Another Myth Created Before Our Very Eyes?
David Friedman had some cool posts a while ago, hunting down various myths about social conservatives. (I can’t go look them up right now.) The pattern was: anti-religious people would absolutely flip out over some “nutjob Christian” stance somebody took, it would become common knowledge, and the only problem was…it was either totally backwards or it took the person way out of context.
I’m wondering if there’s something like that in the case of a biology teacher who–as a bunch of my Facebook friends could not believe!!!–might lose his job because he said the word “vagina” during class. And yep, if you go to the news story they linked, both the headline and opening paragraph support the claim:
High School teacher under investigation after saying ‘vagina’ in biology lesson
* Tim McDaniel used term while teaching 10th grade biology lesson on reproduction and anatomyHigh School science teacher is facing the sack after he used the word ‘vagina’ during a biology lesson for pupils aged 15 and 16.
Tim McDaniel, is being investigated by Idaho’s professional standards commission for using term while teaching a 10th grade biology lesson on reproduction and anatomy.
Four parents in conservative community of Dietrich wrote to complain, and now education chiefs in the conservative state are considering his future.
Wow, I can’t believe it! Organized religion is ruining this country, I tell ya.
But hang on, the article continues:
Mr McDaniel, who said he had never received a complaint in the 18 years he had taught at Dietrich School, is also accused of explaining the biology of an orgasm.
…
A disciplinary letter from the Idaho State Department of Education also accused McDaniels of showing a video clip in class depicting an infection of genital herpes and teaching about different forms of birth control.The letter also alleges that McDaniels told inappropriate jokes in class.
…
According to a 2002 survey, 66 per cent of church goers in Lincoln County, where Dietrich is located, are affiliated with the Mormon Church,
But it seems the majority of his students back him.
But still, to possibly get fired for all of this? Oh wait, the article concludes:
Dietrich Superintendent Neil Hollingshead said: ‘It is highly unlikely it would end with his dismissal.
‘Maybe a letter of reprimand from the school board.’
So rather than “OMG a biology teacher got fired by some religious freaks for saying ‘vagina’!!!” the actual story is, “A biology teacher was accused of talking about orgasms in class, showing video of a genital infection, and making inappropriate jokes, and will likely receive a reprimand from the school board.”
I don’t really remember what we learned in high school on this stuff when I was growing up, and I don’t know whether this is outrageous or not. But it’s a heck of a lot less outrageous than a biology professor getting fired for using the medically appropriate word.
Boys have a penis. Girls have a vagina.
Incorrect, unless genital mutilation is implied.
Mutilation? Maybe it’s a tumor.
I’d love to know what the inapproriate joke was.
Good point. This is a common tactic. I bet he used the word “body” too. It’s an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc as spin.
I take an approach to these things that might also introduce its own bias…
I heard that story too. My reaction was “this headline is almost certainly NOT what actually happened – he has to have either done something else inappropriate or the consequences are being misrepresented or more likely a combination of the two”, and then I go on with my life without reading the article.
Turns out it was a combination of the two in this case – he was cracking sex jokes and wasn’t in as much trouble as suggested. A win for my coping strategy.
But it does make me wonder what outrage-fueled-facebook-stories like this I dismiss that really are true.
Considering the number of times I’ve been witch-hunted with an official explanation involving true-but-trivial accusations [1], I tend to believe stories of hysteria where people freak out over nothing. Also, remember the “OMG Sarah Palin called him ‘Charlie’!!! What a moron!”
[1] “I’m sorry, Silas, there are complaints you used the term ‘sexy’ in the context of a group making a bunch of sexual jokes … we don’t tolerate that kind of thing here”. “Silas, is it true that you frequently criticize Stephan Kinsella’s views about IP when he posts about them? STALKER! Liberty-hater!”
Two men enter; One man leaves!
#WenzelKinsellaDebate #TeamKinsella
By the way, if Kinsella’s argument against IP is that information is not a scarce resource, and therefore there would exist no conflict to resolve, then I would actually be against BOTH Wenzel and Kinsella.
