Responses to CARE In Afghanistan Editorial

[Brad Sallows]

40 years, eh?  Are these luminaries aware that the "D" in "CIDA" stands for "Development", not "Dependency"?

 

[Brad Sallows]

>some disclosure of its experience, composition and background would help sustain its credibility

Why?  Editorials are presentations of ideas.  Either the ideas and arguments are strong, or they are not.  Challenge the ideas, if you can.  It doesn't matter who contributed.  The soundness of the editorials - the body of work - will determine the credibility.

 

[mdh]

Why?  Editorials are presentations of ideas.  Either the ideas and arguments are strong, or they are not.  Challenge the ideas, if you can.  It doesn't matter who contributed.  The soundness of the editorials - the body of work - will determine the credibility.

Why? Why not? If you are going to promote the Ruxted Group as a kind of pro-military "editorial brand" then sooner or later people are going to ask the obvious question - who or what is it? Why should I care (as a reader) what something called the Ruxted Group thinks? If Ruxted wants to take issue with CARE - okay - but if it's going to engage the reader on the basis of anything more than scoring clever debating points (or as you put it "the presentation of ideas") then you might want to present your credentials up front. You're more likely to get my attention with the gravitas of your experience if Ruxted represents 150 years of collective military experience as opposed to 14 year old cadet who happens to be an intellectual enfant terrible.

People on this board have asked who or what the Polaris Institute is, for example, without simply addressing the quality of their arguments. And they have generally measured the quality (and importance) of its arguments with that background in mind.

After all, editorials are not generally considered to be disembodied fragments of opinion floating in the etherworld but a series of consistent (more or less) expressions representing the outlook of a publisher, a party, an interest group.

cheers, mdh

 

[muskrat89]

Why should I care (as a reader) what something called the Ruxted Group thinks?

Why should the Ruxted Group care what you (the reader) thinks? It appears that the Group is simply offering counterpoints, via Mike's site, to specific concepts/entities/individuals. Members on this site are allowed (not invited, encouraged, nor obligated) to comment, as they see fit. If they don't like the context from which the Group presents those counter-points, then they don't need to join in the fray.

Sorry, but I think it is much ado about nothing

 

[mdh]

Why should the Rusted Group care what you (the reader) thinks?

Well personally it doesn't matter to me - but in the overall sense that's a odd point to make isn't it?

If you are going to all the trouble of producing editorials (again under aegis of a brand name), I assume you want to convince and persuade your audience - otherwise why bother? Secondly I would have thought Ruxted wants to persuade audiences beyond this site. If all the Ruxted Group is meant to be is an informal ginger group that makes the occasional rhetorical sally against the latest target de jour, that's fine.  If it has greater ambitions, then it may want to revisit this issue.

cheers, mdh

 

[Brad Sallows]

>You're more likely to get my attention with the gravitas of your experience if Ruxted represents 150 years of collective military experience as opposed to 14 year old cadet who happens to be an intellectual enfant terrible.

Your own bias is something for you to resolve.  No-one else can help you to become more open-minded.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>(again under aegis of a brand name),

The whole point of a brand name is to establish itself based on the quality of the product.

 

[muskrat89]

Well personally it doesn't matter to me

That's odd, considering you are one of only two people taking umbrage with it   ;D

My impression is that the Group wants to provide a counterpoint to specific ideas as put out by individuals or groups of some prominence. In many cases, ideas are presented, or statements are made - with little opportunity for counterpoints, particularly from members of the Military, Veterans, or people well-versed in military matters. Mike's use of the site is a tool for that purpose, utilized by an informed group of stakeholders who are knowledgeable in the profession of arms, Canadian National Defence policy and related issues. As to their motivations or long term goals... I cannot speculate.

If PETA, or the Objectivist Society contacted Mike and asked permission to post Editorials, I'm sure he would evaluate the possibility on a case-by-case basis...

 

[Brad Sallows]

>People on this board have asked who or what the Polaris Institute is, for example, without simply addressing the quality of their arguments.

And it was a mistake to do so purely for its own sake.  However, there is at least one straightforward reason to legitimately ask "whois" in the course of evaluating ideas.  Weak arguments generally originate from biased sources because by definition an objective person seeks the strongest possible argument and follows rather than fits evidence to conclusions.  Thus, when one finds a weak argument one then asks what the agenda driving it was.  It makes it easier to understand why the weak case was presented.

 

[mdh]

However, there is at least one straightforward reason to legitimately ask "whois" in the course of evaluating ideas.  Weak arguments generally originate from biased sources because by definition an objective person seeks the strongest possible argument and follows rather than fits evidence to conclusions.  Thus, when one finds a weak argument one then asks what the agenda driving it was.  It makes it easier to understand why the weak case was presented.

So therefore the objective person has a legitimate reason to ask "who is" the Ruxted Group.

Ah, so you agree with me after all 

cheers, mdh

 

[Pikache]

And you were told who the Ruxted Group is. Bunch of people with mil exp present or past who wish to remain anonymous.

It's not like editorials published anonymous is not without precedent.

 

[George Wallace]

I get the feeling of a guy with a Level I Security Clearance trying to get a gander at documents that are Level III.  :

 

[mdh]

I get the feeling of a guy with a Level I Security Clearance trying to get a gander at documents that are Level III. 

Yep that's me all right  :