William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[wm]

Your cheap shot was:

Talk about your moral courage or fortitude . . .Seems like a "do as I say, not as I do" kind of guy.

I asked you to explain how you reached that conclusion. Clearly you would rather duck-and-dive and worm your way out of that.

Your original request was rather different. viz.:

And all that from a quick Google search... I wonder if you are able to substantiate your indictment of the man?

Buchan's experiences during the First World War made him averse to conflict, 1.he tried to help prevent another war in coordination with United States president Franklin D. Roosevelt and Mackenzie King.

But he apparently sold out and

authorised Canada's declaration of war against Germany in September, shortly after the British declaration of war and with the consent of King George; and, thereafter, issued orders of deployment for Canadian soldiers, airmen, and seamen as the titular commander-in-chief of the Canadian armed forces.

Here's a formalization of the proof that I used:
1. Buchan does not like wars and tries to stop them (true from Wikipedia)
2. Buchan authorized Canada's declaration of war (true from Wikipedia)
3. If a person claims to have certain beliefs about what is right but behaves in a way that disagrees with those beliefs, then that person is a hypocrite. (Paraphrase into a conditional of the meaning of hypocrite-true by definition.)
4. Buchan said one thing/claimed certain beliefs, and he behaved differently (from premises 1 and 2 above by instantiation and conjunction introduction)
5 Buchan is a hypocrite (from 3 and 4 by Modus Ponens)

So the "cheap shot" I posted was actually much more watered down than what I actually concluded from what I read.