Mic drop. I was going to reply to that inanity too but I got bored. There’s at least two, perhaps three more logical fallacies in there as well, namely ‘appeal to tradition’ (we have always done things this way) and a couple types of false dilemna (aka black/white reasoning). Hat trick!
2 Likes
Given the evidence that you have employed at least half a dozen logical fallacies in this thread alone, I submit to this informal tribunal of BB commenters that your title be hereby changed to BS Captain.
2 Likes
That actually funny line at least shows that you have a good sense of humor, if not any realistic views about useful mechanisms for changing society — of which protest and violation of law sometimes indeed is.
Thank you and I appreciate your (somewhat) conciliatory response.
That is an odd comment however, especially coming from someone has taken a very conservative tack regarding Chelsea Manning, and considering you haven’t asked my views. I do know that besides war, civil disobedience has proven to be one of the most effective and efficient means to change societies, for a number or reasons I won’t elucidate here; I will assume you are aware of the numerous examples to which I refer. In your defence of “democracy” and the rule of law you have failed to consider that perhaps the United States is no longer a democracy and that the rule of law there in many cases has become more fiction than fact. This is not something I say lightly or without serious study and contemplation. Don’t forget Chelsea Manning’s original actions (illegal as they were) were in response to an illegal, pre-emptive war in which hundreds of thousands perished and trillions were squandered, for no apparent reason whatsoever. It was a crime for which no one was punished, save a few Abu Ghraib guards. She has served her time and now wishes to be left alone. Regardless of what you think of her actions, you must admit she is very brave and has taken a principled stand (however flawed) against what she and her lawyers perceive as continued harassment. Given how rare actions like hers are in the 21st century and given all she has been through I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Peace.
3 Likes
I guess I’ll ask this — as a LOL “conservative.” (Again, you guys must have been taking debate style pointers based on that Ben Shapiro BBC video!)
What was the most disruptive thing the Manning leak did to fight the non-democratic tendencies of our era? What did it really do to stop the next, yes, illegal war (although technically there is no such thing as international law, so on a technicality this itself is debatable). What’s the most vile and underhanded deed the contents showed the US committing? Something specific, like a particular event.
I didn’t say you were a conservative; I meant your talking points in relation to this particular issue are traditionally conservative ones (the ‘it’s the law’ argument, the slippery slope argument) typically used to stifle social dissent and change. As to your question, I think that simply taking the stand she did, knowing that the war was based on lies and misleading the public (a la Daniel Ellsberg) is in itself a political stand against illiberalism. She knew what she was doing was illegal and did in anyway, believing it was the moral thing to do, and paid the price. That is the point of civil disobedience. To take a stand against injustice, in hopes that others will be so inspired, the injustice stopped, and the perpetrators shamed or embarrassed. The specifics are splitting hairs; surely you understand the war itself was “vile and underhanded”. Furthermore, to say that there is “no such thing as International Law” is also a right-wing talking point and denies a huge body of laws and norms that have been in place for over a century (Geneva convention anyone?) whether or not some nations choose to abide by them or not. Good grief.
6 Likes
You can go on and on, putting words in my mouth like “it’s never OK to break the law even if it’s for justice,” but I haven’t said that once. No, what I said is that I don’t support what Manning did, specifically.
If you want to turn her actions into a symbol of “the fight of virtue over all that’s wrong in the world” be my guest, but some of us see things in a more nuanced fashion.
Half a million of your fellow human beings died in the war on terror. But Manning is the real villain, I guess, since that’s more nuanced…
5 Likes
In Canada (and most countries, I think) the prosecutors are not democratically elected, so we tend to get professional civil servants, not people like Donovan.
4 Likes
Wow, you keep equating a person who doesn’t support Manning specifically with, say, the support of the war on terror, support of the Iraq war, etc. None of these sentiments I have even slightly voiced. Your view of ethics appears to be limited to a very small number of mutually-exclusive categories, and your debate tactics keep returning to smearing somebody who doesn’t agree with you about Manning.
So nobody’s ever faced oppression in Canada by overzealous prosecutors, then?
And our solution is to make the process less democratic?
The funny thing about democracy is, it doesn’t promise that we end up with the best system. It promises we end up with the system we choose (and one might argue, deserve).
1 Like
Have they thought of democratically electing doctors and science teachers? 
3 Likes
Another logical fallacy. You’re really running the gamut! Whataboutism - Wikipedia
If your views were really as “nuanced” as you continue to repeat, you might grasp that electing prosecutors and judges has unintended consequences the can make the justice system less impartial. In other words, more “democracy” isn’t always better.
Your insistence on equating Manning’s stance as a threat to democracy is, to reiterate, a conservative talking point, and a weak one at that. It is a spin on the ‘slippery slope’ argument, as in if Manning breaks the law it will encourage others to do so as well and consequently undermine the system (“democracy”). Since Manning goes back to jail each time she refuses to testify, I don’t see much evidence for that theory. In fact, Manning’s main assertion is that, given their private nature, grand juries are essentially undemocratic. There are indeed legal arguments that support that claim. Ultimately your position appears paradoxical given the context behind Manning’s actions (namely a wasteful, disastrous, illegal war). American democracy is clearly under threat, from many quarters, as is the rule of law. Chelsea Manning seems like a strange place to focus your ire.
Your use of logical fallacies is exhaustive (and exhausting) and your sophistry has become tiresome. Adieu.
3 Likes
My issue isn’t that you don’t support manning. My issue is that you keep dismissing her actions which brought much of the brutality of the war on terror to light. Yes, she broke the law. So have many other people to bring such events to light.
5 Likes
You can continue to refer to my points as logical fallacies, but it doesn’t make them such simply because you disagree with my views on Manning and her actions.
Btw for the record, when Manning was signing up for the military to join the Iraq war effort, the public knew full well how bullshit the war was, how many atrocities were being committed in its course, how negative it was for the region and for the USA. Some of us, however, were years into protesting against it at that point. I find it interesting that some people consider her to be such a hero, when it comes to much of anything relating to the Iraq war effort. I suppose this is another logical fallacy…
Did we really need a lesson on the fact that war is an awful thing that universally results in the deaths of an astonishing number of innocents? I dunno, I feel like several millennia of ongoing well-documented repetitions of this basic fact would probably do it. And yet with those thousands of years of history, in 2007 Manning signed up for the Army and served in Iraq, well after the fact that the entire war was complete bullshit was well-known in the public sphere. Hmmmm…
Yes. We do, since so many people are willing to shrug their shoulders to it. You might not, but look around at the the western world and the absolutely apathy about what’s being done in our name, and the racist reaction to people fleeing being killed thanks to OUR governments. Look at how our popular culture celebrates and elides the violence of war. Look at how our mass media is awash in blind patriotism… It’s not wonder that people see war, not a imperialist violence, but a patriotic defense of the homeland. We’re talking decades of programming in the US that you’re just assuming people should just shake off…
Gee. If only she had been aware of the extent of the war crimes prior to the war… I mean, how dare she not know all things with perfectly clarity… I mean, in 2007, she was 20 years old, clearly it’s her own fault for not being entirely enlightened on the nature of those wars! I mean, it’s not like she learned some distrubing shit about how the American government was conducting the and then released evidence of said disturbing into the public domain… /s
6 Likes
You may have identified her motivation to reassess her views.
4 Likes
She learned something of the real truth and couldn’t sit on it or explain it away morally. And she was tortured for years for doing so.
5 Likes
1 Like
