Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
That narrator does a pretty good Michael Moore impression. lol
These double-breasted dicks haven’t changed in decades. They’re just focusing on building their lifetime network of cronies.
Great find !! LOL..
What a terrific representation of real life young republican views on the war. They got snookered but not before their freakish views were aired out. Loved it!
Haha awesome. A bunch of rich college kids all gung-ho about Iraq and winning but none are committed enough to serve.
What really angers me is the statement “let’s fight them over there and not here”. Regardless of how true that might be it’s still a pretty terrible thing to fight our war on someone’s backyard. It’s the equivalent of me fighting someone in a third persons home and breaking all of their things while we’re going at it.
Regards,
Former Army Combat Engineer
“Let’s you and him fight!”
I was sick of this in the 60’s and it hasn’t changed a whit in over 40 years.
One of these cowardly dickheads will end up being the President of the United States one day.
Is it just me, or did they all say the same thing. Trained to repeat key talking points from bush’s speeches over the past 4 years. Sheep.
#4, maybe they’re in college to become officers.
I want to know what their vision of a win is in Iraq. Will the win have Sunni and Shiite hugging each other? Al Queada partially gone? Or completely gone?
Surely the win in Iraq will have Bin Laden still a live. Right?
Colorado….
Do you really want the idiots and swine who have perpetrated this atrocity given the legitimate authority to conscript our children just so they can continue pursuit of their agenda?
Whats the point here? It really IRRITATES ME when two seperate ideas get linked up/spinned up for political reasons.
Whether or not global warming exists and we should move towards carbon neutrality HAS NOTHING TO DO with Al Gore’s carbon footprint.
Whether or not Blacks are advantaged by following Al Sharpton HAS NOTHING TO DO with whether or not I’m Black or White.
Whether or not Women should have the right to abortion HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH whether or not I am a man or a woman, pregnant or sterile.
Whether or not we should have troops in Vietnam or Iraq HAS NOTHING TO DO with whether or not I am a veteran or if I would choose to fight “over there.”
If you fall for these rhetorical traps, shake the goo out of the space between your ears and grow a brain.
#11 – well put.
You can find loonies in any crowd. I could do the same at a Democrat function, with the same results. It’s entertaining, but misleading.
Basic sociopolitical math:
Young + Republican = Brainwashed
Young + Intelligent ≠ Republican
#11:
you are right with those combinations, but:
advocating carbon neutrality while driving around in a Hummer makes you look less than convincing
saying you’re an equal opportunity employer while your whole staff is white or black, male or female, isn’t too convincing
being against abortion and sending your pregnant g/f to mexico because an unwanted child would damage your career at this point isn’t too convincing
Standing at home, advocating a war while making sure that you don’t have to go isn’t too convincing
There is, however, one thing that has to be said:
The Bush junta that has held your country hostage for many years now has started an unnecessary, unwinnable war. I’m sorry for all the troops that have died in this war, they’ve been betrayed by their own government. They’ve been pawns on the playfield, sent forward because if they get killed, well, it’s not a big loss. The king and his officers are warm at home (and so are their heirs, as could be seen from this video)
.
Sad story is: now that you’ve started this mess, there’s no way you can pull out without making the world a _much_ worse place than what it was before. All the talk about getting the troops home? Now? After they made Iraq a safe haven for all kinds of loonies?
I’m sorry, you’ll have to clean up your mess before you leave. And you know whom to thank for that.
pj
#7, Sea Lawyer,
#4, maybe they’re in college to become officers.
Comment by Sea Lawyer — 7/23/2007 @ 5:09 am
Somehow I don’t think so. That would be too close to actually getting sent to a war zone.
….It really IRRITATES ME when two seperate ideas get linked up…
…whether or not I am a man or a woman …
So… if you are not man or a woman, who or what are you?
Being woman or a man, black or white, veteran or not is not an idea, and it has everything to do with the views that a person may have on ideas you’ve mentioned.
Officially not gay!
14–Peter==clean that goo out between your ears. You post inconsistently as in “you know” what I posted is correct, but emotionally you go ahead and contradict ourselves. Sit down and think thru exactly what your “real” position is. Post back if interesting? — Hint, your second example re equal opportunity is totally different from your first example re carbon neutrality.
As to this “devasting war”—the future is too variable to think we have it one way or the other. In the main, big issues looming are 99% of the time overtaken by the new big issue we didn’t see coming–almost uniform in the field of human affairs as opposed to the scientific such as global warming and such.
16—Art, what would be left if the goo were removed? Think about what “if” and “or” means in constructing an argument and post back.
17–“Not that theres anything wrong with that.”
