On the Breslin Hostage Situation and its Aftermath:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
May those who died in the Breslin school conflict rest in peace with the souls of the faithfully departed. (Particularly those beautiful children so brutally murdered by the Islamofascist bastard scumbags from hell.) Furthermore, may those terrorists who died face the longest and most painful purgatory possible -and those who survived be given a lifetime of pure hell if they are spared at all.
Before commenting further on this subject with the thoughts that permeate my mind at the moment, it seems appropriate to interact with some of a Miami Herald article which can be found HERE. The article will be in black font.
PARIS - World leaders expressed horror over the bloody end to Russia's hostage crisis Friday, saying the attack on schoolchildren showed terrorists have sunk to new lows.
I suppose if this is compared with taking adults hostage and cutting their heads off that yes, a new low has been reached here.
Some experts said Russia's Chechnya conflict is becoming the next crossroads of international terrorism.
"The series of escalating attacks in Russia this month leaves no doubt that the conflict in Chechnya is a matter of international, not merely internal, security," said Celeste Walander, director of CSIS Russia and Eurasia Program in Washington.
I have to concur with the "experts" here because they are right. Russia has seen its own 9/11. Hopefully they will realize now why we are doing what we are doing in the war on terror.
Messages of solidarity and shock flowed worldwide.
"We have been confronted with a deep human tragedy," said Dutch Foreign Minister Ben Bot, speaking on behalf of the European Union. "This shows once again that we have to do everything in our power to confront terrorism."
"I am appalled that a school and its pupils are being used for political ends," UNESCO Director-General Koichiro Matsuura said in a statement.
Many others decried the targeting of children as heinous new territory for terrorists.
"This is a new dimension of terrorism," said German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
It is nice to see you wake up from your nap Chancellor.
"It is hard to express my revulsion at the inhumanity of terrorists prepared to put children and their families through such suffering," British Prime Minister Tony Blair wrote in a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
President Bush called the siege "another grim reminder of the length to which terrorists will go to threaten this civilized world."
"We mourn the innocent lives that have been lost," Bush said. "We stand with the people of Russia; we send them our prayers for this terrible situation."
A Jordanian government spokeswoman, Asma Khader, said that "no cause can be achieved by such criminal means."
Caught in a hostage drama of its own, with two French journalists held in Iraq, France's government called for "everyone to mobilize in the fight against terrorism."
Translation: Now that we are no longer getting kickbacks from Saddam, I guess we have to climb on the anti-terrorist bandwagon too. And the French wonder why they have nothing but the contempt of people like me.
Israel's Foreign Ministry said Israelis, "There is no difference between terror in Beersheba and terror in Beslan. The entire international community must denounce these acts and unite in the war against terror."
BINGO!!! But will the UN and others who are so vehemetly opposed to Israel recognize the parallels involved here, that is the question.
Putin has long tried to paint the Kremlin's conflict with Muslim separatists in Chechnya as part of the global war on terror. Some countries, particularly in Europe, have been critical of Russia's actions in region, where Russian forces have been accused of human rights abuses.
The European Union directed veiled criticism at Russia's handling of the school standoff, saying it regretted the violence and bloodshed.
"It's very difficult to judge from a distance whether the right decision was taken or not," Bot said, apparently referring to Russian forces' decision to storm the school. Russian officials said that happened only after the militants set off explosions and began shooting fleeing hostages.
But of course this could have been resolved by peaceful means I suppose. I suppose some will say that if we just reasoned with these people, they would see that we are nice people and would have left the school peacefully. Do any of you want to defend this thesis in any form whatsoever??? Many of you have been for a while now whether you realize it or not.
At this time, I simply want to ask if certain of you (and you know whom you are) are finally starting to see the light. I want to note part of something I said back in May -and bold a line particularly applicable to this situation:
We are fighting a group of intellectually and emotionally arrested fanatics who have yet to come out of the seventh century. Arab civilization contrary to the ignorant babblings of the media is hardly some fertile ground for philosophy, mathematics, science, and the like. All of their contributions in those areas significant though they were- were a millennia ago. One commentator astutely noted that "since they gave us the zero, they have given civilization zero" and that sums it up about as well as can be done in a syllabus style statement...