The reason is that property is acquired by mixing one’s labor with a resource, and so property rights are NOT primarily a conflict resolution issue.
A resource can be so scarce that only one person could utilize it at a time, or it can be so abundant that no one cares how much someone else is utilizing, and it would still be the case that the supply of the resource with which someone mixed their labor would become that person’s property.
I was reading some comments about how Kinsella would approach the IP debate from this or that angle, and this one angle concerned me.
It would suck for Kinsella to lose the debate for the wrong reasons.
Daniel, one doesn’t even need to bring up Al-alwaki’s son in order to find injustice (though his death and his son’s just two weeks later, both by drones, seems like a strange coincidence), why not focus on Al-alwaki himself. As far as I can tell, he was never accused of an actual crime, and while I am hesitant to say this (for my own safety), but what he *is* accused of can also be said of me. He has had contact with nefarious fellows by email and acquaintance, he has spoken very badly toward the US, and he has been vocal in expressing his views.
If the US government labeled me a terrorist and had me killed, would you buy their story that I was a terrorist threat that needed to be extra-judiciously eradicated?
I struggle Joe with finding anything in your argument except “I Fetz don’t know the facts, so I think Obama’s actions unacceptable.” That’s a coherent position being a demand for transparency, but will you acknowledge it can have costs, like the lives of informants?
Better to err on the side of the accused:
The Federalist No. 84
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm
Will you complain next about these rampant claims that Obama targeted a sixteen year old when in fact he was collateral damage in a strike on Ibrahim al-Banna?
Because many more of the people I see on facebook think a sixteen year old citizen was targeted than think a biology teacher was fired for saying vagina.
And THAT misapprehension is far more consequential.
But I’m guessing you’ll let that one slide…
+1
Or a lot of the conspiracy myths we see peddled about the Iraq war for instance. Yet the one important world leader we know was taking money was …. Chirac.
What about the conspiracy theory that Saddam was stockpiling WMDs?
The one that Bill Clinton endorsed? And Chirac too btw. Anyway we know he was at one point, and agreed to dismantle them, and to prove he did. This last he failed to do. Are you even aware of gas attacks on the Kurds? Or of UN inspections?
Finally Silas error is not conspiracy. That’s kinda the point, how myths grow from tendentious slanted distort ions and half truths. Are you peddling the notion Saddam’s weapons were never real?
Actually “error” does determine what gets called a conspiracy theory later. That’s my point.
It shouldn’t be. You seem to be a defender of the practice in this case.
Indeed Ken B.
As you know I already have a great deal of respect for Bob. If he actually posts on this my respect for him will shoot through the roof.
Daniel wrote: “Will you complain next about these rampant claims that Obama targeted a sixteen year old when in fact he was collateral damage in a strike on Ibrahim al-Banna?”
You understand that the only evidence you have for this claim is the fact that anonymous administration officials told the New York Times this?
Whether it was intentional or not, the completely innocent 16-year old boy who went in search for his father was still very much killed by Obama, just as thousands of other completely innocent people.
Btw, do you think that when drones are used in the US the same standards should be used (adjusted for context) as they are currently used when it comes to killing Muslims in Muslim countries?
I mean, would it be okay to use a drone in say Virginia to kill somebody suspected of being an Al Quaida member if it means taking out say a dozen completely innocent American men,women and children as well?
And then when people come to the aid of the wounded, would it be okay for Obama to send another drone to kill those people who are trying to help as well, because there may be some terrorists among them?
Because that is what Obama does. Habitually.
Which is more evidence than you have for making the alternate claim. I’m not posting every other day about how awesome it was that we killed the young al Awlaki precisely because I don’t have all the information.
This is in stark contrast to the people who do choose to mouth off about al Awlaki on the basis of jack shit.
Even if this information is classified (and shouldn’t it be? is that really such a problem?) and none of us know the real story, certainly my case and the administration claim is considerably more plausible than the alternative.