The reason the young tend to not be Republican is that they don’t know how life works and don’t yet a have anything to lose. Once you actually own something you want to keep for yourself it gets scary to vote Democratic.
you’ve got quite an ego there, bobbo…
I can’t help feeling that your ego might be in the way to see how the point you’re making is indefensible.
A song came to my mind when I saw this video.
“The bravery of being out of range”
pj
bobbo:
It was bound to happen at some point: I agree entirely! I think one can support, or not support, a war without a being (of have been) a soldier.
While I can see the irony in things like young environmentalists who are smoking a cigarette and drinking a coffee handing out pamphlets saying how unhealthy MacDonald’s and how bad their ecological record is, this doesn’t make BigMac’s good for you….
I did have a friend who was a Naval officer though, and he reckoned that before any military goes to war the rank and file should vote on whether or not they thought it was worth fighting for.
Considering that most soldiers, pretty much the world over, have families in the country they fight for, I think most soldiers would be quite reasonable about it too, in that I think during the second world war, at least here in the UK, the soldiers would have voted to fight…. I doubt many would have voted to go to Iraq…. not sure what would happen with Afganistahn, but I reckon they’d probably have to voted to go there at least until Bin Laden is caught.
21–Ego?? or just an inflamed sensitivity??
and whether of not someone has a large ego or an inflamed sensitivity HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH whether or not they are right or wrong.
So, rather than take up the challenge or disagree with me, you attack my ego?
Good one! ((but seriously, do you see my point? – – – -it is there, ego or not.))
22—Ben, don’t try to upset me! I got a good rant going and any form of agreement just makes me flaccid.
I know that suggesting the army should vote on wars was just a back door attempt to keep me buoyed, but it is so decrepit an idea, it doesn’t work for me. Still, thanks for the effort, it is the thought that counts.
what would be left if the goo were removed? Think about what “if” and “or” means in constructing an argument and post back
Too bad the goo drowned your sense of humor…
25–Humor most often does not come across in a short post. The funniest posts will make the author look like the biggest idiot without a smiley face or a (smile!) at the end.
I look forward to a good chuckle from you in your next post.
Ok Bobbo, let’s see if I might have gotten you completely wrong:
I read your opening comment as “it doesn’t matter who you are and what you personally do, your ideas are your ideas and they stand for themselves”.
Right or wrong?
I’ve put it very neutral here.
You’ve given examples that were, in my view, irrelevant. Pro or con abortion, what’s the relevance of the person’s gender? none. So far, so true. I’ve given you another example where there is a lot of relevance: if you state your contra abortion however use that same thing you fight against to clean up your own life, isn’t it relevant then?
And isn’t the causality much more similar to the “pro war but I won’t go” attitude we’ve seen in the video?
If you’re a man or a woman, you have probably never made that choice. It’s a fact of live. If you opt for an abortion or not, that’s a decision of your free will.
From my point of view, someone who sais one and does the other is a bigott. That’s the term that I would use for those fine young men here.
Is it this point that we disagree on?
pj
#26, bobbo,
Ten thousand comedians out of work and you want funny? Sheet, no wonder I can’t get my old job back.
28–I think humor makes us tolerable, so I accept it whenever I can. “Some” try to use it as a dodge from personal responsibility in a very passive/agressive way. So–Art was injecting his comedy stylings into an otherwise overbounding expression of egotism, not me.
I say, be serious, or comedic, but know which it is before you get caught, not afterwards. And dolts like me need to figure out that html thing so that smiley faces could provide clues along the way. That smiley with his head up his own ass is my favorite.
On to Peters provocative post. I’m still thinking about it in a non-humorous way.
The movie line “Show me the money” seems so appropriate as a retort to anything that these ‘young republicans’ say:
a) “I support our troops” Show me the money… exactly what have you done to directly support the war effort in the past four years. Have you manned a USO stand at the airport? Have you had a random soldier over for dinner? Have you attended any funerals for some soldier you don’t know? I didn’t think so.
b) “We have to fight them there so we won’t fight them here”. Show me the money. Are you, or any members of your family members of the military? Do you DEMAND participation in the military, or a certifiable deferment due to mediacla disability in order to qualify as a “fight them there or here” person. Are you willing to delay your college educationin order to fight for your beloved country?
I could go on and on with questions of this type, for which these hypocrites have no good answer, because that is what they are… a bunch of hypocrites.
If things were to take a real sharp swing to the right, these are the guys and gals that would form the equivalent to the Nazi SS for the government. I would not be surprised to find that the girl in the event ended up decorating her house with a lampshade made of Muslim skin.