We are dealing with people who revel in death who do not hesitate to boast about this. We are dealing with people who view innocent children as "infidel subversives" and who have no scruples about killing them. Likewise non-Muslims are viewed. Essentially if they cannot convert you, then you must die. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa May 12, 2004]
What have we seen today except exactly what I noted above??? And of those who defend by implication the thesis that I noted earlier, I spoke of them in that post as well:
But I suppose we are still going to hear the hollow paens of "involving the UN"...the same UN who cannot even run a simple oil for food program without massive corruption. I suppose we are going to still hear the cheap rhetoric of "give peace a chance" and after all, if we simply reason with these people and if we show them we are nice people that they will be nice too and all will be well. No my friends, you do not deal with a rabid disease infested dog that attacks you with kind words or idle threats. You deal with such an animal by shooting it. Likewise, these vile people need to be dealt with. I think stake burning would be appropriate for them. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa May 12, 2004]
In a later post, I commented on the approach of those who were noted in the paragraph above with the following words (footnotes excised from the text):
[I]nasmuch as extreme liberalism is a mental disorder and not a philosophy in its own right, I can at least understand their idiocy. For so many of those kinds of people are mentally ill and are to be pitied more than anything. The problem is, not all who take this approach are extreme liberals. There are also some who are generally speaking quite "on the ball" in political and social issues who fall into this trap. Those are the people to which I cannot pity -even when I number them among my friends and/or associates. They are smart enough and they should know better. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum circa June 18, 2004]
I noted recently that I may start mentioning names if these issues are not dealt with in the public forum. After this incident, it is more a case of when{1} I will do this rather than if. That is all for now.
Note:
{1} See this link for an example of the kinds of propaganda that those of this particular weltanschauung will engage in to promote their viewpoints to the masses.
Friday, September 03, 2004
"Pistols at Fifty Paces" Dept.
During a contentious interview on MSNBC’s ‘Hardball,’ Zell Miller told host Chris Matthews, ‘I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel.’
Fresh from addressing the Republican National Convention, Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia appeared as a guest on the cable news program “Hardball” and was questioned by host Chris Matthews about the fairness of his attack on John Kerry.
Matthews was on an outdoor set a few blocks from New York’s Madison Square Garden, the site of Miller’s keynote speech. Matthews asked Miller whether his remarks mischaracterized Kerry’s voting record. Miller said they hadn’t.
Miller also challenged Matthews’ interviewing style, and accused him of “browbeating” a female guest during a recent program. The senator suggested that he was getting similar treatment, and added, “I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel.”
Imagine that, a Southern gentleman (Zell Miller) wishing he could challenge Chris Matthews to a duel over the manner whereby Matthews treated Michelle Malkin!!! Shades of chivalry perhaps??? This country needs a lot more Democrats and Republicans like Zell Miller, that is for sure.
During a contentious interview on MSNBC’s ‘Hardball,’ Zell Miller told host Chris Matthews, ‘I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel.’
Fresh from addressing the Republican National Convention, Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia appeared as a guest on the cable news program “Hardball” and was questioned by host Chris Matthews about the fairness of his attack on John Kerry.
Matthews was on an outdoor set a few blocks from New York’s Madison Square Garden, the site of Miller’s keynote speech. Matthews asked Miller whether his remarks mischaracterized Kerry’s voting record. Miller said they hadn’t.
Miller also challenged Matthews’ interviewing style, and accused him of “browbeating” a female guest during a recent program. The senator suggested that he was getting similar treatment, and added, “I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel.”
Imagine that, a Southern gentleman (Zell Miller) wishing he could challenge Chris Matthews to a duel over the manner whereby Matthews treated Michelle Malkin!!! Shades of chivalry perhaps??? This country needs a lot more Democrats and Republicans like Zell Miller, that is for sure.
Thursday, September 02, 2004
I was going to post that promised thread on the election subject and the USCCB and Catholic Answers booklets but have decided to delay it a day or two to do a bit more tweaking. Besides, the focus should at this time be on Senator Zell Miller of Georgia and his speech last night. Props to our friend Lane Core Jr. for posting on his weblog a link to the text of Senator Miller's speech. Give it a read my friends and I shall return perhaps in a day or so with God's will and your readership.
