Quote:
Originally posted by Gattigap
I agree with this. I do find it interesting, though, that many of the defenses of free speech and the of need to counter the childish reaction of militant Islamists seems to crowd out any consideration of judgment, and creates the implication that anyone who suggests that showing the cartoons was a poor tactical choice simply wants to cave to theocracy.
|
I think, in this case, the principle at the core of the dispute is a much more important consideration than the wisdom of printing the cartoon. Too often, apologists for loathesome behavior like that exhibited by the Radical Islamists in this case will retreat to the argument that "it was unwise to taunt" the Muslims.
No shit. I agree. Unless you've shit for brains, the cartoon was obviously unwise.
BUT, such an unwise move is the only way to put the underlying issue into debate. How is shrinking from printing anything potentially perceived as offensive by Muslims any different than allowing them to outright outlaw such expression? Same effect.
The pragmatic "yeh, but it was a dumb idea" argument is a cheap way to make a speaker with a bad argument sound wise (I use it a lot). But it also makes him, in this case and many others, a coward (or one of those annoying pricks who'd rather change the subject 50 times than concede even the smallest point).
There ought to be a rule that, when debating principle, argue on the merits, not the practicality of the thing. But then I'd have little to say...
ETA: I think the most frustrating thing in society today is people's refusal to concede anything, and quickness to change the subject to create confusion rather than lose a debate. That sort of shit impedes constructive resolution of everything, and understanding between people with different views. I'd rather not debate with half the people I know because there's no point if they're just going to dig in and play games if they find their position collapsing. I usually drink heavily when anyone engages me in a debate, because its the only way to avoid becoming frustrated. For the life of me, I can't understand whats so bad about admitting when you're wrong. I'm happy to do so. I view it as a concession that I've learned something. How is that a bad thing?
BTW, I'm not being inconsistent here. I will often argue practicalities as an aside, but I don't try to shift the debate to them. And I admit when I'm wrong.
