On 22/11/2005 5:43 PM, Jim Kelley wrote:
clvrmnky wrote:

Also, I'm pretty sure you don't know your president personally, so it
is technically a fallacy to say "he is a good man." Perhaps you
surmise from his actions (or the second-hand, imperfect, reports of
such actions) that he has qualities you admire? The problem, of
course, is that just as many people could come to the opposite
determination of the president being a "bad man" by the very same
actions. I mean, how does one know if they are the one being
brain-washed or not?

Is saying bad things about people you don't know morally equivalent to
saying good things about them? Some people believe that if it is
repeated often enough and long enough, it will become so.

Your question puzzles me. I don't recall making any value statements,
or mentioning any moral imperatives. People say things. Other people
hear them, or hear about it from others. We can only arrive at some
concrete value for abstracts like "good" or "true" by consensus and
examination.

I'm also puzzled why one would espouse total support of a
"Commander-in-Chief" simply because he is "the Chief."

The not-so clvr mnky might consider that to those for whom the current
Commander-in-Chief is Commander-in-Chief, it's pretty clear whose side
he is on.

We have met the enemy, and he is us!

Seriously, I have no idea what you are driving at. Whose side is who
on? I was speaking to the notion that tautologies such as "I support
the chief because he is the chief" seem odd to me. Even the inverse is
a tautology.