Not sure what any of this proves really, except that lots of people have many different positions on the war and its morality. I'm very wary of the idea that only someone "who's been there" can comment on an issue or have an opinion worth listening to. Follow that kind of logic and, ultimately, most people should just shut up about almost everything, since they've never directly experienced it themselves.
I'm very wary of the idea that only someone "who's been there" can comment on an issue or have an opinion worth listening to.
I didn't suggest that. However, I tend to trust informed opinion over uninformed.
Which is why, for example, I ignore celebrities when they're not acting. I don't care what they think about the rainforests, or war, or anything else outside their realm of expertise or experience.
I assume the Pope has an informed opinion because he happens to have the experience of living under a dictator in a state that had to liberated by invasion, not to mention his experience with dictatorial states that were liberated without a single shot being fired.
If he says the US should have waited, well, his opinion has more weight than most. If the Pope were telling the US to reduce softwood trade tarriffs, his opinion would not necessarily be any more informed than mine. Unless the Pope knows something about tarriffs that I don't, which is admittedly likely, since he's a head of state.
I was actually commenting on the notion that veterans necessarily make better commentators on wars than those who've never served (and Heinlein did serve, for what it's worth). My issues with the Pope are different and stem from his seeming creep toward pacifism in international relations but without the chutzpah to actually so.
As for the pope, I find it difficult to believe that a pontiff can make a credible pro-war statement in the face of a globally connected, literate lay population. It does strike me, however, that John Paul the 2nd does seem genuinely pained over the situation in a way that has never been so apparent during other controversies.
Yes, I realize that. He was cashiered in 1934 because of illness, I believe. Doesn't matter much to me, because, as I said, I don't think direct experience of anything necessarily makes one's opinions any more credible, except as a witness. Drawing conclusions is not a skill that requires such experience.
As for the pope, I find it difficult to believe that a pontiff can make a credible pro-war statement in the face of a globally connected, literate lay population.
I'm not sure what this means. You suggesting that educated people would never accept the notion that a religious leader could find a war morally justified?
It does strike me, however, that John Paul the 2nd does seem genuinely pained over the situation in a way that has never been so apparent during other controversies.
Undoubtedly so. Again, emotional anguish isn't a sufficient basis for credibility in my opinion. It's a data point, but not the whole story.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2003-03-19 06:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-19 06:55 pm (UTC)Oh, okay.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-19 06:57 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2003-03-19 07:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-19 07:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-19 07:12 pm (UTC)I am a cult personality, and allow those who enjoy me to feel a sense of well being and smug superiority.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-19 07:26 pm (UTC)It reminds me of the reason why The Forever War is better than Starship Troopers -- because it's the same reason.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 04:55 am (UTC)Not to mention the Pope!
Though he can't be considered an SF author unless you're an atheist.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 08:32 am (UTC)Not sure what any of this proves really, except that lots of people have many different positions on the war and its morality. I'm very wary of the idea that only someone "who's been there" can comment on an issue or have an opinion worth listening to. Follow that kind of logic and, ultimately, most people should just shut up about almost everything, since they've never directly experienced it themselves.
But then maybe that's the point, I don't know.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 08:52 am (UTC)I didn't suggest that. However, I tend to trust informed opinion over uninformed.
Which is why, for example, I ignore celebrities when they're not acting. I don't care what they think about the rainforests, or war, or anything else outside their realm of expertise or experience.
I assume the Pope has an informed opinion because he happens to have the experience of living under a dictator in a state that had to liberated by invasion, not to mention his experience with dictatorial states that were liberated without a single shot being fired.
If he says the US should have waited, well, his opinion has more weight than most. If the Pope were telling the US to reduce softwood trade tarriffs, his opinion would not necessarily be any more informed than mine. Unless the Pope knows something about tarriffs that I don't, which is admittedly likely, since he's a head of state.
So, that was a bad example.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 08:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 09:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 09:14 am (UTC)As for the pope, I find it difficult to believe that a pontiff can make a credible pro-war statement in the face of a globally connected, literate lay population. It does strike me, however, that John Paul the 2nd does seem genuinely pained over the situation in a way that has never been so apparent during other controversies.
no subject
Date: 2003-03-20 09:19 am (UTC)Yes, I realize that. He was cashiered in 1934 because of illness, I believe. Doesn't matter much to me, because, as I said, I don't think direct experience of anything necessarily makes one's opinions any more credible, except as a witness. Drawing conclusions is not a skill that requires such experience.
As for the pope, I find it difficult to believe that a pontiff can make a credible pro-war statement in the face of a globally connected, literate lay population.
I'm not sure what this means. You suggesting that educated people would never accept the notion that a religious leader could find a war morally justified?
It does strike me, however, that John Paul the 2nd does seem genuinely pained over the situation in a way that has never been so apparent during other controversies.
Undoubtedly so. Again, emotional anguish isn't a sufficient basis for credibility in my opinion. It's a data point, but not the whole story.