Daniel wrote: “Which is more evidence than you have for making the alternate claim.”
i’m not making the alternate claim. All I’m saying is that Obama killed an innocent 16 year old boy. Maybe he was targeted, maybe he was collateral damage, maybe he was ‘oh, I hope that by killing this one guy we also kill that American citizen who we could not otherwise kill but who would be great collateral damage (in the way that Obama tried to kill others while strongly suspecting that Anwar Al-Awlaki would also be at the scene)
“I’m not posting every other day about how awesome it was that we killed”
Just please stop saying “we”. it’s weird and embarrassing.
” the young al Awlaki precisely because I don’t have all the information.”
Okay, so you limit yourself to saying it only once in a while (like you did above), not every day
“This is in stark contrast to the people who do choose to mouth off about al Awlaki on the basis of jack shit.”
Yeah, I dont like those people either. I mean, they would just say things like that Al-Awlaki was a terrorist, that he helped to plan terrorist acts etc. while they have or at the very least dont present any evidence for this.
Yeah, I dont like these people either, Daniel.
“Even if this information is classified (and shouldn’t it be? is that really such a problem?)”
In some cases secrecy may be justified. In many others it may not be. I dont have any reason to think secrecy in this case is justified.
” and none of us know the real story”
while it would be very easy for Obama to provide us with evidence to back up his claim
“certainly my case and the administration claim is considerably more plausible than the alternative.”
I’d agree that it is more probable. But I dont agree that the alternative is improbable, and would add that the third possibility (‘accidentally’ killing somebody as collateral damage you would have wanted to kill anyway but couldn’t) is also a viable one.
What would you say to someone who, on the basis of no evidenced, questioned your assertion the kid was innocent? You’d be unimpressed. Kinda like some of us are about the claim made, on the basis of no evidence, that Obama is guilty. I’m no Obama fan, but can we at least try to be minimally fair and careful on a thread about the consequences of being neither?
re: “Btw, do you think that when drones are used in the US the same standards should be used (adjusted for context) as they are currently used when it comes to killing Muslims in Muslim countries?”
I’m not sure there’s a “Muslim country” standard. Could you explain what you mean?
I think military drones should follow military standards for engagement and due process and I think law enforcement drones should follow law enforcement standards for engagement and due process.
I guess I don’t understand why you think the religion of the potential target is of relevance here. Can you explain?
The details of the complex interactions of law enforcement and military on terrorism issues are something I’d have to defer to a lawyer on, and certainly I’d expect reasonable people could have differences on how that works out.
The important point is that drone use ought to be consistent with due process always and everywhere, and when it’s not (men are not angels), we respond accordingly.
Do you disagree with me that drone use should follow due process?
Not in the sense that at the very least it is a necessary condition.
of course the term ‘due process’ may be open to interpretation. The following question may make this clear: Would you say that Obama followed due process in his killing of Anwar al-Awlaki?
re: “Not in the sense that at the very least it is a necessary condition.”
i.e. “I agree but I don’t want to say I agree so I’m going to pretend that thinking that the issue is more complex than a couple sentences is the same as not agreeing”
re: “Would you say that Obama followed due process in his killing of Anwar al-Awlaki?”
As we said already I don’t have the information to definitively say. I don’t have any good reason to trumpet over facebook that he didn’t.
Daniel wrote: “I’m not sure there’s a “Muslim country” standard. Could you explain what you mean?”
Well, currently Obama uses his drones only for killing Muslims in (at least 4) Islamic countries, so that’s all the evidence we have as to what his standards are. Do you think the same standards that are currently employed (adjusted for context) should be followed if Obama were to use drones in the US?
What I’m getting at is that the current standards don’t seem to value innocent human lives that highly. Those are the standards used by Obama in his use of drones in Muslim countries. Should the same standards with the same respect or disrespect for innocent human lives be followed if he were to start using drones in the US?
So you think his standards are related to these being Muslim countries?
