FBI Nab another nut job wanna be terrorist

I called it merely "dubious", and I was already clear on what I dislike about it but I'll make it bold this time to be easier to spot:

They could have charged him without the fake bomb ploy, and I agree with those who question its moral legitimacy.

I believe that without the government's participation it is unlikely that this individual would have attempted such an act. He seemed incapable (without their charade) despite his willingness and they could have taken him in earlier on lesser charges without becoming the producers in the terrorist attack charade.

I do not think there I have any obligation to share my lunch with a hungry beggar, but I do think that refusing to do so, and taunting him with my food is untoward. Similarly I can find the government's actions untoward without considering them to have broken an obligation. I do not think they quite crossed that line but I think they strayed too close to it for my comfort.

Quote:

Please point out where I misrepresented your argument.

Why? I already have and you... replied (remember your "could" vs. "should" wordplay?). I'd rather not type all the same letters again in the same order given the whole dislike for repetition thing I've got going on.

So what? You still haven't answered the question of why the government is obligated to charge the suspect at an earlier stage, rather than allowing him to proceed (on his own volition) to a more serious criminal act.

At best, all you've said is that it strikes you as "untoward," which is about as informative as saying that you find it all "icky." Forgive me if I find that argument particularly unpersuasive.

How is that misrepresenting your argument? Did I misquote you? It was you who used "could" instead of "should." Are you suggesting that they're synonyms?

I have already said I do not think the government broke it's obligations, yet you repeatedly insist that I support a position where the government is held to have done so. This is maddening daftitude or you are being willfully obtuse.

Well, forgive me if persuading you just isn't on my short list of priorities.

You portrayed my position as either advocating that the government stand by and do nothing (when I was clearly calling for them to do something sooner) or an "obligation" to charge for lesser crimes. I repeatedly point out that these are not my positons and stated that when I said "they could have charged him sooner" I was calling on them to do so. Your reply was insipid wordplay about how "could" doesn't mean "should." Of course it doesn't, but when I was lamenting that they could have charged him sooner, but did not, it is clear to anyone with basic reading comprehension that I am saying that they should have. Pointing out that they could have and lamenting that they didn't makes clear that I think they should have.

And this is why I saw no profit in rehashing this with you Joe. You shouldn't have to stoop to this level of argument, you know damn well that you misrepresented my position but would rather play word games than lose face. In my opinion you lose more face this way.

If you're not talking about obligations, then you're not talking about anything worth talking about.

It contradicts what you wrote earlier about the moral implications of the government's actions, but you seem perfectly content with such contradictions, and I'd hate to disabuse you of them.

No, I didn't misrepresent your position. For the most part, I was trying to understand your position. You, however, want to play the poor, oppressed victim here, which is something you've honed to a fine art, so don't let me stop you.

In any event, I usually don't participate in threads where the posts are spaced out in one- or two-week intervals -- I just don't have the patience for such episodic discussions -- so I'm content to let you have the last whine.