What did you think of the third Presidential debate?

Current Events Domestic United States Politics
21

Too bad you are misrepresenting the issue.

Imagine you have a rash and you want to eliminate it before it spreads all over your body. You debate over two options on addressing the issue: you can use a less powerful, safer skin ointment that may eliminate the rash - or you can use a powerful steroid that will definitely kill the rash but may damage the skin permanently and surrounding areas. You opt to use the less powerful skin ointment first because it is safer and can be effective. However it has been 10 of the recommended 14 day use and it still hasn’t worked. You continue use for the remaining 4 days, but are willing to use the steroid at the end of the 14 days if necessary. That is not ignoring the problem and that is where we are now.

I wasn’t misrepresenting anything. I wasn’t trying to provide an analogy for the situation, I was providing one for your argument.

You just changed your argument: before, you were arguing that sanctions would count as “not ignoring the issue” simply because they have worked in the past. That means that they would count as “not ignoring the issue” indefinitely.

Your new argument is that the reason why Obama isn’t ignoring the issue is because sanctions could still work. You are conceding that there will come a time when we will finally be able to say that sanctions won’t work, and we will have to look for a different solution.

However, in your ointment example, there is an objectively determined timeline on how long it should take for the ointment to work. You haven’t provided such a timeline for how long it should take for sanctions to work. That makes your analogy invalid, until you do. Until then, an honest analogy should contain no mention of the ointment coming with a recommendation of waiting for a specific amount of time.

So, please tell me, when will you concede that by sitting around waiting for the sanctions to work, Obama is ignoring the issue? According to Netanyahu’s idiot-proof drawing from a couple of weeks ago, Iran is 90% there. Do you really think they’ll stop now, that they’re so close, because of the same sanctions that haven’t stopped them back when they were only 50% done? Do you have a reason for thinking that?

It’s a simple question: All you have to do is take a red pen, and draw your own red line onto this image:

netanyahu-bomb-drawing.jpg

And please don’t say that’s an oversimplification. Progress is measured by a function that has one imput and one output. That’s the exact level of complexity required to measure it. That picture is the exact level of complexity required to represent progress towards building a nuclear weapon.

22

I thought it was horrifying.

Really? I would think that in order for something to be horrifying it would either have to be a terrible surprise, or something completely beyond the pale. This debate was both predictable and the status quo of what we’ve been seeing for years. I couldn’t imagine how an Objectivist would find it horrifying.

23

I wasn’t misrepresenting anything. I wasn’t trying to provide an analogy for the situation, I was providing one for your argument.

You just changed your argument: before, you were arguing that sanctions would count as “not ignoring the issue” simply because they have worked in the past. That means that they would count as “not ignoring the issue” indefinitely.

Your new argument is that the reason why Obama isn’t ignoring the issue is because sanctions could still work. You are conceding that there will come a time when we will finally be able to say that sanctions won’t work, and we will have to look for a different solution.

However, in your ointment example, there is an objectively determined timeline on how long it should take for the ointment to work. You haven’t provided such a timeline for how long it should take for sanctions to work. That makes your analogy invalid, until you do. Until then, an honest analogy should contain no mention of the ointment coming with a recommendation of waiting for a specific amount of time.

So, please tell me, when will you concede that by sitting around waiting for the sanctions to work, Obama is ignoring the issue? According to Netanyahu’s idiot-proof drawing from a couple of weeks ago, Iran is 90% there. Do you really think they’ll stop now, that they’re so close, because of the same sanctions that haven’t stopped them back when they were only 50% done? Do you have a reason for thinking that?

It’s a simple question: All you have to do is take a red pen, and draw your own red line onto this image:

netanyahu-bomb-drawing.jpg

And please don’t say that’s an oversimplification. Progress is measured by a function that has one imput and one output. That’s the exact level of complexity required to measure it. That picture is the exact level of complexity required to represent progress towards building a nuclear weapon.

Where specifically did I change my argument? I was addressing why sanctions/diplomacy and praying for peace don’t have the same value when I said that.

I agree that there is a red line - I will concede that I don’t know where that red line is and am not prepared to give you one. I am unqualified to come up with a specific point. However, based on what the President+his administration is saying, and even Netanyahu, we are not there yet. Netanyahu even said that there is no reason to decide on an attack on Iran until next summer.

Whether or not a red line should be drawn publicly by US officials - I don’t know. I can see it going two ways: It can push Iranians towards diplomacy or it can push Iranians to speed up their efforts and make their nuclear sites more secure. I am guessing the latter as there are reports that they are already creating underground bunkers.

24

Sanctions haven’t done anything? “In the meantime, pain from the sanctions has deepened. Iran’s currency, the rial, plummeted 40 percent in early October.”

Negotiations aren’t in progress? “While we should preserve the use of force as a last resort, negotiating first with Iran makes sense. What are we going to do instead? Drive straight into a brick wall called war in 2013, and not try to talk to them?” -R. Nicholas Burns [1]

Romney would do so much more (ie: draw the red line)? “But Mr. Romney’s position has shifted back and forth. In September, he told ABC News that his “red line” on Iran was the same as Mr. Obama’s — that Iran may not have a nuclear weapon. But his campaign later edited its Web site to include the line, “Mitt Romney believes that it is unacceptable for Iran to possess nuclear weapons capability.”

25

Sanctions haven’t done anything? “In the meantime, pain from the sanctions has deepened. Iran’s currency, the rial, plummeted 40 percent in early October.”

Never said that sanctions haven’t done anything. Just that they’re doing nothing to stop the nuclear program.

Negotiations aren’t in progress? “While we should preserve the use of force as a last resort, negotiating first with Iran makes sense. What are we going to do instead? Drive straight into a brick wall called war in 2013, and not try to talk to them?” -R. Nicholas Burns

Aren’t false alternatives wonderful? All you have to do is say that there are two options: whatever you want to happen, and some extreme second option that you know your audience wants to avoid.

Then you just pretend that assassinating key people in Iran’s leadership and nuclear program (which Israel is doing, and could really use US help with), targeting the research sites from the air (again, Israel would love to do that, if given US support and technology), using local opposition and special operations forces to target key installations and leadership instead of full blown war, etc. are not options, and shazam, you’ve won the debate.

Romney would do so much more (ie: draw the red line)? “But Mr. Romney’s position has shifted back and forth. In September, he told ABC News that his “red line” on Iran was the same as Mr. Obama’s — that Iran may not have a nuclear weapon. But his campaign later edited its Web site to include the line, “Mitt Romney believes that it is unacceptable for Iran to possess nuclear weapons capability.”

Romney challenged Obama on his catering to world opinion and Muslim sensibilities several times. That gives me hope that he’d be willing to consider some of the options Obama dismissed because they would not go over well with the “Arab street”, like air strikes against nuclear installations.

26

[…]assassinating key people in Iran’s leadership and nuclear program (which Israel is doing, and could really use US help with).

Two separate paths toward the same goal are being taken at the same time, so it could be hard for some to reach conclusions about which one is working better. Given the history of sanctions, especially with regard to the Weimar Republic and Japan prior to WWII, I agree with you that any delays for Iran’s nuclear programs come almost exclusively from assassination and sabotage.