On Apr 18, 2005, at 11:57 AM, Dave Land wrote:
Warren,
On Apr 14, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Dave Land wrote:
With "this thing is invalid," the speaker draws a line in the sand and
throws down an implied challenge to wrong-thinking "this thing is valid"
believers.
That's correct. That could maybe be why I called the attack on Iraq
"unjustifiable", eh? Maybe to me it really, genuinely is. Maybe to me
those who believe otherwise really are wrong-thinking. And maybe I've
got the guts to say so, rather than pretend I don't think I'm correct in
my views.
Is it pretense to leave open the possibility that I don't know something completely?
Course not. However, it was *never my intention* to suggest I was anything less than sure of my opinions on Iraq.
Two years ago my opinion was that the case for attack had not been made, but I did wonder about the unconventional weapons -- after all, inspectors *had* been told there were some places they couldn't look. There was reasonable doubt but not enough, I thought, to justify an invasion.
Now, having seen the total lack of "smoking gun" style evidence, having seen how the US's status has fallen, having seen the outrageous expenses being foisted off on our citizens, having seen the death tolls on both sides, I've become certain.
Iraq is not justifiable. That is my point of view on the subject. That is what I think and I will not tone down my language on the topic because some have a hard time dealing with others who feel sure of some of their opinions.
I am tired of the implication that those who choose to be careful with their language are gutless or liars or both. I heard too much of that during the last election. I think it is the framing device that underlies the anti-political correctness statements.
There's something to be said for undermining PC speech as well. PC statements can sometimes go too far, after all.
You're missing *my* frustration, what *I* am tired of, which is the implication that I'm either arrogant or juvenile -- or both -- for possessing certitude in some areas. We ALL do it. We ALL carry opinions of which we're certain.
I am not swamped with hubris or with "teenage boy macho" any more than anyone else is who's sure of anything. I just happen to hold a view that some don't like, and rather than address the view, they address the way it's expressed. That's pointless. It is not an argument. It's not even a rebuttal.
I'm really put off of discussing this further. At this point I'm just rehashing what I've said before, which suggests to me that it's just not getting through and there's no point in hammering the horse any longer.
If you (or others) want to have a discussion about whether Iraq itself was justifiable, that's fine; I'll be glad to join in and maybe even have my opinion swayed. But I'm not going to engage in discussion of particulars of language, certitude of opinions or implicit disclaimers any longer. The topic is done to death, and I am personally done with it.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
