From the first invention of human language right up to the present moment, there has never been an instant when "He did it first" was a winning argument.
Counterexamples?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Mike Dunford didn't like my previous post, and says that it's important to talk about gun control right now:
But we also cannot forget that people are dead. We cannot forget that people have been murdered. We cannot forget that many - too many - lives have been brought to a sudden, random end. We…
"He won't hurt you". Check out this thread which popped up after a report of a child being killed in a pit bull attack. We can thank commenter scorp1101 for jumping right into it with the pit bulls are just fine and I know because I own one argument. The remainder of the thread is interesting for…
First, a quick status note: the blog has been really slow lately because I
fell behind schedule on my book, and I've been putting all of my free time
into catching up. I'm finally pretty much caught up, so I should have time to
get back to the Chaos theory posts. I need a few days of study time to…
Forgive me, for I am guilty of the sin of false pride. I'm wont to judge Christians by the worst of them, and in contrast, to regard atheism as the refuge of the more worthy. I am chastised by the existence of The Raving Atheist, however, who shows me that godlessness is not necessarily correlated…
How about "tit for tat" as a very strong (possibly the best, depending on the exact formulation of the problem) strategy in the iterated prisoner's dilemma?
Nope. Among other things, it's been a winning argument for a number of police officers who shot & killed someone who fired at them first ...
"An eye for an eye"
Please note that 'an eye for an eye' is a limit, not a command.
It depends what you mean by "winning argument", but on the line of scrimmage in football, if a defender jumps offside and points to the offensive player as moving first, the defender wins if that's how the ref saw it as well. I'm sure in the history of football some ref's decision was pushed off the fence by the pointing.
Nope. Among other things, it's been a winning argument for a number of police officers who shot & killed someone who fired at them first...
Sure, but I'm thinking that the context in mind for the "he did it first" argument here is not "he did that to me, so I retaliated" but "sure I'm doing [whatever], but he's done [whatever] too." If someone shoots a random victim, then I go and shoot a random victim, "he did it first" won't get me very far. It's different two parties interacting with each other than just as a general excuse that since other people behave badly, why shouldn't I.
Sure, but I'm thinking that the context in mind for the "he did it first" argument here is not "he did that to me, so I retaliated" but "sure I'm doing [whatever], but he's done [whatever] too." If someone shoots a random victim, then I go and shoot a random victim, "he did it first" won't get me very far. It's different two parties interacting with each other than just as a general excuse that since other people behave badly, why shouldn't I.
That's pretty much what I was thinking, yes.
I would say that deadly force is an extreme case, and sort of an exception to the general rule. "It was kill or be killed" is a very different situation than "Sure, it was wrong to fire a bunch of people for political reasons, but Clinton did it, too..."
there has never been an instant when "He did it first" was a winning argument.
Dresden for Coventry.
Or: Hiroshima for Pearl Harbor.
I'm not sure that it's a winning arugument, but it was sure used as a plausible argument.
Dresden for Coventry.
Or: Hiroshima for Pearl Harbor.
I'm not sure that it's a winning arugument,
Absolutely not.
Dresden was a moral abomination, and calling it retaliation for Coventry doesn't do a thing to make it any better. There's a sliver of doubt about the moral status of Hiroshima, but whatever thin justification it manages has nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, and everything to do with a "kill or be killed" sort of argument.
"Winning argument" in this case means an argument that changes the moral status of an apparent bad act. "Yeah, I stole bread, but I did it to feed my family" would be a possible example of a winning argument, but "I stole his car because he stole my girlfriend" would not.
Chad, I'm not defending any particular war crime - but at the time, "he did it first" was certainly used to justify Allied attacks on Axis civilians.
It's become a de facto "winning argument" because, you know, the Allies won. Nobody was put on trial for burning down Axis cities, because "they did it first".
Does "winning argument" mean "the argument which deserved to win" or "the argument which won"?