So, to be honest with everyone, I’ve been a little frustrated by Anonymous’ comments. Fortunately I had a great IM conversation with somebody of similar political views. It taught me that there really is the possiblity of dialogue between two people of differing views.
The text below is our conversation on IM (edited a little for clarity). It’s not over, but sort of gives some idea of where he was coming from and me having the opportunity to probe a little bit to gain some understanding.
I’ll post my thoughts or reactions later, hopefully in another conversation, but maybe just another blog post. Enjoy.
[Initial comments are addressing cabc29’s buddy icon “Give War a Chance”]
bfine107: why?
cabc29: ha
cabc29: to survive
bfine107: why do you want to survive?
bfine107: and how?
cabc29: why? that ought to be self evident
bfine107: not as a christian I don’t think it is
bfine107: I mean people want to survive for lots of reasons
cabc29: I’m sure they do
bfine107: that’s why I asked
cabc29: well, virture requires that you be alive
cabc29: wouldn’t you say
bfine107: ?
bfine107: elaborate
cabc29: honestly, I’d prefer not to
bfine107: really?
bfine107: okay
cabc29: the message
cabc29: “give war a chance”
cabc29: isn’t really, in my mind, pro war
cabc29: as if war is a good thing
cabc29: it’s in a specific context
cabc29: our context
cabc29: it’s meant to move the framework of debate in a direction
cabc29: it doesn’t provide an ideal
bfine107: I see
cabc29: you want an ideal, but that’s not what I’m trying to get at with “give war a chance”
bfine107: Oh, I’m not going for an ideal
bfine107: just trying to see what makes you tick
bfine107: why you want to survive
bfine107: that’s all
cabc29: I’m a Straussian
cabc29: that ought to give you a clue
bfine107: If only I knew what that meant
bfine107: you’ll have to dumb things down for me a bit
cabc29: one word: google
bfine107: gotcha
bfine107: I’ll give it a shot
bfine107: Sorry, I was just curious
bfine107: I started blogging recently
cabc29: no, it’s fine that you asked
cabc29: oh did you?
bfine107: and I got this anonymous responder
cabc29: that can be so annoying
bfine107: who is just tearing everything I say to shreds
cabc29: don’t let it get to you
cabc29: or at least try not to
bfine107: anyways, I feel the person is intellectually kind of coming from some of the same political points as you
bfine107: and so I was curious what you thought
bfine107: I’m sure he is right on a lot of this stuff.
bfine107: It’d just be great to get him dialoging instead of ripping on what I write
bfine107: (or she, if it’s a she)
cabc29: one time I asked some guy who did basically the same thing to actually engage in a dialog
cabc29: he declined
bfine107: I’m really interested in learning from folks who know a ton about politics
cabc29: it’s much easier to just stop by and tear down
bfine107: yeah
bfine107: well, I’ll try to go with it a little more
bfine107: but I’ll probably take your advice
bfine107: and block him eventually
cabc29: I guess the reason I blocked PK, whoever that was, is because even when I would try to discuss things with him in the comments section
cabc29: he wouldn’t ever be impacted by anything I said
cabc29: it was like talking to a wall
bfine107: yeah,
bfine107: Mindy doesn’t like IM and forums for that reason
bfine107: when we aren’t eye to eye with people we tend to be a little (or a lot) more cruel
cabc29: right
bfine107: we can just rant when we want and leave other things unfinished
cabc29: I don’t even care that much about insults
bfine107: yeah, I hear you
cabc29: but
cabc29: if you can’t actually engage in dialog, and instead just rant and assert and ad hominem
cabc29: what’s the point of allowing that on your blog?
bfine107: yeah that’s true
bfine107: I guess the reason I’m leaving it for now
bfine107: is because others who come and read the post and comments can judge for themselves
cabc29: it seems like the commenter is responding with actual content, but also with a snide tone
bfine107: Maybe a third party can show me my wrong ways politely and also point out where I’m on the right track.
cabc29: you really should read Machiavelli
bfine107: read the prince once
bfine107: for Political Philosophy
cabc29: as did I
cabc29: but I’ve read it again since then, and commentary about it
cabc29: but go on
bfine107: hard reading, and i didn’t have enough time to digest
bfine107: would that be your recommendation?
cabc29: well
bfine107: or another writing by him?
