Milutin writes:
> >> Your point was that I said I protested the NATO actions because I
> >> believed bombing was amoral.  And that because I didn't mention
> >> anything here about the bombing of Chechenya, therefore proved I had
> >> a double standard on the morality of bombing.
>
> >No, I said you have the same double standard as the governments you
> >denigrate, namely, that you protest when it suits you to protest.
>
> What the hell are you talking about?  Do you even know what a double
> standard is?!  If my standard is protesting when it suits me to protest, and
> then I do exactly that, that isn't a double standard.

Yes, I do know what a double standard is, and yes, your double
standard is the same one used by the US government.  The double
standard is with respect to where and when you protest.  It is not
based on an objective morality, which would dictate that you protest
in both cases.  It is based on your own agenda.  That's the same thing
the US does.  It protests when it suits its own agenda.  You expect
governments to abide by an objective moral code, but you allow
yourself not to.  Another double standard.

It doesn't matter to me what your agenda is.  I hope you have an
internally consistent moral and ethical code. I doubt that you do,
judging by what I have read from you here, but that's your problem.
With respect to the normal, objective code for protesting bombing on
moral grounds, you have a double standard.

> >The US protests the actions of some other government, when it suits the US
> to do so.
>
> If they say it is because of morality, then that is a double standard.  Of
> course, they really are lying about the reasons and that's why it appears to
> be a double standard, even though there isn't.
>
> >You protest the actions of a government when it suits you to do so.
>
> Correct.  I don't lie about the reasons though.

There.  That's my point.  Why was it so hard to admit?  Now, about
those reasons.  You don't lie about them because you don't even say
what your reasons are unless you are forced to in an argument like
this.  You just let everyone think your words imply the normal
morality they seem to imply.  When pressed, you admitted you protested
the NATO bombing because (a) you didn't want your taxes to be spent on
bombing and (b) you didn't want them bombing your fatherland.  You
said you didn't have to say you believed bombing is immoral, and you
didn't say it.  You also didn't *protest* the bombing because bombing
is immoral, or you would be protesting the bombing of Chechenya for
the same reason.  The immorality of bombing was not enough to induce
you to protest, in either case.  You only protested when (a) they were
using your tax money to do it *and* (b) they were bombing your
fatherland.  You didn't lie about your reasons.  You didn't even say
what they were.

Now, I believe bombing is immoral.  My belief was not enough to induce
me to protest.  I did not protest the bombing of Yugoslavia, and I am
not protesting the bombing of Chechnya.  That means I am not against
the bombing.  I am uncomfortable with the bombing.  I don't like the
bombing.  But I am not against the bombing.  You protested the bombing
of Yugoslavia - you were against the bombing of Yugoslavia.  You are
not protesting the bombing of Chechnya - you are not against the
bombing of Chechnya.  It is a simple thing, but you have to be willing
to see it, or you can't see it.

martin