27–Peter. Responding as I go::
I read your opening comment as “it doesn’t matter who you are and what you personally do, your ideas are your ideas and they stand for themselves”. /// Correct, although I would de-personalize it to “an idea” stands for itself. I didn’t want to say “ad hominem attacks are invalid” as people are quick to knee jerk at labels, so i avoided it, but thats all I’m saying. And yet, so many disagree? Lets see if you do?
Right or wrong? /// Right.
I’ve put it very neutral here. /// Yes you have.
You’ve given examples that were, in my view, irrelevant. //// That would be poor posting on my part then. What did YOU mean when you started your post with saying that I was right with those combinations? Hard to be right and irrelevant at the same time, but maybe this seeming contradiction is at the heart of our misunderstandint?
Anything is irrelevant to most other issues but relevant to some others? So, you are going to have to identify what issue A is relevant and irrlevant to? Lets see if you do that.
Pro or con abortion, what’s the relevance of the person’s gender? none. So far, so true. //// Agreed Again you agree with me that the example is correct and relevant to the notion that ad hominem arugmentation is invalid.
I’ve given you another example where there is a lot of relevance: if you state your contra abortion however use that same thing you fight against to clean up your own life, isn’t it relevant then? //// This is a bit garbled for me. I can only go back to the basic statement===whether you have had an abortion or not is irrelevant to whether or not abortion should be legal or not. Whether or not abortion is legal is relevant to YOU if you need an abortion, but that is a different issue. There may be a typo, translation, or language error here as I don’t see your point.
And isn’t the causality much more similar to the “pro war but I won’t go” attitude we’ve seen in the video? //// Well, the video was entirely relevant to the point that the speakers did not want to serve in an Iraq war. That says NOTHING about whether or not the GOUSA should be in Iraq or not. I think basically you may not understand fully what an “ab hominem” argument is! I don’t even see any hypocrisy in the positions portrayed==what with a volunteer army. I think septic tanks should be cleaned, but I don’t want to do it. People who do choose to do it, deserve our repect just the same as anyone else. I can hypothesize a situation to make their statements relevant and hypocritical, but that takes the discussion too far.
If you’re a man or a woman, you have probably never made that choice. It’s a fact of live. If you opt for an abortion or not, that’s a decision of your free will. //// Correct, and having nothing to do with whether or not is should be legal or illegal. I don’t see this point as relevant to anything else we are discussing?
From my point of view, someone who sais one and does the other is a bigott. That’s the term that I would use for those fine young men here. //// No, bigott is the wrong word. If I say I hate white people, but I secretly love them, then I am not a bigot. But yes, it is consistent with being a “hypocrite” but not in this particular case–see the sewer cleaner above, or all the other “jobs” that are necessary but not desired by someone==thats why we have a society where all the needs are met by those willing to provide the service. I also would not want to be in any kind of sales postiion–but sales are needed.
Is it this point that we disagree on? /// I think so. My original post and rejoinder to you remain intact. Seperate the person from the “idea” being debated and the debate will have one less error present. You aren’t quite there yet.
Bobbo,
thanks for your lengthy response.
on the argumentum at hominem:
According to Schopenhauer, the argumentum at hominem is the second line of defence when you cannot win an argument on the subject matter, at rem that is.
A classical argumentum at hominem would be to undermine somebody’s credence in a certain field of experience by pointing out that he or she has no formal education, experience, has made false statements on the field earlier (whether they’re relevant for the case at hand or not) etc. Now, you could, in the widest sense of this definition call it an argumentum at hominem when I say “if you’re so in favor of fighting the battle, go stand in the first line”. You could. But: in this case, I don’t think it’s a term used correctly because we’re not questioning the qualification of the person. This is not just about right or wrong either. It is, for many, a matter of life or death.
Being all for sending troops to war and at the same time avoiding having to go yourself is a weird kind of ethics.
On relevance:
If you put out rules, if you give out orders or if you support rules and orders that have been given or, as you say it more generally, you support certain ideas, you must allow that you yourself be measured by them. If someone supports an anti-abortion “idea” then I don’t think that they can claim the privilege of an exception for themselves easily.
If you think that going to war is right, you can’t claim an armchair job for yourself easily.
What does this have to do with relevance?
You can be a man and support abortion or oppose it.
You can be a woman and support abortion or oppose it.
But you cannot have or advocate an abortion in your private life and still credibly defend the “no abortion” idea.
The first pair, gender vs. idea is what you brought up in your original post. That’s an irrelevant pair, there’s no causal or logical connect between the two halves.
The second pair, personal behaviour vs. idea is, as I see it, relevant.
You might say that this was an argumentum at hominem, and yes, you might be right with that, but it’s besides the point: preaching water and drinking wine undermines the credibility of the preacher. Automaticall. No argumentum at hominem required.
pj