cabc29: yeah the prince is what you should read of course
cabc29: but
cabc29: the reason is just
cabc29: you may be caught up with a desire to use certain means, but those aren’t going to accomplish the ends you want
cabc29: perhaps
cabc29: which could be illustrated by the prince
cabc29: but
cabc29: I digress
bfine107: hmm
bfine107: No it’s a good point
cabc29: like do you want anonymous to stop posting? it’s going to take a, and b, and so on
bfine107: yeah,
bfine107: I feel you
bfine107: like I’m caught up with pacifism
bfine107: but the prince might show
bfine107: that pacifism won’t accomplish world peace the way I think it might
bfine107: that war is necessary to accomplish that end
bfine107: or something else
cabc29: or just a reality check–like hello, the entire world order is predicated upon the threat of violence
bfine107: yeah for sure
bfine107: You ever read The Powers That Be?
cabc29: no
bfine107: by Walter Wink
bfine107: interesting book
bfine107: nothing along the lines of the prince or other political stuff
bfine107: more just talking about power struggles
bfine107: and what Jesus said related to that
bfine107: and some of his thoughts on how we might live in light of the words of Jesus
bfine107: Maybe this is too much for this conversation,
bfine107: but I would love to hear someday
bfine107: how your faith plays into your political system
bfine107: and what your thoughts are on some of the things Jesus says
bfine107: Maybe another time
bfine107: or I’d be thrilled to read anything you’ve written previously on that or other things
cabc29: I honestly don’t think the Bible is all that specific on government
bfine107: agreed
bfine107: I’m not so much talking about government
bfine107: But you personally
bfine107: and thus how you shape your politics
cabc29: well obviously a Christian must rely on the Bible as his guide for living, correct?
bfine107: I tend to think so
cabc29: well then, if a Christian is to think about politics, he might look to the Bible to see what it has to say
bfine107: absolutely
cabc29: and, in my opinion, it says quite little
bfine107: about government
cabc29: correct
bfine107: so that means it’s free game?
bfine107: anything goes?
cabc29: well no
cabc29: it’s just that it’s not so simple as saying, well, jesus said take care of the poor, so let’s use the government!
bfine107: OH, I absolutely agree
bfine107: I think we should take action ourselves
bfine107: apart from the government
bfine107: but shouldn’t our society reflect the value of it’s citizens?
cabc29: http://www.bestwebbuys.com/Beyond_Good_Intentions-ISBN_0891074988.html?isrc=b-search
bfine107: I use bestwebbuys all the time!
bfine107: sorry, random, (I’m looking for it at the library though)
cabc29: btw wheaton prof pj hill is on the back of that book with a reccomendation
bfine107: cool, I’m a fan of PJ
cabc29: whatever the State does, it does with the implicit threat of violence
cabc29: if you don’t pay your taxes, men with guns physically force you to sit in a cage
cabc29: right?
bfine107: yes
cabc29: so how exactly is it moral for the state to take one person’s money, under that threat of violence, and give it to a poor person?
bfine107: hmm
cabc29: it seems to me that virtue ought to be voluntary or it isn’t virtue
cabc29: but then again
bfine107: ok
bfine107: that makes sense
cabc29: there are a host of factors that make “voluntary” actions less than purely volunatary
cabc29: I like to think of it as a scale
cabc29: with absolute coercion at one end
cabc29: and
cabc29: purely voluntary (whatever that means) at the other
cabc29: I don’t think purely voluntary can even be reached
cabc29: though
bfine107: okay
cabc29: I guess what I’m trying to say, is that, like you, I struggle with the morality of various means, such that using the government for things isn’t a very viable solution in my eyes
cabc29: and so
cabc29: when Christians like Jim Wallis invoke the name of Jesus so that they can use the State to “help the poor” I get kind of cynical
cabc29: and start reading Machiavelli instead
cabc29: if that makes sens
cabc29: sense
bfine107: so your thought is, the government’s
bfine107: role is more or less to
bfine107: …
cabc29: I can’t tell you exactly where I stand
bfine107: sorry, I don’t want to put words in your mouth
cabc29: but I find the State to be highly problematic
cabc29: and I’d like to see it’s role greatly reduced
bfine107: basically you think using the state to care out virtue isn’t appropriate
cabc29: kind of
bfine107: The reduction being
bfine107: it’s main role it to protect?
bfine107: like, I think you support having military troops
cabc29: but then when it comes to things like the war on terror….
cabc29: the thing about war and defense is this
cabc29: you and I can’t pay for different levels of national defense
cabc29: it doesn’t really get solved by the market
cabc29: so
cabc29: what to do?
cabc29: if we don’t defend the homeland, we’re all going to die
TO BE CONTINUED…
You can block me if you’d like. I’ll never visit again.
