Comments on: From Empathy Through Sympathy to Advocacy http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/18/from-empathy-through-sympathy-to-advocacy/ Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:00:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: David http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/18/from-empathy-through-sympathy-to-advocacy/comment-page-1/#comment-20201 David Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:29:59 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/from-empathy-through-sympathy-to-advocacy/#comment-20201 Re: George Aug. 20. I don't think hallucinations explain the attitude the Arabs and Iranians have for the USA and Israel. The USA wants to control the middle east. That is why Saddam had to go. It was Bush who said you are with us or against us, and if you are not with us you are with the terrorists. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but a lot do with changing the ME to suit the USA and Israel. I see no hallucinations here. Re: George Aug. 20. I don’t think hallucinations explain the attitude the Arabs and Iranians have for the USA and Israel. The USA wants to control the middle east. That is why Saddam had to go. It was Bush who said you are with us or against us, and if you are not with us you are with the terrorists. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but a lot do with changing the ME to suit the USA and Israel. I see no hallucinations here.

]]> By: LI Mike http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/18/from-empathy-through-sympathy-to-advocacy/comment-page-1/#comment-19922 LI Mike Mon, 21 Aug 2006 20:09:46 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/from-empathy-through-sympathy-to-advocacy/#comment-19922 Regarding comments above, I don't think anyone can reasonably form a conclusion that Israel wants anything more than to be left alone and to live in peace, and the same for the USA. Our adversaries don't even belong in the same room regarding all the proposed moral equivalencies thrown about. We get a large percentage of our oil from Canada and Mexico (nearly 40%?) whose oil fields would be a whole lot easier to take than those in the Middle East, and all we'd have to do is bring our army to the borders and then negotiate a settlement. It wouldn't take 6 months even with lawyers doing their best to generate fees. Do you not think that if we were truly evil and so practical that we couldn't carve up the Middle East with China? I think they'd make that deal with us in an afternoon. We do not do things like that even though we can because we are at least vestigially morally constrained. Israel is the only true nuclear power in the Middle East and if they were looking for conquest they most certainly would have been leveraging that advantage by now. Perhaps Israel is not so practical because they are also morally constrained and perhaps the fact that they are principally allied with us is part of it as well. Everything I've heard contrary to that requires one to be an intellectual contortionist; it's all merely same ol' new-speaks, different day. Great essay! I don't have a lot of hope that the hordes of propaganda hurlers in this country will not eventually prevail. It's an age of instant opinion, relativism, pragmaticism, the left has reached critical mass with public education and the media, most don't think yet they are convinced that they think, and we seem to be content to have our succeeding generations brought up to be a grand mass of followers without the ability to form any independent or imperically critical thought. Regarding comments above, I don’t think anyone can reasonably form a conclusion that Israel wants anything more than to be left alone and to live in peace, and the same for the USA. Our adversaries don’t even belong in the same room regarding all the proposed moral equivalencies thrown about.

We get a large percentage of our oil from Canada and Mexico (nearly 40%?) whose oil fields would be a whole lot easier to take than those in the Middle East, and all we’d have to do is bring our army to the borders and then negotiate a settlement. It wouldn’t take 6 months even with lawyers doing their best to generate fees.

Do you not think that if we were truly evil and so practical that we couldn’t carve up the Middle East with China? I think they’d make that deal with us in an afternoon. We do not do things like that even though we can because we are at least vestigially morally constrained.

Israel is the only true nuclear power in the Middle East and if they were looking for conquest they most certainly would have been leveraging that advantage by now. Perhaps Israel is not so practical because they are also morally constrained and perhaps the fact that they are principally allied with us is part of it as well.

Everything I’ve heard contrary to that requires one to be an intellectual contortionist; it’s all merely same ol’ new-speaks, different day.

Great essay!

I don’t have a lot of hope that the hordes of propaganda hurlers in this country will not eventually prevail. It’s an age of instant opinion, relativism, pragmaticism, the left has reached critical mass with public education and the media, most don’t think yet they are convinced that they think, and we seem to be content to have our succeeding generations brought up to be a grand mass of followers without the ability to form any independent or imperically critical thought.

]]> By: george handlery http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/18/from-empathy-through-sympathy-to-advocacy/comment-page-1/#comment-19871 george handlery Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:03:19 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/from-empathy-through-sympathy-to-advocacy/#comment-19871 Re: "David" Aug. 20. They can "make a case" that the US and israel want to destroy them because, as a matter of principle, they prefer to hallucinate. (Anything that is not for us is against us.) If you equate two positions, one of them being rationally founded in facts and the other being based upon criteria that is not suited to the test of rationality then you are likely to get into trouble. More. Thank you for revealing that not everybody who is critical is necessarily an enemy wanting to excercise his disapproval by physically destroying the object of his crtique. Re: “David” Aug. 20.

They can “make a case” that the US and israel want to destroy them because, as a matter of principle, they prefer to hallucinate. (Anything that is not for us is against us.) If you equate two positions, one of them being rationally founded in facts and the other being based upon criteria that is not suited to the test of rationality then you are likely to get into trouble. More. Thank you for revealing that not everybody who is critical is necessarily an enemy wanting to excercise his disapproval by physically destroying the object of his crtique.

