They both outline significant problems (read flaws in reason) for the anti-war faction. Important reading for anyone trying to formulate a rational anti-war stance.
The oldest and most obscure weblog. Probably. Lovingly maintained and neglected by Shawn Kilburn.
2 thoughts on “the dove and the hawk”
The burden of proof has to be on the person who wants to go to war–the ‘dove’ should have to prove less than the ‘hawk’ since the hawk proposes (a) killing people–ordinarily quite wrong; (b) risking the lives of his fellow citizens (c) spending significant amounts of public money. All doves really have to do is show there isn’t a sufficient reason–and in a sane world this shouldn’t be hard in many cases since there should be a very high bar to justify war. Hawks have the proving to do.
I agree with everything you’re saying. But just because a ‘dove’ has an easier proof to defend, doesn’t mean said ‘dove’ has to be a bozo… (and I’m not saying, either, that the ‘hawks’ don’t have their share of bozos) the whole thing just muddles my brain, anyway.