But, oh did cabc29 make you look so foolish!
Ariah, I think that I know you really well. It sounds like Anonymous thinks you’re coming from a very different place then where you are. It’s like he’s responding to you as if you’re the guy he’s been arguing with about this for years. But you’re not that guy. You’ve come to your beliefs in a way that I think is very different from where most people get them. You read the Bible and that’s what you saw in there and now you’re just trying to figure out how everything else fits with that. Don’t get discouraged.
To Anonymous, first of all, my bet would be that Ariah doesn’t want you to stop posting on the blog. He disagrees with you and I’m sure is frustrated so far with the conversation so far, but I think he wants to hear what you have to say. I would say to deal with what he has to say in your comments, rather that who you assume he is and where he’s coming from. The ad hominem arguments started with you calling him an idiot. As for your link to nationalreview.com, all I can say is that article was a convoluted menagerie of information that was poorly written, lacked a good structure, and therefore failed to prove (and almost forgot to make) an argument at all. The main idea is seems to focus on is that Iraq Body Count is connected with Antiwar groups. Go figure.
I think your first paragraph asserts that if I had known Ariah, I wouldn’t be arguing this way. That doesn’t help much and it should be ignored. You are correct in saying that I called him an idiot. I did. I’m not sure if that amounted to an ad hominem; I think it was more just name-calling.
As for the NRO article, it either had a point or it didn’t. Decide. Let me help, since it seems a little hard to follow. I would have thought someone who would be so proud to use words like “menagerie” would be able to follow simple narrative, but I won’t hold it against you.
Spruiell argues that the database used to compile a dossier of civilian casualties is filled with duplications, fabrications and outright deception. In other words, it is irredemably flawed. He suggests that this is not surprising, given their record of anti-war association. Of course we should not use it as a substantive, reliable source for determining the number of civilian deaths. That’s the point.
I am sticking around long enough for someone to respond with a point by point refutation of my claims. If I do not see one coming I most certainly leave. I’m waiting to see if these beautifully naive leftists who crave social justice are concerned with at least the appearance of logic, reason and truth, since they have abandoned its form and function.
My wonderful anonymous friend,
stick around and make your claims. I will not try and refute you. I think I have made an apology and I was sincere in my acknowledgement of your wisdom about these political things.
May I ask if the Bible has an influence on your political views? I guess that is maybe the foundation that we can find common ground on. At least that’s somewhere to start maybe.
Certainly, the Bible has an influence on my political views.
Ayn Rand might have more, though.
Fast responses. I’d love to hear more about how both the Bible and Ayn Rand have shaped your views. Take as much commenting space as necessary, I could use to learn somethings from you.
First of all, telling you more what Ariah’s like and where he’s coming from should help you in the way you talk with him, because not everyone can be lumped into broad categories, for instance crazy liberal, and you seem to have categorized him right away. Plus, I was just reminding everyone that the writer of this blog is not a nameless, faceless being, but a complex person and it might take the conversation a little more high-brow if you thought of him like such instaed of something nameless you can take pot shots at and dismiss.
Like you said, killing people is a straight up bad idea and war is an evil. I’m assuming you would say it’s a necessary evil in our world today. You also say that there is a distinction between how individuals act and states act. My opinion is that that is a cop-out since we live in a democracy. We can think of our government as a separate entity if we want to ignore the fact that it’s really just a bunch of people. Of course the system is incredibly flawed and disjointed, but essentially it’s a group of people that make the state’s decisions and not some ethereal concept of a state that does it. It’s kinda similar to the body of Christ in that way. The church is just simply a bunch of individual christians who together make up the Body. Now I think the Church as an entity should hold to the same ethics and behavior as an individual Christian. Likewise, why shouldn’t the state be held to the ethics and behavior of its citizens?
Oh, and about the article, of course that’s what it was ‘trying’ to say, but it was just so poorly written. You’ve gotta be able to find one that makes it’s point better.
And if you want to have a point-by-point discussion with a semblence of logic and reason, let’s do that and stay away from things like saying “naive liberals who crave social justice” have “abandoned” truth’s “form and function” as just a little gid at the end of your comments without any reason backing it up.