be hard to distinguish her from Sullivan. One could of course still distinguish between the two and judge them morally on the basis of their respective worldviews and the differing end goals in service of which they are willing to countenance loss of life. But they are the same in that each of them sees the violent suffering of others as having instrumental value. Which, undeniably, it can.
So the question becomes: what, if anything, is wrong with seeing that value and responding to it?
Sorry folks, you won't get an answer to that one from me this morning.
Comments: Post a Comment