Another blogger here on JoeUser recently accused me of believing "the only good American is a dead American."
Why? Why would he say such a thing? Well, I'm not really clear on that.
I think he dislikes me so much that he has to reject out of hand anything I say.
Because what I said was: Nuclear weapons and their use is evil--more evil than the use of conventional weaponry.
Of course, it is absurd that I would have had to make that point in the first place. And it is even more ridiculous that to avoid any common ground with me, this guy then felt he had to argue against it. And even more asinine is his conclusion that because I believe nuclear weapons to be a bad thing, that I hate America.
I certainly don't follow it. It just makes no sense. Apparently everyone in the world, including President Bush, hates America. If you think nuclear weapons are more evil than conventional weapons, you hate America! I didn't say it, this other guy did.
(He also told me to learn the rules. I read the rules, but am unclear as to whether I should name names or provide links. I chose to not provide a link, if that was wrong, please let me know)
Most interesting to me though, are certain conclusions one would reach using this flawed logic. You see, the whole thing started when this blogger thought people were blaming Bush for North Korea having nukes. Of course, that is again absurd, North Korea has been developing and maybe even had nukes for decades. So, who, I wondered, was blaming Bush? If someone was doing that, I wanted to straighten them out.
Namless blogger argued that if I feel, and I do, that using nuclear weapons is more drastic than conventional invasion (this was a hypothetical argument originally, so I did not argue the either-or fallacy) that I placed no value on American life. You probably think I am making this up it is so apeshit, but that's the way it went down.
So, according to nameless blogger, anyone who would support convential invasion of a rogue state OVER 'simply' nuking them places no value on American lives. I keep wanting to clarify or explain this more, but this is literally the argument he made. Unlike him, I am not putting words into anyone's mouth, only bringing their own logic to a conclusion.
So, following this logic, President Bush, who supported and led an invasion of a rogue state, using American soldiers, hates America and Americans, because he could have just nuked Iraq.
Which is a very strange conclusion, because the whole discussion started because nameless blogger felt people were criticizing President Bush too much.
Here's the deal. I often disagree with President Bush and his policies. But I often also agree with him. We agree terrorists must be stopped, that terrorists 'hate freedom'. And we agree that nuking a country is more evil than invading a country (among other areas of common ground, such as the sky is blue, and apples fall from trees).
But, to avoid agreeing with me on anything whatsoever, nameless blogger suddenly had to argue that the sky was not blue, that nuclear weapons were not more serious than conventional weapons, and that Bush hated America. That is his argument, not mine.
I feel Bush loves America. I love America. We sometimes disagree on what is best for America, but we agree we want only the best for America and Americans.
Nameless blogger, though, feels that anyone who would use conventional invasion (among other options) to bring rogue states under control, rather than just nuking them and (in the short run) saving soldier's lives, hates America.
So. How about you? Do you hold the opinion that nukes are evil? Are you going to let this guy tell you that you therefore hate America?
If you want to disagree with him, make it quick, though. He doesn't take well to reasoned criticism. Or to "Screw you!" for that matter, which is my own fault.