|
i do not see what distinction you are trying to make with your repeated "you either think a or b" move, irate. the effect of it is to box in anyone who would take your post seriously--the problem is either pardons in general or this particular pardon/commutation. that is a false binary, as we say in the biz. what it does is erase context, erase this particular context, in order to substitute two alternate contexts--objections in principle to pardons or the list of previous pardons. i do not know what you imagine you accomplish with this move, but you seem quite committed to it, as if this false binary is enough to put those who find this latest move on the part of cowboy george to be problematic in an awkward spot.
the other problem is your insistence on switching away from the category of the political and onto some "moral" grounds in the fashioning of judgments. there is no justification provided for this switch.
there is no rationale for it, so far as i can can tell either.
what it seems cheap to me. like nothing is happening with or through it: except that you get to dictate not only the way the question is framed, but the grounds on which any possible critique of it can be articulated.
which is your prerogative, i suppose--you can try to do what you like--but there is no reason to expect that anyone who is not you will buy your thinking.
so there is no agreement about the way you are framing this question.
none.
so if you dont want to interact with host's posts and dont want to take seriously the response he provided you, then maybe we can start again in another way and you can defend the moves that shape your repetitions of the op.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|