[Vision2020] Questions for No. Weatherman

[No Weatherman]

On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com> wrote:
> I asked:
>
>>> 1.  Why, No. Weatherman, do you choose to post anonymously?
>
> Your answer, trimmed of excess, and slightly re-arranged:
>
>> I chose anonymity to force one particular subject to the front of the
>> conversation and to leave personalities out of it... without letting other
>> distractions enter into the conversation, like the identity of the
>> person on the other side of the screen.
>
> Is that an accurate summary?

Yes. Except the "excess" part.

> I asked:
>
>>> 2.  Would you vote for a Muslim to serve as President of the United States?
>
> I think you answered yes, but that you are not currently aware of any
> Muslims in US politics for whom you would likely vote.
>
> Is that accurate?

I would like to say that it's accurate but since I have nothing that
answers to the hypothesis, I cannot.

I think it was Luther who said something to the effect of, "I'd rather
be ruled by an honest Turk than a dishonest Christian."

I am being honest. That's the closest to an affirmation that I can get.


> You then asked whether Obama  -- by his own standards -- is obligated
> to throw Ayers "under the bus," as he did with Farrakhan, Wright, and
> Rezko.
>
> This is a complicated question, but I don't want to inflate the
> answer, so I'm going to leave things out.  Short answer: no, but only
> because he wasn't obligated to throw Farrakhan, Wright, or Rezko under
> the bus, either.  That he did was cowardice driven by political
> expediency, which I loathe, always.  I don't loathe it enough to swing
> my vote from Obama to McCain.

I don't agree that it's complicated and I don't necessarily agree that
he did if for political expediency. But since he established precedent
with the three, does not his ethical standard obligate him to act on
the fourth? You say no, but you let him off the hook by excusing his
behavior as "politically expedient" because his associations don't
bother you.

But if you remove your excuse for him from the equation — "political
expediency" — then you're left with the question all alone. No
excuses. Why was he morally obligated to toss the three but not the
one?

> Now I'm going to ask you a favor.  I enjoy dialogue, but only when it
> really is.  For my very busy schedule, I need dialogue to be
> constrained to one topic at a time, and streamlined, with little or no
> digression.
>
> Can we agree to restrict this thread to respectful debate, one subject
> at a time, striving to avoid loaded questions and insinuations,
> leaving intentional provocation at the door, and abjuring logical
> fallacies?
>
> Note that there is nothing accusatory in my request.

The problem is seldom, if ever, me veering off point. It's usually
someone else hiding Vaseline under their cap and throwing spitballs in
the middle of the conversation. No offense, but when you excused
Obama's actions as politically expedient without offering a shred of
evidence to support your allegation, you threw a spitball. You snuck a
justification into the conversation without justification and that's
the kind of stuff that makes these threads unwind. It works both ways.
If I do it, and I'm sure I do, then if you point it out, I should own
it, remove it from the discourse, and move on in honesty.

I am respectful to everyone, even if my respect rubs their gargantuan
egos the wrong way.

> Chas