This is why you come across as a troll, Narrator.
re: “What I’m getting at is that the current standards don’t seem to value innocent human lives that highly.”
I would have thought exactly the opposite.
So you’\re not going to answer the question as to whether the same standards currently used in drone killings should be (adjusted for context) used in possible future drone killings inside the US?
(I’ve asked you this question probably about 5 times already, in different threads, and you’ve not answered it so far)
I thought I did answer, sorry. Military standards of due process should be used for drones in military theaters, like targeting al Qaeda. Military standards should not be used domestically assuming the use is law enforcement. Law enforcement standards should be used. And I defer to lawyers who are smarter than me when those two worlds collide.
I think I’ve given this answer every single time.
Maybe if you could try to pinpoint what it is you’re struggling with?
Or are you just trying to distract from the fact that you don’t have a real point by citing something that’s irrelevant but salacious?
wait what? what am I citing that is irrelevant but salacious?
The Muslim thing.
If you seriously think he has a standard “when it comes to” Muslims than either you’re underinformed or you’re just citing irrelevant and salacious things to troll.
(and I suppose it’s working – so I should probably just stop commenting).
You don’t see me going around saying “so do you not care about innocent Muslims being killed by al Qaeda?”
Because I know that that’s not the issue of contention just as well as you know that innocent life or Muslim life is something that’s not of concern when it comes to me.
But for some reason you feel it necessary to go there. Why?
well, for one thing, you yourself went there not so long ago (when you commented on the Rand Paul filibuster. You doubted his motives because (you thought) he was only talking about Americans) so it only seems fair that others are equally free to doubt your motives.
“Because I know that that’s not the issue of contention just as well as you know that innocent life or Muslim life is something that’s not of concern when it comes to me.”
You might want to rephrase this
“If you seriously think he has a standard “when it comes to” Muslims than either you’re underinformed or you’re just citing irrelevant and salacious things to troll.”
I seriously think that (although it generalizes somewhat from Muslim countries to any country the US would wage war in). And I don’t think I’m uninformed or that I’m a troll.
So if I recall I was commenting generally on people getting more worked up over citizens and what that says about what we really think of what the Constitution says.
I’m pretty well aware that Paul doesn’t like the drone strikes period, so maybe I wrote something unclearly but I’m guessing Paul’s filibuster was just a motivator for the post.
I’m sure I’ve never said that Rand Paul only cares about this when it happens to American citizens, but feel free to bring it to my attention if I have said that.
No, I’ll complain that Obama’s kill list is so immoral, irresponsible, and reckless that it kills 16 year olds as collateral damage. Checkmate!
So was Eisenhower’s then, n’est-ce pas?
And that’s something we can actually argue about, Silas.
I’ll counter that it is a step in the direction of morality because while it still has collateral damage it has considerably less collateral damage than other methods for fighting terrorism.
And then we can both probably agree that there are good and bad times and situations to utilize these methods. Relative to you I’ll probably err on the side of defending innocent children threatened by not meeting the threat of terrorism and Islamism generally, and you’ll err on the side of defending innocent children threatened by the collateral damage associated with meeting that threat.
And if everything is going smoothly we’ll both acknowledge that the other one holds his opinion because their deepest concern is the life of innocent children (and other sorts of people.. that’s just a nice stand in for a long list).
The old “I only kill children for the children” argument. Classic.
Yep, that’s Silas’s argument. Harsh of you to mock him though. Which is DK’s point really: when you have only bad choices, and uncertainty about consequences, you should accept that your actions or inactions, whatever they may be, will sometimes have bad results.
Your inaction of curing cancer is genocidal.
Daniel wrote:
“re: “Not in the sense that at the very least it is a necessary condition.”
i.e. “I agree but I don’t want to say I agree so I’m going to pretend that thinking that the issue is more complex than a couple sentences is the same as not agreeing””
wtf dude? I’m making a very clear point: I see due process as a necessary condition for the use of drones, not as a sufficient condition. So to the extent that I agree with you on due process it is in its being a necessary condition. We may disagree about the interpretation of ‘due process’ (thanks Holder!) and about its sufficiency as a condition.
