4 ms·

My interest in this discussion was to correct a groundless accusation of bad faith. Your arguments would be better directed to the people who made opposing argu

My interest in this discussion was to correct a groundless accusation of bad faith. Your arguments would be better directed to the people who made opposing arguments or asked relevant questions.

gruez 1y ago
>My interest in this discussion was to correct a groundless accusation of bad faith. I stopped short of calling it bad faith, only saying that it "borders" on it. More to the point I don't see how your comments refutes this. The "borders on bad faith" isn't just from bring up other forms of deaths which are as a result of politics, it's to pretend that they're equivalent because they're both "deaths", ignoring the circumstances entirely. It borders on bad faith in the same way that "the golden state killer is a killer, but so was Obama" (because he was the commander in chief of the US military) is bad faith.
- pseudalopex 1y ago
  > I stopped short of calling it bad faith, only saying that it "borders" on it. I deny a difference in effect. And you said pretending. I know no relevant definitions of pretending and bad faith which pretending would include and bad faith would exclude. > ignoring the circumstances entirely No. They weighed some circumstances less and some circumstances more than you. > It borders on bad faith in the same way that "the golden state killer is a killer, but so was Obama" (because he was the commander in chief of the US military) is bad faith. Obama ordered people killed. Some people believed the commander in chief of the US military lacked legal authority to order some of those killings. Some people believed the commander in chief of the US military lacked moral authority to order some of those killings. Some people believed the commander in chief of the US military lacked moral authority to order any of those killings. All were good faith beliefs. Clausewitz said war is the continuation of politics by other means. Obama's killings were a continuation of politics. The Golden State killer's were not.

My interest in this discussion was to correct a groundless accusation of bad faith. Your arguments would be better directed to the people who made opposing arguments or asked relevant questions.

gruez 1y ago

>My interest in this discussion was to correct a groundless accusation of bad faith. I stopped short of calling it bad faith, only saying that it "borders" on it. More to the point I don't see how your comments refutes this. The "borders on bad faith" isn't just from bring up other forms of deaths which are as a result of politics, it's to pretend that they're equivalent because they're both "deaths", ignoring the circumstances entirely. It borders on bad faith in the same way that "the golden state killer is a killer, but so was Obama" (because he was the commander in chief of the US military) is bad faith.

pseudalopex 1y ago
> I stopped short of calling it bad faith, only saying that it "borders" on it. I deny a difference in effect. And you said pretending. I know no relevant definitions of pretending and bad faith which pretending would include and bad faith would exclude. > ignoring the circumstances entirely No. They weighed some circumstances less and some circumstances more than you. > It borders on bad faith in the same way that "the golden state killer is a killer, but so was Obama" (because he was the commander in chief of the US military) is bad faith. Obama ordered people killed. Some people believed the commander in chief of the US military lacked legal authority to order some of those killings. Some people believed the commander in chief of the US military lacked moral authority to order some of those killings. Some people believed the commander in chief of the US military lacked moral authority to order any of those killings. All were good faith beliefs. Clausewitz said war is the continuation of politics by other means. Obama's killings were a continuation of politics. The Golden State killer's were not.