tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post116764862054279568..comments2023-11-05T23:25:31.498+11:00Comments on Wot Is It Good 4: Iran should be bombed back to the stone age. great.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5194776.post-1167695285129584422007-01-02T10:48:00.000+11:002007-01-02T10:48:00.000+11:00You said,"...I can't remember who sent me to this ...You said,<BR/><BR/>"...I can't remember who sent me to this piece, but they said it was 'propaganda' - simply by virtue of the fact that the author is who is he is."<BR/><BR/>I take it, by saying this letter by the Iranian ambassador was 'propaganda,' your informant meant to be saying it should have no credibility because the ambassador, as well as anyone in the same situation, lies and makes arguments that would never credit their opponents with telling the truth.<BR/><BR/>So, in any court of law we should recognize the prosecutors as well as the defense lawyers are doing nothing more than propagandize. Neither side has any real credibility.<BR/><BR/>Or, in any political debate, all advocates should be recognized for the liars they are. No one in the position of advocate should be believed.<BR/><BR/>You did not explain what support or argument your informant offered for their skepticism. Maybe they know something about the Iranian Ambassador that makes them think he would lie, whereas others would not.<BR/><BR/>But, in that case, there should be some argument that many advocates for defendents, or victims, or even prosecutors, do make cases which all sides could accept.<BR/><BR/>I think it's important to challenge this kind of generalization because it makes people think, for no good reason, that you cannot resolve arguments without resorting to force. That presumption is dangerous and wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com