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Islamo-Fascist Update:
I decided to supplement my earlier audio mutterings on Islamo-fascists with some links. However, I ask that you please listen to the aforementioned audio post and also my audio post from late July on the humanization of formal enemies.
Having digested the above audio posts, perhaps it will sufficiently put you in the proper frame of mind to deal with this story from AP:
Russian school standoff continues
Now I know this has happened before but; however, it needs to be ended and ended as soon as possible. Obviously everything reasonable should be done to prevent the loss of innocent life but frankly, once that has been done...well...listen to the audio post to see how I view this. That is all for now.
I decided to supplement my earlier audio mutterings on Islamo-fascists with some links. However, I ask that you please listen to the aforementioned audio post and also my audio post from late July on the humanization of formal enemies.
Having digested the above audio posts, perhaps it will sufficiently put you in the proper frame of mind to deal with this story from AP:
Russian school standoff continues
Now I know this has happened before but; however, it needs to be ended and ended as soon as possible. Obviously everything reasonable should be done to prevent the loss of innocent life but frankly, once that has been done...well...listen to the audio post to see how I view this. That is all for now.
Miscellaneous Links of Interest:
Jason Cardona's observations on modern Catholic-Jewish relations
Chris Burgwald fisks a deluded liberal
Jason Cardona's observations on modern Catholic-Jewish relations
Chris Burgwald fisks a deluded liberal
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
More on Extreme Ideologies:
(Aka "Tales From the Mailbag" Dept.)
My words will be in regular font.
I just saw a MoveOn.Org T.V. ad featuring an ex-Marine who was part of an intelligence team searching from WMD's in Iraq and, of course, finding none, uses that fact to to call Bush a liar.
These people are absurd. I have noted before that the scope of this endeavour was beyond the superficial applications that those who are infected with solipsism at the core of their presuppositions can well deal with. There is a problem with those who have such a "soundbyte mentality." I noted this last year when quoting Amir Taheri whose insights on this matter are worth reiterating anew:
Finding and getting rid of such weapons in Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and South Africa took 18 to 30 months, even though those governments all actively cooperated with the U.N. It is fanciful that similar results could be achieved in Iraq in a few weeks.
Not finding the weapons in a fixed timeframe does not mean they never existed. British and Spanish governments have been looking for weapons caches of Basque and Irish terrorist groups for 35 years and have found little. But everyone knows those groups have arms.
On the other hand, the Philippine government still finds weapons caches left by the Japanese over half a century ago.
These are the facts and frankly they are beyond debate for anyone who is honest about these matters. But it is pointless to bring this up with the moveon.org crowd because their entire weltanschauung is one built on solipsism. For that reason, evidences and reasoning that challenges these kinds of people often fails because their frame of reference is so narrow. I explain this more in detail HERE if readers are interested.
The ad even went so far as to end with a "Kerry for President," unlike the Swiftees, who have not come out to endorse Bush.
For reasons noted above, this blatant inconsistency will not phase these kinds of people.
Let us not hold our breaths waiting for Kerry to come out and condemn the ad, lest we die of oxygen depravation. But if consistency means anything to Mr. Flip-flop (which it obviously doesn't or else he wouldn't be called Mr. Flip-flop) he would have to do just that, seeing as how he had a major bowel movement over Bush's refusal to try to suppress the SBVFT ad.
I must at this point reiterate the previously enunciated point for the reason why Kerry is not likely to budge on this issue -tactical disadvantages of doing it aside for a moment. It is also feasible that what is noted above explains why we can see Kerry's flip flops or inconsistencies and he may actually not be able to. Yes, it is possible that he is as disingenuous as the day is long -and I have no doubt that in many respects he is. But there has to be more to it than simply that.
I submit that the core of it lies in solipsism which is to philosophy and politics what a form of immanence known as vital immanence is to theology.{1} Those who find my melding of secular and religious themes in a discussion such as this troubling should consider that perhaps all spheres of inquiry have variations of the same kinds of fallacious forms of argumentation to them. And this is one example of that case which could be noted in brief.
