Steven Den Beste weighs in on this teapot storm. There is nothing like having your argument demolished by an engineer. He knows where all the stress points are... He goes right to the meat of the thing the Agonist still refuses to acknowledge (AFAIK, I haven't checked up much since I posted my take on the Agonist's declaration):
Sean-Paul thinks he knows what we are risking. He thinks he knows what evil we must do. He reluctantly agrees that war is necessary anyway. Why is it that he has such a hard time accepting the idea that others may also know those things, and also advocate war? Why does he believe he is the only person who can advocate war and remain moral while doing so?Posted by Andrea Harris at February 4, 2003 09:32 PM
Sean Paul (The Agonist) is young.
This got sidelined by the Columbia incident, but I hope others will read this. Especially since Sean Paul called warbloggers "chickenhawks."
Posted by: Dean Esmay at February 5, 2003 at 04:08 AMRemember, Andrea: If a Leftist disagrees with you, his immediate conclusion is that you're morally depraved -- evil. One cannot disagree with a Leftist without being a savage, vicious beast who wants only to rape, pillage, and burn. In that order, of course; the order is important.
Thomas Sowell's analysis in The Vision Of The Anointed has never been so illuminating as when it's applied to debates over war and peace.
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at February 5, 2003 at 08:34 AM