"the whole argument is/will be academic soon because the "tolerability" of a situation is utterly irrelevant without the ability to effect it. We can bitch and moan about political or humanitarian crises till the cows come home, it wont matter because we will have given up the ability to act"
Which translates as, "why have a principled position if it wouldn't matter anyway", which is a typical ad hoc approach to principle.
...But now you're arguing in favor of a policy based on consistent principle-based position.
So which is it?
It shouldn't matter if you're setting the policy - you either support having a principled position, or you support having an ad hoc approach. You can't have it both ways.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 6/3/14 08:48 (UTC)"the whole argument is/will be academic soon because the "tolerability" of a situation is utterly irrelevant without the ability to effect it. We can bitch and moan about political or humanitarian crises till the cows come home, it wont matter because we will have given up the ability to act"
Which translates as, "why have a principled position if it wouldn't matter anyway", which is a typical ad hoc approach to principle.
...But now you're arguing in favor of a policy based on consistent principle-based position.
So which is it?
It shouldn't matter if you're setting the policy - you either support having a principled position, or you support having an ad hoc approach. You can't have it both ways.