Note:
{1} Vital immanence (which is a particular form of immanence) parallels solipsism in the manner whereby the self knows nothing but its own states and their constituent modifications. It confines all matters to the internal forum if you will and see the external forum only in the manner whereby it is felt or cognitively perceived internally. The subjective nature of this kind of outlook should be obvious on its face; however I have learned through the years that what should be obvious quite often is not.
(Aka "Tales From the Mailbag" Dept.)
My words will be in regular font.
I just saw a MoveOn.Org T.V. ad featuring an ex-Marine who was part of an intelligence team searching from WMD's in Iraq and, of course, finding none, uses that fact to to call Bush a liar.
These people are absurd. I have noted before that the scope of this endeavour was beyond the superficial applications that those who are infected with solipsism at the core of their presuppositions can well deal with. There is a problem with those who have such a "soundbyte mentality." I noted this last year when quoting Amir Taheri whose insights on this matter are worth reiterating anew:
Finding and getting rid of such weapons in Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and South Africa took 18 to 30 months, even though those governments all actively cooperated with the U.N. It is fanciful that similar results could be achieved in Iraq in a few weeks.
Not finding the weapons in a fixed timeframe does not mean they never existed. British and Spanish governments have been looking for weapons caches of Basque and Irish terrorist groups for 35 years and have found little. But everyone knows those groups have arms.
On the other hand, the Philippine government still finds weapons caches left by the Japanese over half a century ago.
These are the facts and frankly they are beyond debate for anyone who is honest about these matters. But it is pointless to bring this up with the moveon.org crowd because their entire weltanschauung is one built on solipsism. For that reason, evidences and reasoning that challenges these kinds of people often fails because their frame of reference is so narrow. I explain this more in detail HERE if readers are interested.
The ad even went so far as to end with a "Kerry for President," unlike the Swiftees, who have not come out to endorse Bush.
For reasons noted above, this blatant inconsistency will not phase these kinds of people.
Let us not hold our breaths waiting for Kerry to come out and condemn the ad, lest we die of oxygen depravation. But if consistency means anything to Mr. Flip-flop (which it obviously doesn't or else he wouldn't be called Mr. Flip-flop) he would have to do just that, seeing as how he had a major bowel movement over Bush's refusal to try to suppress the SBVFT ad.
I must at this point reiterate the previously enunciated point for the reason why Kerry is not likely to budge on this issue -tactical disadvantages of doing it aside for a moment. It is also feasible that what is noted above explains why we can see Kerry's flip flops or inconsistencies and he may actually not be able to. Yes, it is possible that he is as disingenuous as the day is long -and I have no doubt that in many respects he is. But there has to be more to it than simply that.
I submit that the core of it lies in solipsism which is to philosophy and politics what a form of immanence known as vital immanence is to theology.{1} Those who find my melding of secular and religious themes in a discussion such as this troubling should consider that perhaps all spheres of inquiry have variations of the same kinds of fallacious forms of argumentation to them. And this is one example of that case which could be noted in brief.
Note:
{1} Vital immanence (which is a particular form of immanence) parallels solipsism in the manner whereby the self knows nothing but its own states and their constituent modifications. It confines all matters to the internal forum if you will and see the external forum only in the manner whereby it is felt or cognitively perceived internally. The subjective nature of this kind of outlook should be obvious on its face; however I have learned through the years that what should be obvious quite often is not.
Monday, August 30, 2004
Notification of an Upcoming Weblog Post on Voting Issues:
In light of the recent distribution of a voting guide by Catholic Answers and the USCCB's disapproval of it- I will be posting a thread on this subject that was written yesterday either on Tuesday or Wednesday. (It needs some tweaking before it can be put on the weblog.) The intention of that thread is to deal with the issues both from a religious context as well as from the context of the fundamental rights of man in society -and the limitations that all "rights" which are claimed must be subject to. But this will be explained in detail in that thread when it is posted to Rerum Novarum.
In light of the recent distribution of a voting guide by Catholic Answers and the USCCB's disapproval of it- I will be posting a thread on this subject that was written yesterday either on Tuesday or Wednesday. (It needs some tweaking before it can be put on the weblog.) The intention of that thread is to deal with the issues both from a religious context as well as from the context of the fundamental rights of man in society -and the limitations that all "rights" which are claimed must be subject to. But this will be explained in detail in that thread when it is posted to Rerum Novarum.
