"So, finally, you have lost me......"
Well I hate to use an example at this point because the example can be used in a different context but lets see if it helps.
"you assert that a first strike gets the striker what he wants without a break, when, in fact, any sort of strike IS the breaking point, premature or not."
The US and Iraq had tension over the disarmament issue. The tension lasted for several years. The imaginary breaking point is that the tension snaps...Iraq says f'you we are going to build our military and get on with our Empire building. The US says ok well f'you to we are going to refund star wars technology and see who wins. The tension of disarmament is over, it blew up and we all go on to what is next. The US sees the breaking point and says, "huh uh, we aint going to let it happen." So we take the first stike and invade Iraq. The breaking point is never reached because an alternative to resolving that particular tension is successfully employed. What did the US want in this scenario? The US wanted to make sure the breaking point was never reached. Tension over disarmament could not be allowed to rise any further toward the breaking point.(fogettabot all the other things they may have wanted)
"Also, I do not know what "dead center" would be if one were having a genuine argument about abortion, or why one would have to take pains to move things towards the breaking point, given the intrinsic tension in such an argument."
Dead center as I used it is the fulcrum on which the arguement is balanced. When it is balanced and no one is interested in moving it the discussion is stagnated.
You take pains to move the argument towards the breaking point because it forces both sides to think and engage in the juicier, riskier aspects of the argument...not to blow it up but to flush out the difficult areas of discussion.
If you don't take pains to move it along you don't discuss it at all; which is fine unless you want to have a boxing ring format to discuss things. |