]]> By: David http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/18/from-empathy-through-sympathy-to-advocacy/comment-page-1/#comment-19603 David Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:49:32 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/from-empathy-through-sympathy-to-advocacy/#comment-19603 George, no one I am aware of thinks it's improper to combat terrorism. It is equating all those who oppose the USA and Israel as terrorists that is untenable. The terrorist is in a position of weakness , is relatively small in numbers compared to the Muslim population, and is unable to destroy Israel or the USA through ramdon acts of violence . So it is not the threat you make it to be. Could Arabs and Iranians make the case that Israel and the USA are out to destroy them? George, no one I am aware of thinks it’s improper to combat terrorism. It is equating all those who oppose the USA and Israel as terrorists that is untenable. The terrorist is in a position of weakness , is relatively small in numbers compared to the Muslim population, and is unable to destroy Israel or the USA through ramdon acts of violence . So it is not the threat you make it to be. Could Arabs and Iranians make the case that Israel and the USA are out to destroy them?

]]> By: george handlery http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/18/from-empathy-through-sympathy-to-advocacy/comment-page-1/#comment-19493 george handlery Sun, 20 Aug 2006 06:28:13 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/from-empathy-through-sympathy-to-advocacy/#comment-19493 Regarding "David's" moral justification. Does a repeatedly clearly stated intent to destroy that is backed up by a series of correpsponding acts constitute a justification to take counter measures? Is malavolent intent only proven beyond reasonable doubt when the victim is "dead"? Regarding “David’s” moral justification. Does a repeatedly clearly stated intent to destroy that is backed up by a series of correpsponding acts constitute a justification to take counter measures? Is malavolent intent only proven beyond reasonable doubt when the victim is “dead”?

]]> By: Richard http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/18/from-empathy-through-sympathy-to-advocacy/comment-page-1/#comment-19374 Richard Sat, 19 Aug 2006 23:34:39 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/from-empathy-through-sympathy-to-advocacy/#comment-19374 David, when those that wish to kill us can show us that they are sincere in their desire to settle the differences between themselve and the rest of us I will agree with you. It is not a question of bowing to the wishes of the United States, but more of a question the above mentioned of showing civilized behavior to the rest of the world. How can one reason with those that cannot or will not show reason? Your statement; "When it comes to the use of force it must be morally justified " does it also apply to those that would kill and main innocent, men women and children, by blowing themselves up and others along with them? Is that not also using stength against the weak? David, when those that wish to kill us can show us that they are sincere in their desire to settle the differences between themselve and the rest of us I will agree with you. It is not a question of bowing to the wishes of the United States, but more of a question the above mentioned of showing civilized behavior to the rest of the world. How can one reason with those that cannot or will not show reason?

Your statement;

“When it comes to the use of force it must be morally justified ”

does it also apply to those that would kill and main innocent, men women and children, by blowing themselves up and others along with them? Is that not also using stength against the weak?

]]> By: David http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/18/from-empathy-through-sympathy-to-advocacy/comment-page-1/#comment-19060 David Sat, 19 Aug 2006 03:40:01 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/from-empathy-through-sympathy-to-advocacy/#comment-19060 One wonders if Mr. Handerly believes it possible for people to seek justice based on reason? I would assume he would answer that he is up to the task but not the other guy. I see how this thinking guides the paranoid war-mongers who control our government today. Those unwilling to bow to the wishes of the USA are the "enemy"and must be demonised. After all ,the USA is axiomaticly in the right and promotes universally valid political values. Right? Who but the evil could oppose that? I don't think the rest of the world sees the actions of the USA in the middle east (or anywhere else) as altruistic. Are they wrong? I don't think so. When it comes to the use of force it must be morally justified and not just the means the strong uses against the weak. I think this is lost on many so-called conservatives. The perpetual state of paranoia is also unseemly. One wonders if Mr. Handerly believes it possible for people to seek justice based on reason? I would assume he would answer that he is up to the task but not the other guy. I see how this thinking guides the paranoid war-mongers who control our government today. Those unwilling to bow to the wishes of the USA are the “enemy”and must be demonised. After all ,the USA is axiomaticly in the right and promotes universally valid political values. Right? Who but the evil could oppose that? I don’t think the rest of the world sees the actions of the USA in the middle east (or anywhere else) as altruistic. Are they wrong? I don’t think so. When it comes to the use of force it must be morally justified and not just the means the strong uses against the weak. I think this is lost on many so-called conservatives. The perpetual state of paranoia is also unseemly.

]]> By: Don http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/18/from-empathy-through-sympathy-to-advocacy/comment-page-1/#comment-19043 Don Sat, 19 Aug 2006 02:31:57 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/from-empathy-through-sympathy-to-advocacy/#comment-19043 Please, Mr. Handlery! Write more articles! Your common sense is self-evident. Bravo! Please, Mr. Handlery! Write more articles! Your common sense is self-evident. Bravo!

]]> By: Nick http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/08/18/from-empathy-through-sympathy-to-advocacy/comment-page-1/#comment-18835 Nick Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:58:50 +0000 http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/from-empathy-through-sympathy-to-advocacy/#comment-18835 Excellent analysis. When Mr. Handlery peels an apple, there is no sign it ever had a skin. Excellent analysis. When Mr. Handlery peels an apple, there is no sign it ever had a skin.

]]>