Musings on the Liturgy:
Apolonio Latar III has posted a rough draft of musings on the subject of liturgy to his weblog. It is well worth reading for those who are interested in the subject. The thread can be found HERE. I detect in his balanced approach between east and west a tinge of ressourcement methodology -but do not tell him I said that ;-)
Apolonio Latar III has posted a rough draft of musings on the subject of liturgy to his weblog. It is well worth reading for those who are interested in the subject. The thread can be found HERE. I detect in his balanced approach between east and west a tinge of ressourcement methodology -but do not tell him I said that ;-)
An Urgent Appeal For Preserving Life:
Here is the text I received this morning via email.
Hello, everyone!
I've been speaking to an unmarried woman in her mid-30s, in her fourth month with a Downs Syndrome Baby. She has an aborton scheduled.
She has relented, and given us a few days to see if there is a family out there who wants to adopt her special-needs baby. Her family is totally against the abortion, and wants her to adopt the baby out.
Mom was very insistent on going ahead with the abortion, so this respite of a few days buys us time.
Do you know of anyone right now ready to adopt a special-needs baby?
It is probably better if they have gotten their home study or are in the process. We need to have this woman speak to people who can take action now and convince her that her baby is wanted. If you don't know of any families, pls keep us all in prayer. I thank God we've been given this time to help her.
Thank you all.
Anyone who can help with providing a home for this baby, please contact Geri or Barbara.
Here is the text I received this morning via email.
Hello, everyone!
I've been speaking to an unmarried woman in her mid-30s, in her fourth month with a Downs Syndrome Baby. She has an aborton scheduled.
She has relented, and given us a few days to see if there is a family out there who wants to adopt her special-needs baby. Her family is totally against the abortion, and wants her to adopt the baby out.
Mom was very insistent on going ahead with the abortion, so this respite of a few days buys us time.
Do you know of anyone right now ready to adopt a special-needs baby?
It is probably better if they have gotten their home study or are in the process. We need to have this woman speak to people who can take action now and convince her that her baby is wanted. If you don't know of any families, pls keep us all in prayer. I thank God we've been given this time to help her.
Thank you all.
Anyone who can help with providing a home for this baby, please contact Geri or Barbara.
Sunday, August 29, 2004
The Weekly Standard concurs with the position of your humble servant on the role of alternative media in the Swift Vets story. (See the Standard's article The-Not-So-Swift Mainstream Media for details.) I found the link a few minutes ago when perusing Kevin Miller's postings from yesterday to the Heart, Mind, and Strength weblog.
A Terri Shiavo Update:
(Plus Notations on Long and Short Term Approaches to Dealing With the Problems of Judicial Activism)
Things are not looking good for Terri Schiavo right now. In another example of judicial tyranny, it seems that a couple of judges are going to play the role of God here in deciding if she will live or die. I have gone over before on not a few occasions either directly or in other cases in an more indirect manner.
Those arguments at their foundation have a consistent line of argumentation to them that can be applied in a diversity of situations. And without making arguments of a purely arbitrary or subjective nature, I challenge anyone to try and confute those arguments on objective grounds. Having noted that though, it needs to be pointed out that such approaches are by their very nature long-term oriented viz. these issues. The purpose of this post is to recall the long-term approach and to highlight as well what must be done in the short-term; having done the former, let us now focus on the latter.
In the short term, Terri will not personally be helped by those arguments right now, instead what is needed most is prayer: prayer that we are not dealing with judicial "termites"{1} and instead are dealing with judicial "whores."{2} Because at the very least, the latter can be bought for some price -whatever that price may be. At the moment, the best weapon is something that my friend Lane Core Jr. has been reiterating at his weblog for the past week or so: prayer. Please remember in your prayers Terri Schiavo and pray that she does not become yet another life sacrificed on the altar of the idol of utility.
