How frustrating is it when your specific political point is expanded to mean more than it was originally meant for. �A daisy is like the sun� becomes a serious issue of debate because even though you say they are both yellow and circular shaped, someone else has to argue a daisy is small, not a burning mass of hot gas, and not a star. So your comparison is argued invalid, though what you said was perfectly valid. They delight from dismissing an entire argument.
By Stephan Puff,
Senior Staff Writer
How frustrating is it when your specific political point is expanded to mean more than it was originally meant for. �A daisy is like the sun� becomes a serious issue of debate because even though you say they are both yellow and circular shaped, someone else has to argue a daisy is small, not a burning mass of hot gas, and not a star. So your comparison is argued invalid, though what you said was perfectly valid. They delight from dismissing an entire argument.
Though our over zealous thoughts have to be humbled sometimes. When we get fired up, we bite off too much cupcake getting caught with frosting all over our face. However, those posing the counter argument often find it valid to use the same methods of justification to dismiss an argument as well. �If a daisy is like a sun, then a sheep is like a cloud.� They are both similes, but they aren’tmaking the same point, it happens everyday in political arguments. It’s misleading, not necessarily wrong, to use a justification for universal application.
Bush’s two political terms have been a constant fight over issues of governmental justification. Global warming and the war in Iraq have been the challenging issues that have been pulling the reins of active verse passive justice.
I�ve been trying to understand if our government and our justice system are only equipped as passive institutions reacting to problems as they occur or if they are able to take active initiative in solving issues before they happen.
The reality of global warming and the mystery of its future effects have been an issue of governmental action for Bush’s entire time in office. The debate has been trailing the same course plotted by evolution. Scientists gather bits of evidence, some write early theories, and the process seems to change the way we see and live society, cultural, and faith. Those people against the change of human understanding build brick walls, picking one issue at a time, and launch a full scale counterattack.
More of a diversion than potential inquiry, we no longer argue if global warming exists. Overwhelming evidence burst through the wall that said man does not contribute to global warming, humanity emits CO2. Opponents of global warming, now safely behind a third wall, say there is no evidence of the damaging effects it will have. Well, there is no way we will ever know that till it damages us.
It was brought to my attention that Bush called for preemptive initiative to justify the Iraq war. My wanting preemptive governmental initiative on global warming does not submit my argument to anyone who wants preemptive justification of their actions. If anything was infinitely ambiguous in justification it was the Iraq war. These two are acceptably comparable in method, active justice.
But ask ourselves the consequences and means of reaching these goals? The move toward global warming would cost no human lives, jobs of workers that can be retrained and placed in cleaner factories, and an overall healthier environment. The money from the Iraq war would have nicely covered most of the research and application costs.
By now the bumper sticker �When Clinton lied, nobody died� seems clich�, but it wasn’tuntil now that I realized the full significance of the statement. Both Bush and Clinton lied, unless you ignorantly consider some non-nuclear weapons the USA gave Saddam years ago �weapons of mass destruction.�
So the method is the same, lying, but the result or meaning behind is utterly different. Clinton’s lie wasted a lot of time and some trust, while Bush wasted billions of dollars and we lost many American lives.
I�m not saying questions, counter-arguments, and comparisons are useless. They are good for exposing hypocrisy and irrational claims, but just as carefully as the person constructing the argument must be, the same goes for the person making the counterargument.
View this writer’s profile.