Can you give me a reason to think 9/11 was significant?
What's this all about?
I would reword your question because it implies that you think it was not significant Hurkyl.
Art is (yet again ) accusing me of being hypocritical with my criticism. This is actually sort of a two-way challenge: maybe I'll find out that I really am hypocritical. But what I hope to accomplish is to demonstrate the qualities that are lacking in the various arguments in a context where he can't blame it on differing openion.
It might even be an instructive exercise, to explicitly analyze just what was so bad about 9/11.
Of course, I know full well that some of my typical counter-arguments are inapplicable, so what will probably happen is that this whole thing will blow up in my face and make me look silly. *sigh*
But at least we're off to a good start. Just because I ask someone to defend their opinion does not mean I hold the opposite opinion!
I'm still confused as to what is going on here... How were you supposedly being hypocritical with your criticism? Is this an offshoot from another thread?
Or create a list of some of the most significant national and international events of the 20th and 21st centuries, such as: World War I, 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, World War II, Korean War, discovery of DNA, invention of the personal computer, Brown v. Board of Education decision, Vietnam War, President John F. Kennedy assassination, Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination, first man on the moon, Watergate, Persian Gulf War, breakup of the Soviet Union, Oklahoma City bombing, Columbine shootings, and Hurricane Katrina -- Just to keep things in perspective.
The most siginificant aspect of 9-11 has been its use by our own government to consolidate power by waging a war against something intangible and infinite.
I know, but the way you worded your question, sounds like you think it was not significant. Im just pointing that out. I would ask the question as follows,
Art, can you give me a reason to think 9/11 was not significant?
Hence the implication you think it was significant.
Well, that's the wrong question. I want Art to present reasons why he thinks 9/11 is significant. E.g. I want Art to jump in and say "2500 civilians died!" so I can say "So what? Big numbers are meaningless without context!"
And one of the things I'm trying to rebuke is the assumption that whenever I ask someone to justify their position, I must be holding the opposing opinion. (Since, quite frequently, I don't have an opinion either way on the particular issue)
Then you should ask the question as follows:
Art, while I agree with your position, I fail to see your reasoning behind it. Can you please elaborate on it.
It all depends on how you ask the question.
The Iraq body count thing came up. Someone was basing an opinion based on the fact the number of deaths was a large number. I was criticizing that person for not putting the number in context.
So Art (of course ) alledges that I would not hold the same standard if we were talking about 9/11. So I had this naive hope that Art would play along with this exercise, and depending on the quality of the argument, I could either demonstrate the flaws in a context where he couldn't rationalize things away by assuming I have a differing opinion, or I could demonstrate the differences between the argument he presented, and the typical arguments I criticize.
Meh, it was a silly idea though, and strikes me that it may not even be appropriate. I'm going to get a warning from Evo. (I'd delete it myself, but I doubt that would be appropriate)
Can you explain the the argument in more detail, now im curious.
What you and art were debating.
Dictionary definition of significant - Having or likely to have a major effect; important:
Did 9/11 have a major effect? Yes.
It affected the american psyche creating a climate of fear.
It changed america's foreign policy leading to two wars (so far)
It caused the deaths of 1000's of civilians in the countries in which these wars are being waged.
It has shaped the american political scene by leading to the re-election of a recovering alcoholic, drug taking moron in the whitehouse who played on people's fears.
And so I don't think you can disagree that it meets the terms of the definition listed above and so I rest my case.
BTW I would prefer if you had the courage of your own convictions and actually stated your opinion to be thus rather than stir up the water with comments and then hide behind a declaration that what you purport is not necessarily your opinion. This is a common tactic of yours and is a cowardly and insincere way to debate.
I had taken an estimate of the body count as 0.5% of the Iraqi population, and had scaled the figures down to the conclusion:
If 100 people lived in a similar conflict for four years, there's a fifty percent chance that one of them would die.
From which the numbers don't seem so much.
Art gutted the example, quoting me as if I said said nothing more than a body count of 0.5% of the country's population is not surprising. (I'm not yet sure if I care about that) He went on to say that this logic would say that 9/11 should have been a footnote in history.
Afterwards, he asserted that I would bend over backwards to villify anyone who tried to do something similar with 9/11. (Yay, a red herring, strawman, and ad hominem all wrapped up into one!)
In a public forum, Bush ball parked as much as 30,000 iraqi civilians died. It is probably more, as he would naturally be conservative not to make his poll numbers go down.
Actually Hurkyl - This is an ad-hominem attack!!
Is this a test to see if Evo or I will lock a thread started by another mentor? As much as this might make for an interesting academic exercise, I think there are sufficient threads on body counts already.
50% chance than one person out of 100 would die in 4 years. The population of Iraq is 26 mil people Hurkyl. That would mean a 50% chance in four years that 260k people would die. Thats like genocide in four years. Thats unacceptable. The known figure of 30,000 dead iraqi civilians is already unacceptable.
I often find the need to take a stance opposite my own position in order to challenge what has been presented. Then everyone wrongly assumes my position, but that is to be expected.
Separate names with a comma.