Notes:
{1} I call those who invent law in blatant violation of life, faculties, or production (aka "the three fundamental rights of man") "judicial termites" because they destroy those rights which precede all man made laws from within. By contrast, those whose defense of or assault of those rights depends on whose special interests are able to essentially "buy them" are what I call "judicial whores."
I have noted before that on the US Supreme Court, we have three "constructionists" (aka "Constitutionalists"), three "whores", and three "termites." Well, it should go without saying that the US Supreme Court is not the only court to have the various kinds of judges as noted above.
{2} We already know we are not dealing with judicial "constructionists" in this case.
(Plus Notations on Long and Short Term Approaches to Dealing With the Problems of Judicial Activism)
Things are not looking good for Terri Schiavo right now. In another example of judicial tyranny, it seems that a couple of judges are going to play the role of God here in deciding if she will live or die. I have gone over before on not a few occasions either directly or in other cases in an more indirect manner.
Those arguments at their foundation have a consistent line of argumentation to them that can be applied in a diversity of situations. And without making arguments of a purely arbitrary or subjective nature, I challenge anyone to try and confute those arguments on objective grounds. Having noted that though, it needs to be pointed out that such approaches are by their very nature long-term oriented viz. these issues. The purpose of this post is to recall the long-term approach and to highlight as well what must be done in the short-term; having done the former, let us now focus on the latter.
In the short term, Terri will not personally be helped by those arguments right now, instead what is needed most is prayer: prayer that we are not dealing with judicial "termites"{1} and instead are dealing with judicial "whores."{2} Because at the very least, the latter can be bought for some price -whatever that price may be. At the moment, the best weapon is something that my friend Lane Core Jr. has been reiterating at his weblog for the past week or so: prayer. Please remember in your prayers Terri Schiavo and pray that she does not become yet another life sacrificed on the altar of the idol of utility.
Notes:
{1} I call those who invent law in blatant violation of life, faculties, or production (aka "the three fundamental rights of man") "judicial termites" because they destroy those rights which precede all man made laws from within. By contrast, those whose defense of or assault of those rights depends on whose special interests are able to essentially "buy them" are what I call "judicial whores."
I have noted before that on the US Supreme Court, we have three "constructionists" (aka "Constitutionalists"), three "whores", and three "termites." Well, it should go without saying that the US Supreme Court is not the only court to have the various kinds of judges as noted above.
{2} We already know we are not dealing with judicial "constructionists" in this case.
Saturday, August 28, 2004
Briefly on Deal Hudson and Christopher Ferrara Esq.:
(Dialogue With Greg Mockeridge)
I decided in light of the diversity of topics that were covered in the previous post that posting the last part of the post on a different thread would make the subject matter easier to follow. For that reason, the previous link that was posted here was transferred to a later posting. Again, Greg's words are the ones in shale font.
Shifting gears, I am sure you are, by now, aware of the National Catholic Distorter's (err, Reporter) sliming of Deal Hudson over his engaging in sexual misconduct with a vulnerable young student of his.
As you emailed me before I blogged this weblog post where I discussed the Deal Hudson situation, I merely note its existence here to update you on the matter if you have not read it already.
If it is true (which it seems to be seeing as how Hudson hasn't denied it in his response), it does constitute something very serious. But it is beyond the pale for the NCR to dig up a sin ten hence that has, safe to say, been confessed and repented of, to make political hay. Just goes to show that even if we confess and repent of our serious sins, that does not guarantee immunity from doing major damage at a future date (just ask Dr. Laura).
Liberals are not the only ones who do not let past sins and failing go. In the Dr. Laura case, though the same kind of situation occurred, I have a hard time being too sympathetic with her in light of the degree of self-righteousness that she often displayed on her program. People who act like that are almost begging their adversaries to find something on them -particularly when those ideological opponents are without the kind of honourable scruples that would mitigate against such a skeleton-hunt to begin with.{1}
I am not saying that those who savaged Dr. Laura were right to do what they did mind you, indeed I find such activities as that to be repugnant. And when one considers that it was those who try to dichotomize between "public personas" and "private life" to justify themselves who were in on this --who did not attempt to weigh Dr. Laura's private discretions by the same scale by which they want their own to be weighed-- this was hypocrisy of the worst kind as far as I am concerned.