Truly Daniel, if you’re going to insinuate that I’m being dishonest or manipulative at least try to actually make the case for that rather than just make some random allegation.
And I’m happy to agree with you that it’s a necessary condition.
What I found funny is that you had to think up a way to say so that even though we now have two things we agree on, you could still answer that you are not in agreement.
Daniel wrote: “What I found funny is that you had to think up a way to say so that even though we now have two things we agree on, you could still answer that you are not in agreement.”
again, wtf dude? I’m answering your question accurately and honestly and completely (unlike you do with my questions) and you somehow try to portray that as if I tried to hide something or tried to manipulate things with the way I answered the question.
“As the bar owner is, he trusts his guests” we say in where I’m from.
OK, one more time.
I have no trouble with the substance of your answer: the necessary but not sufficient condition point and the contested nature of “due process”.
I find the way you answer (regularly – not just here) funny/frustrating. Some people will just agree and add another point to the conversation, and then I’ll agree (or not) with that and add more points. You always seem to really like disagreeing with people, even when you agree.
re: “(unlike you do with my questions)”
OK screw you. Calling me dishonest is an excellent way to get me to not give you the time of day anymore.
Daniel,
I have been reading this blog and the comments for a couple of years and you always struck me as a reasonable person, although I didn’t even agree with you.
But I am afraid that reading your comments on this thread is changing my impression of you pretty rapidly. Even before the Narrator said one word.
The first “even” should read “always”.
Daniel wrote:
“re: “Would you say that Obama followed due process in his killing of Anwar al-Awlaki?”
As we said already I don’t have the information to definitively say. I don’t have any good reason to trumpet over facebook that he didn’t.”
Obama notes to self: “Hey, so this stuff actually works! As long as I keep the relevant information secret people will be much more likely not to aks hard questions or distrust me! Wow… So I should just keep more and more stuff secret. And also go after whistle-blowers and what not. Excellent!”
Yeah, if the people of a country can’t be sure that due process was followed before the execution of an individual (especially a citizen of the country) then due process was not followed. The whole point of due process is to prevent the abuses of government. Accepting that “due process” was followed in secrecy based solely on the unverifiable assurances of government officials is exceptionally foolish.
not if Eric Holder says it’s okay
“I thought I did answer, sorry. Military standards of due process should be used for drones in military theaters, like targeting al Qaeda. Military standards should not be used domestically assuming the use is law enforcement. Law enforcement standards should be used. And I defer to lawyers who are smarter than me when those two worlds collide.
I think I’ve given this answer every single time.
Maybe if you could try to pinpoint what it is you’re struggling with?”
Sure, I guess the abstractness of your answer made it hard for me to recognize it as an answer to my concrete question.
So let’s make it more concrete. If it were as difficult to catch a certain terrorist inside the US (or in a Middle Eastern holiday resort with lots of American tourists) as it is to catch a similar terrorist in say Yemen, and if in the latter case Obama uses due process and decides to drone a restaurant knowing that there is a good chance that say 20 innocent people will be killed as well, would you say that it is okay for him to use the same standard and go ahead and kill the terrorist in Virginia by bombing where he is hiding and probably killing 20 innocent people with him?
If they’re in a restaurant in the U.S. and not taking action it seems very likely that we’d want to pick them up and charge them, not do a drone strike. I assume this would be in the law enforcement pile (which almost certainly means a different approach). But there may be complicated coordination that I’d have to defer to a lawyer on.
This obviously has nothing to do with being a Muslim. If they were in a mosque or a Muslim neighborhood and all the causalities were Muslims – and let’s say not even just Muslims but non-citizens – I would have the exact same answer.
The difference is a question of jurisdiction and the nature of what is going on, not religion.
Okay, thanks for your answers. So I think I can sum up your position as follows (and please correct me if I’m incorrect):
The same moral standards should guide decisions about drone attacks against targets (US citizen or not) in on the one hand e.g. Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan and on the other hand in the US.
