You're missing my point here. You can be as moderate as you like...but somewhere down the line, when you check off your individual positions on each issue, when you're done, you're very likely going to come down predominantly on one side or the other.
not if you are a libertarian or a populist or something else that doesnt agree with traditional viewpoints of the two major groups. there are lots of such people.
I've already explained it to you, martin. It's not my fault you're too blind to see it. Your "counterexamples" are not rescued by repetition. "if a person supports the genome project, and is able to help the genome project, they should work on the genome project" is not a valid analogy. Here's the PROPER analogy: "if a person supports the genome project, and is able to help the genome project, they should VOLUNTEER to work on the genome project" ... which is a valid statement. Whether or not it's fruitful to volunteer depends on the labor pool and other social tasks to be performed. If I feel that police work should be performed then I SHOULD volunteer for it. If I feel that firefighting needs to be done I SHOULD volunteer for it. In both of those cases, however, there are better candidates than myself, and plenty of them, and it's pointless to volunteer. If warfighting needs to be performed, then you SHOULD volunteer for it. If there are better candidates then you're off the hook, but as it stands some reserve offices are experiencing recruiting shortages. Your "counterexamples" also are worthless because they ignore the criticality of the tasks to be performed and the willingness of others to perform them. If you insist that this war is crucial then go help to win it, or explain why you'd be more useful in some other less crucial task. I'm still waiting on that logical counterexample, martin. In order to win this debate you have to give me a critical task for which I am qualified but SHOULD NOT volunteer.
Hey, I had tv to go watch. Sci-Fi Friday! (here come the jokes) That and how can I really speak seriously about anything allegedly political while Howard Dean is taking over one of the country's two major political parties? :yelwink2: Seriously though, I really see nothing in terms of being liberal or conservative. There are so many variables that go into my viewpoints on a wide assortment of things. I believe society needs labels because it makes people feel comfy to group people accordingly. To me, such labeling processes are just plain silly. Martin did a fine job giving an alternative answer to my "is not" so read his post. :thumb:
there is no such thing as logical validity to a "should" statement based on opinion. it is like saying if you like the taste of jalapenos, and you like the taset of milk, then you "should" like the taste of jalapeno milk. maybe you do, maybe you dont. there is no "should". it is not a matter of logic, but preference. you think people who support the war should fight in it. that is an illogical opinion, which you are entitled to. however, i realize that one is not hypocritical or wrong in any way to not agree with your opinion, since logically it not necessary to participate in events you agree with, even if you can be of service to that event. when you say a person "should" do something, you are just telling them your personal preference, which has no relevance. in my opinion, you "should" love to eat crawfish pies. so what? there is no logic to that. you cannot make some sort of normative value statement as if people should act the way you want them to. that is illogical. if they draft me, i will go. as it stands we have a volunteer force. you and i are no position to tell people what they "should" do. we have no argument, they "should" do whatever they want.
Again you're incorrect, martin. If this war is a necessity then it follows absolutely that it SHOULD be fought. In fact, it's a tautology. And since only humans can fight this war, and since you're an available human and are needed, go fight it. If you're not needed or you're more valuable somewhere else then you're off the hook.
oh man is that an invalid syllogism: premise 1 is a tautology. premise 2 is opinion. the conclusion is false. premise 2 ignores the fact that people have the right to do whatever they want and make choices as they please. plus you get into analyzing who is more valuable where. that is ridiculous. surely andrew has an argument that he may be more valuable at home. am in no position to disagree. and he is no position to anlyze my situation either. we as a collective have granted that right to our government only, and i will accept their judgements over yours. they are telling me i have not been drafted yet, so that is fine by me. have them call me when the time comes. your opinions are not the decisionmaker. further flaws in your assumptions: "only humans can fight this war" - half true, machines are playing a part more than ever before. also non-americans can and are fighting, presumably to replace americans. "you're an available human" a guess on your part. also the term "available" is undefined in this context. this is clearly a matter of degree. is a 60 year old man "available"? well, since you are taking it upon yourself to define who is available i guess they will have to ask you. "and are needed" - a statement of opinion from a person who is not a military strategist. i honestly have no idea if this is true, and even if i did that would merely be my opinion. i have heard rumsfeld say we have enough fellas.
Bear in mind, Martin, that I'm not talking in terms of party, but rather ideology. Hey, it's just my theory...but it seems to me that no matter how moderate a person claims to be, at some point he's at least going to be seen as leaning overall in one direction or the other. At which point we get into labels, which some members of this board claim to find irrelevant. Which brings it back to the point that it's just my own personal theory.
No, martin. Once again, I'm sorry you can't follow the argument. I'm still waiting on your logical counterexamples. Let's take this step by step. Is the war a necessity? Yes or No? Should the war be fought? Yes or No? If you answer yes to the first question then you must NECESSARILY answer yes to the second, unless you're insane. THAT'S the tautology. Now the question becomes... WHO should fight the war? Answer: able-bodied humans. Given that the war MUST be fought, then we MUST guarantee that there are enough humans to wage it. You are a human, you are available, there are enough of you who consider the war a must, so there should never be a lack of humans to wage it. If there ever comes a shortage of personnel it's because YOU are not fulfilling what YOU say MUST be done. If you MUST eat to survive then you surely SHOULD eat to survive, or you've neutered the words "must" and "should" of any meaning. We're not talking about your rights. We're talking about your ethics. If the war is a must, then even those who oppose it SHOULD wage it, also.. but at least they're not hypocritically violating some self-constructed imperative.
