...news, moderately offensive commentary, f-bombs...

Saturday, December 13, 2008

pointlessly arguing pointless arguments

I usually like reading John Aravosis, but then he goes and writes stuff like this, which reads like its straight out of wingnut land circa 2003, before Earth exploded forever.
When I read about people like Mugabe in Zimbabwe, I'm hard pressed to find an argument against just killing the guy. Putting geo-political costs and benefits aside (e.g., will the situation truly improve if Mugabe is disposed of (think Iraq post-Saddam, not necessarily better)), the question I'd like us to consider is, morally it is acceptable to simply have Mugabe killed?
Hard pressed? uh, aside from every news story from the middle east you've seen in the last 5 years?
Yes, it's a stark question, but I think it's an important one.
Yes, its a stark question, only if looked at in total isolation. Questions like those are best asked drunk in your dorm room. And no, its not important if you ignore costs and benefits, which he acknowledges, because no one with the power to assassinate Mugabe will ever do so without weighing costs and benefits, regardless of legality.

The post gets worse, contemplating the assassination of former president of South Africa Thabo Mbeki for his retarded AIDS policy. Assassinating someone whose party won roughly a billion percent of the vote in the last election might complicate things.

No comments: