Well, yes, Den Beste is trying to figure out some coherent philosphy that could put forth this set of arguments. If there is no philosophy behind these arguments, and no practical reasons behind them (most are plainly anti-utilitarian in nature), where does that leave us? That the arguments are based on nothing more than the feelings of the arguer? That they're actually quite incoherent and narcicistic in nature? Personally, I can buy that, but Den Beste was trying to give the arguments the benefit of the doubt.
False dichotomy, Nadine. You insist these arguments must either be a coherent ideology or they are then "incoherent and narcicistic." I certainly will not ask how you arrive at the latter judgment, but this betrays, now, your own approach to political thinking. It must be one or the other.
In fact, it's quite possible to favor Kyoto on environmental grounds, the ICC on international law grounds, etc. without linking them. The only reason Den Beste insists that they must is this then gives him his "left wing" strawperson.
We're wasting our time. |