Because the contexts are different as a legal and institutional matter this may mean that while in some cases (in e.g. Pakistan) the attacks are carried out via military action and protocol while in other cases (e.g. in the US) the attacks are carried out via police action and protocol.
But other than that there are no moral differences. So if for example it is equally difficult to catch (suspected) terrorist A in Pakistan and (suspected) terrorist B in the US, and if both terrorists are of equal importance, then, taking into consideration / adjusting for legal and institutional aspects, it is as justifiable (or unjustifiable) to risk killing two dozen innocents in Pakistan as it is to risk killing two dozen citizens in the US.
Moreover (based on what you’ve written elsewhere), you currently think that the drone strikes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen are targeted (in the sense of not random and/or excessively costly in terms of innocent human lives) and that the drone program shows a great respect for the importance of innocent lives. So that seems to mean that you think the current standards of the drone program are morally justified.
So then you must hold that, adjusted for legal and institutional considerations and adjusted for context, the same moral standards that guide the current drone programs in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan and Somalia should also guide any potential drone use in the US.
That is good to know (and please correct me if I misinterpreted you) and thank you for your answer.
This sounds pretty much right. I’m very skeptical of the need for military action in the US unless there’s some kind of insurrection, but then again as I said I’m not the best one to arbitrate the nexus of jurisdictions: I simply note that jurisdictional concerns ought to prevail.
On my view of current drone policy: I think we use it too much. It’s obviously counter-productive in a lot of theaters. The administration seems to be realizing this too. But you’re right I don’t think it’s “random” and I do place great value on the fact that it is so targeted relative to other options for addressing threats.
Like any classified activity (we can include conventional warfare and police action information that isn’t revealed to the public too), of course abuses could occur. And I think we should address those abuses the way we always have: make them illegal and prosecute when its a problem.
It’s not perfect, but then did we ever expect it to be? Men aren’t angels and I’m not going to wait on them to be angels before endorsing a course of action that seems on balance to be the one most consistent with human dignity.
al Awlaki got his recruiting and exhortation activities going two miles from my house. This is not a hypothetical for me. If they got him earlier for cooperation with al Qaeda. I would not want a drone strike. That’s why my tax dollars pay for Fall Church police, Virginia state troopers, and the FBI.
Daniel wrote: “al Awlaki got his recruiting and exhortation activities going two miles from my house. This is not a hypothetical for me. If they got him earlier for cooperation with al Qaeda. I would not want a drone strike. That’s why my tax dollars pay for Fall Church police, Virginia state troopers, and the FBI”
I don’t mean this in a passive-aggressive way, but it’s kind of hard to follow your argument here, how the individual sentences relate to each other. Better use of punctuation may be helpful. For example “If they got him earlier for cooperation with al Qaeda. I would not want a drone strike. ” I take it that you mean that you would have preferred that law enforcement had been able to arrest al-Awlaki before he became out of their reach and could only be targeted for assasination rather than arrest.
If this is what you mean, then I’m not sure what you mean by the first sentence: “al Awlaki got his recruiting and exhortation activities going two miles from my house.” I mean, to my knowledge the things that al-Awlaki did while in the US were all protected as free speech, and so there was no cause for his arrest while in the US. (In addition, of course, I have also not seen evidence that anything he did after he went to Yemen wasn’t protected by free speech as well, that he e.g. helped to plan a terrorist attack or something)
“That’s why my tax dollars pay for Fall Church police, Virginia state troopers, and the FBI””
Yep, and it would be good if these organizations could catch terrorists before they can hurt people. At the moment of course, these organizations are more likely to spend your tax dollars on setting up fake terrorist plots, recruiting Muslims for them, coaching them, rewarding them, indoctrinating them etc. and then arresting them as suspected terrorists. Or they are hard at work spying on Muslims specifically (as the scandal in New York showed), or prosecuting Muslims who have but the flimsiest and indirect and unintended (financial or other) link to a suspected terror group but who have done nothing wrong.
