There's a good bit of sloppy thinking out there on the net. Let's take an example from someone blogging current events in Canada.
According to the right whingers, by calling for our withdrawel from the mission in Afghanistan Jack Layton is endangering the troops and getting more of them killed. So if this is true it must mean he’s just a patriotic Canadian who is helping to build a better military.Here my fellow blogger, let me help you understand this apparently much too complicated statement.
Unlike Afghani society, in Canada much of what our leaders decide to do is influenced by public opinion. We also place a very high value on the lives of our citizens as individuals (as opposed to members of a tribe, or a religious movement). If the Taliban feel that killing our soldiers in Afghanistan will rapidly weaken public resolve and thus place pressure on the government to withdraw them, they will redouble their cowardly suicide attacks to inflict these casualties.
With me so far? Good.
Now when Jack Layton makes a very public call to withdraw our soldiers, it makes the Taliban think they are accomplishing their goal of forcing Canada to withdraw from the conflict. They will, like the proverbial lab rat, keep on modifying their behaviour to achieve this end, in this case making more suicide attacks. That is how Jack Layton is endangering the troops.
“At the same time, I can tell you it’s certainly engaged our military. It’s, I think, making them a better military, notwithstanding, or maybe in some way because of, the casualties.”–[PMS]This quote by Stephen Harper… again not too hard to understand if you really concentrate. The Prime Minister isn’t saying that having your soldiers killed makes your military a more formidable fighting force (obviously less soldiers in any unit diminishes overall combat effectiveness), but that, despite grieving for their comrades, it makes the remaining soldiers more determined than ever to meet the enemy and defeat them. This is what I hear and read and see whenever the soldiers themselves and not, for instance, members of the NDP, are questioned.
But Carolyn Stewart-Olsen, a spokeswoman for the Prime Minister, said she thought the remarks were clear. The military gets stronger when casualties occur, she said, because it means more money is put into equipment and recruiting.I have no idea who this Carolyn is and this isn’t the first interpretation I would have made for the Prime Minister. Nonetheless, it is a fact that the Harper government, after seeing previous casualties (like with the Iltis jeep, for example) have reinforced our troops, first with better armoured patrol vehicles and again just recently with a squadron of tanks. We learn from our mistakes.
This also must mean that anyone who does not support Layton’s call for withdrawel is weakening our military. So why do right whingers want to weaken our military?You may want to take another look at this sort of circular reasoning. It's sloppy and embarrassing.
I remember when I watched “I Love Lucy” as a kid. Despite her best intentions, Lucy would always end up messing up pretty badly. I always felt so bad for her. This is how I feel for you.
Technorati Tags: Mr. Anonymous, circular reasoning, spelling
