which obviously preemptively frames the opposing argument and the person who would make it in a disrespectful and demeaning way before any discussion has even begun.
I still think "hair on fire" would be a suitable counter-insult for "apologist" -- if the goal is to hurl insults
Even though I've grown accustomed to it, it still galls me to see this kind of talk. I'm used to it from the right ("Sheeple!"
but I groan when I see it coming from the left.
I agree with your arguments. I'm very skeptical of the TPP. The secrecy is disturbing. Trade with the Pacific Rim countries is an existing fact. A framework doesn't necessarily make it any better or worse. Deep within my compromising soul there lies an anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, fire-breathing environmental radical. More trade with distant countries easily means more pervasive and rapid environmental destruction of the earth's living systems. It means that the capitalist, "civilized" paradigm becomes more entrenched in other parts of the world. It means that US hegemony and "national interest" grows to encompass more of the planet.
It's probably a f%$king horrible agreement. But I agree with your argument that we don't know that for sure, and certainly no specifics have been given by the TPP opponents here.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read