There *is* a de facto separate justice system for Muslims in the US (that of course is a claim that is independent of and not intended to function as evidence for my earlier claim that Obama (all else being equal) is less careful with Muslim lives in Muslim countries than he would be with non-Muslim Americans in America)
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/22/nypd_spying_program_aimed_at_muslims/singleton/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/16/court-terrorism-morales-gangs-meaningless (esp. the paragraph that starts with “It is hard to overstate”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/15/us-obama-muslims-animosity-deepens nothing wrong.
I was under the impression he was active with al Qaeda in the US – more than just preaching against US actions. I could be wrong – haven’t looked into it closely.
The intro is just to say that you repeatedly act as if I’m just not thinking because this is happening to Muslims far away. I’m not. It’s very real and non-hypothetical to me.
“I was under the impression he was active with al Qaeda in the US – more than just preaching against US actions. I could be wrong – haven’t looked into it closely.”
Okay
“The intro is just to say that you repeatedly act as if I’m just not thinking because this is happening to Muslims far away. I’m not. It’s very real and non-hypothetical to me.”
yes. And I struggle with this. On the one hand I do more or less think that this is true in some (not unimportant) respect, but on the other hand I wonder (among other things): is my concern for the same people really any greater or more sincere than Daniel’s? Right now my concern nicely fits my anti-Obama (or anti-statism) bias, but if things had been the other way aroiund, would I still have that concern? (how do I feel about non-interventionism when it comes to Rwanda in the mid-1990s for example),
Bro, your pwnage of DK has been excellent. It’s amazing watching how persistently he twists and turns in an effort to rationalize the mass murder of innocents as “permissible following the proper military procedures of which should be kept secret so that it is impossible to know what those procedures are and if they are being followed at all, but we can know if they are being followed or not based on anonymous white house official statements etc etc etc”
At first I thought your statement was too harsh and a bit of a caricature, but upon rereading it it seems quite accurate. One caveat though: the way you phrase it (though that is not necessarily how you mean it) it may sound a bit too ‘intentional’, as if Daniel sets out to defend mass murder etc while in reality he of course doesn’t perceive / conceptualize what is happening as mass murder and so he doesn’t set out to rationalize mass murder but only to provide a (not unconditional) defense of the actions the US government currently undertakes in its war on terror.
re: “while in reality he of course doesn’t perceive / conceptualize what is happening as mass murder and so he doesn’t set out to rationalize mass murder”
Agreed, and thanks. It’s infuriating how rare recognition of this is.
I could go around calling you and Bob mass murderers. That’s why I disagree so vehemently with you after all – I despise indifference to innocent life and the mass murder of innocents.
But I imagine you’re of that view too, so it would be non-sensical for me to blast you as someone who doesn’t care about children or Muslims or liberty, even if you views have that unintended effect.
Crap, now I feel a little bad about the comment below.
But only a little. It’s nonsense that you’ve pwned me. I think your arguments have been very weak throughout.
Let me put it this way – in light of this comment of yours I relent and ask that the last sentence of my response to Robert be stricken from the record. That goes overboard. But I do maintain that the idea that you’ve come close to pwning me is nuts.
I didnt say I pwned you here, some other guy did. Hell, I’ll even say that this has been one of my weakest performances in debating you.
I know you didn’t. I didn’t say you did.
I know you didn’t. I didn’t say you did.
(see, *that*’s trolling)
re: “Bro, your pwnage of DK has been excellent.”
I guess this just goes to show how real epistemic closure/epistemic communities are (and sure, if they’re there I’m in one too).
The Narrator has, since I’ve started reading his comments, been an awful advocate for his views and he’s been tremendously snarky in the process. I can’t imagine anyone describing him as pwning me on this. He’s one of the lowest value added commenters to wander into my own blog in a while.
