Final thought on the Chickenhawk thread :
posted by mkchicago at 1:52 PM
Friday, November 18, 2005
Contributors
Next KKRB: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 @ TBD..., where we will be discussing:
Past Titles:
Previous Posts
- For our next reading selection...
- I guess the 9/11 report lied also
- "So I started hacking away at my tackle."
- First, Brazil had no sense of humor about The Simp...
- Illogical Chickenhawk Argument
- Personally,
- More Lies Exposed
- National Security, National Interest
- Where's the good news on Iraq?
- Speaking of PBS...
2 Comments:
That is the most intelligent response to idiocy I have ever seen.
Ha!
Here's MK's misdirect:
"Jeff is a hypocrite if he doesn't sell his TV and give the $40 to the poor because it would help the poor guy more than it's helping Jeff."
Well, if that statement is true, it applies to you, hurtleg, s-tard, herbman, germanicus, and all your mothers as much as it does to me, regardless of the beliefs we hold about its truth. It's a general statement about cause and effect.
Here's a direct analog to the argument you're making against me: Let's say there was a political party advocating that people who make below the median annual salary receive direct payments from the government in the amount of whatever it takes to bring them up to the median annual salary (writing that sentence made me think of the dictator from "Bananas"!). Would that make them materially better off, assuming they didn't lose or give away the cash, and assuming they spent it on something useful like food, clothes, education, etc.? Of course it would, just like giving them the $40 bucks from hurtleg's pawned TV would. You can't argue with that. Is it good policy? Of course it isn't, for about a dozen different reasons I can think of.
But, according to your "logic," I'm guilty of hypocrisy for not voting for that party, even though I disagree radically with the policy prescription, because...well...I care about the poor? You're argument makes ZERO sense, MK. You've constructed a strawman based on a conservative caricature of the liberal as a bleeding heart, giver of handouts to the poor, and you're hoping that your strawman will stand in for a logically consistent argument.
So to recap your position: I'm guilty of hypocrisy for not following a course of action that I explicitly do not advocate that anyone follow.
War supporters, on the other hand, are explicitly advocating that able-bodied Americans join the AF and go to Iraq. You may have your reasons for not going, like "What I'm doing here is too important," or "I have a medical condition and they wouldn't take me anyway," and those reasons may be either sincere or just cynical excuses (that is, those are the two possible categories into which the reasons can fall). However, you can't dismiss the question as illogical, and that's what this argument is about.
I accept hurtleg's explanation that his hurtleg would bar him from participating as sincere--he seems like a straightshooter, he seems like he would probably dig being in the service, and I have no reason to think him cynical or elitist. I don't accept Dick Cheney and his five deferrments because he's a fucking warmonger who seems to think nothing of repeatedly sending Americans into harm's way under questionable circumstances.
Maybe you guys are so hot under the collar because you think I'm accusing you of cowardice. I'm honestly not. But you are 100% full of shit if you continue to maintain that questioning the sincerity and committment of war supporters/makers who don't serve is "illogical," or otherwise out of bounds. I'll let you, robosquirrel, and pancake bunny decide which position is closer to idiocy.
Post a Comment
<< Home