In a debate with my Dad...

[gotlucky]

In other words your critique consists of a nitpicking objection against my saying ‘nobody business but the Chinese’ even though it was a playful paraphrase of a line from a novelty song. Even though it was made in the context of a prompt to come up with an argument useful to pass on to a person who in all likelihood can not even concieve of an individualist intervention. I did not know that when aiming to dissuade collectivists (conservatives) from supporting imperialism it was a requirement to also make certain your wordding does not offend doctrinarie individualists?

Hold the phone! You don’t like nitpicking objections?

I am giving an effective common-sense, down-to-Eart argument about a real world stand off and you are going off about neat little categories like “help stop the aggressors”, and “interference per se”. Know what, when making an argument to a conservative about the undesirability of American imperialists’ involvement in a potential war between the two China’s I find it a little superflous to also make sure I also emphasise there is nothing wrong with “intervention per se” for example if carried out by Mother Theresa and the Seven Dwarfs. Nor do I believe the record of American imperialists is such they would be well equipped to determine who, in a potential war between the two Chinas, is the greater aggressor. In fact I do not believe any foreigner would be well equipped to make that call, but for a very few individual exceptions so as to make that not worth expending the energy to get into, particularly when tailoring your argument for style, collectivist audience and effectivness.

I see no reason why a conservative could not understand that interfering by bombing innocent civilians is a bad thing, seeing as one of their claims for invading and installing democracies is for the “benefit” of the citizens there. Some benefit if you murder them and destroy their homes in the process.

Anyway, it’s interesting that you nitpick my choice of words here, considering that I am discussing this with you and not a conservative.

Oh please. Saying foreigners should aim to stay out is the equivalent of saying foreigners don’t know crap about China and therefore should be reluctant rather than eager to proclaim for the one side or the other as the relative lesser aggressor or even a generally virtuous actor. It is the equivalent of saying foreigners will not live with the consequences of either being wrong or right in their judgement and should think twice before they in their ignorance cause an outcome of the civil war that proves more tragic and aggression-laden for the Chinese than the alternative might have.

Oh please. Not this “I won’t stop my neighbor from murdering his wife” thing again. I don’t see why the US should help either governments in the event of a conflict between PROC and ROC. Both will murder innocents and destroy their homes. If anybody were to intervene, it should be on behalf of the people being murdered. To say otherwise is to say “I think it’s wrong to stop my neighbor from murdering his wife, as I don’t have to live the consequences”. If the victims in the (hypothetical) conflict between PROC and ROC don’t want foreigners to come to their aid, then so be it. But for you to say that it is wrong, what business do you have saying that?