Haha! Well, thanks for sharing your thoughts and feelings and for not holding back.
to be sure, Daniel, here’s what I think is happening. What I do in my comments is analyze your arguments. You’ll be hard-pressed to find more than say 3 (out of probably 50 or so) comments of mine that do not almost exclusively with analyzing your arguments in an analyutical and factual matter. and when I do this I regularly stumble upon (intellectual and/or moral) problems with your arguments that I then aks you about (or call you on directly). In your replies you then often become evasive (you create a straw man, use red herrings) and use more debating techniques in order to not have to deal with the actual problems with the arguments. I then analyze your responses and call you on them. This you don’t like. and we may go back and forth like this a couple of times.
What you don;t like about my comments mostly is that you find it much harder to get away with stuff.
What I don’t like about your arguments and/or behavior is that I think it is just such a shame and such a waste, You’re a very intelligent and incredibly well-read scholar and, especially (but by no means not solely) when it comes to your criticism of / insights into Austrian Economics, can and very much want to learn an awful lot from you. But your blogging and debating behavior is often more a hindrance than a help because you often seem to care more about defending your pre-existing biases (with relatively weak arguments (and then getting angry and more evasive when peope call you on that)) than about openly exploring issues, or even just talking about interesting stuff that you’re less emotionally involved in.
Daniel wrote: “I’m sure I’ve never said that Rand Paul only cares about this when it happens to American citizens, but feel free to bring it to my attention if I have said that.”
I think you’re right and that I misremembered. I just tried to find the statement I had in mind on your blog but couldn’t find it where I thought you had made it. Instead there was a different statement (one that didn’t call into question Rand’s concern for non-Americans but one wondering why Rand Paul *was* sticking up for due process in the case of drones but not in some cases of clear violations of due process inside the US) that I in my mind probably combined with some other (imagined or real) statement to somehow arrive at the memory/idea that at one point you had basically implied that Rand Paul didn’t care about drones being used on non-Americans in other countries.
Sorry about that. I’ll try to run an ‘uninstall’ program in my mind so as to get rid not just of this specific false memory but also of traces it may have left on other ideas and thought and argument I’ve had.
Daniel wrote: “I find the way you answer (regularly – not just here) funny/frustrating. Some people will just agree and add another point to the conversation, and then I’ll agree (or not) with that and add more points. You always seem to really like disagreeing with people, even when you agree.”
That’s weird. I try to be honest and accurate in my writing. That may make it seem a bit labored or indirect or whatever at times. In this case you started with this question “Do you agree that drone strikes should follow due process?”
This of course is highly ambiguous (moreover, it was not clear to me why you would even aks that question in that part of the discussion):
First of all, it could also be interpreted as meaning “After due process, even if that process resulted in the person being found not guilty or whatever, the person should be drone attacked.” Obviously, I realized that this is not what you meant, so I didn’t bother with that interpretation.
Secondly though, your question leaves entirely open the matter of whether due process is a necessary and/or sufficient condition. This is pretty much the most important aspect of this matter, and so I would first have to clarify this before I could answer. That is why I wrote ‘I agree that it’s a necessary condition, but not that it’s a sufficient condition.”
How is replying in this way an example of my ‘really liking to disagree with people, even when [i] agree”? I’m just being careful and accurate by making the distinction between necessary and sufficient because it is a crucial part of this issue. If I had just said ‘I agree’ then it wouldnt have been clear whether I agreed that it was a necessary and/or a sufficient condition while that is a crucial aspect of it.
Bob posts about how sloppy half truths create damaging myths. FA commenters follow with sloppy half truths about the president, his motives, and decisions. Just saying.
Another myth being peddled as we speak: that Easter is named for Ishtar. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/29/happy-easter-which-is-not-named-after-ishtar-okay.html
Happy Ishtar Bob! Hope it’s better than the movie …
Incidentally the origin of Easter as a word in English , Northumbrian, is discussed by Bede, who links it to a native goddess Eostre. Some linguists trace it back to the earlier Saxon oster, tied to sunrise.
Daniel,
if you go see this movie, all is forgiven
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/31/dirty-wars-terrorism-victims