We don't always get to pick our penances, do we?
Nope.
As expected, Chris Ferrara took to piggy backing on the NCR "expose" on the Remnant website to launch another tirade against the "Neo_Catholic establishment."
This is as predictable as rain in Seattle. Christopher Ferrara "Esquire" is the Al Franken of self-styled "traditionalists." I do not take anything he says seriously in light of his atrocious trackrecord over the years of John Kerry-like distorting of the facts --to the extent he even deals with them that is--{2} and his annoyingly habitual tedency to continually see the worst possible interpretation in any situation or event.{3} Then he has the temerity in light of these significant lacunas in his character to consider himself a Traditionalist???{4} What a laugh and a half that notion is!!! All of this brings up another subject matter that I do not like to discuss publicly; nonetheless it bears touching on in brief.
The subject I refer to above is that of individuals. With regards to the latter, there are some of whom I see the proximity of others to them (as supporters, promoters, or other allegiances) as is a kind of acid test if you will.{5} With those who call themselves "traditionalists", I consider Ferrara to be one such individual to avoid much as I do a handful of others of various operative points of view.{6}
With regards to those who consider themselves "traditionalists", the degree to which anyone endorses or supports the aforenoted kinds of individuals{7} is the degree to which their claim of loyalty to the Ecclesia Dei is adequately questioned. It is much the same as those who call themselves "progressivists" who endorse or support someone like Hans Kung: their loyalty to the Church becomes immediately suspect and with good reason. In secular affairs the same holds true with those who endorse or promote the Michael Moores or Joe Sobrans of the "liberal" and "conservative" political sphere which are also two wings of the same kind of bird as I see it. But I digress.
Notes:
{1} I say this despite not liking Dr. Laura's entire approach to the issues she discussed -even when there was substantial agreement between us on the positions themselves.
{2} See these links from the side margin at Rerum Novarum as a couple examples which buttress this assertion:
Ferrara's Follies I: On the Mystical Body, Communion Ecclesiology, and Common "Trad" Misinterpretations of the (Supposedly) "Perspicuous" Pius XII/Leo XIII Magisteriums
Ferrara's Follies II: On Communion Ecclesiology, the Mystery of the Church in Dominus Iesus, and Additional Theologically Specious "Trad" Arguments
{3} This was a rather large theme in my essay response to Mr. Ferrara (who was referred to as "Mr. Esquire" in the essay) on the entire Gruner episode. Another significant thread was Mr. Ferrara's continual string of errors on the issues in question -both major errors as well as minor ones. I will now quote from that essay an excerpt that is instructive to properly understanding why Ferrara's recent treatment of Deal Hudson is not an isolated incident on his part by any means. Observe:
[I]t would take a rainforest to supply the paper needed to adequately rebut every error and exaggeration penned by the very loquacious Mr. Esquire over the years. The present author though due to time and space constraints will have to limit this response to two particular sections which constitute the backbone of the aforementioned attorney's sixteen page attempted defense of Fr. Gruner. (Along with a brief touching on the subject matter of previous sections in the thread.)
The subject headings to be covered in full from the aforementioned screed in this writing are titled (by Mr. Esquire) A Pharisaical Notion of 'Obedience' and The Right to Resist an Abuse of Power while the supposed "impossibility", "non-offense", and "unjustness" of the commands in question will be touched on in a more summary manner. Before they are dealt with though, some errors that Mr. Esquire had in his piece about this writer need to be pointed out. To quote him:
Co-author McElhinney is described as "a part-time writer and Catholic evangelist" who operates a couple of websites promoting his own peculiar views under the banner: "So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again." McElhinney's contribution to Vere's article is certainly in keeping with that motto.
Obviously if Mr. Esquire had bothered to take a look at this writer's websites, he would have seen that the phrase attributed is nowhere in use. Nor has the author ever once utilized it. But as the reader will see, this kind of sloppy scholarship is not uncommon to Mr. Esquire who seems to want to make up for in quantity what he lacks in quality. He also tries in various ways to utilize subtle forms of character assassination. Witness the fact that Pete Vere in his response had to address the fact that the same Mr. Esquire could not leave it as a discussion on issues; instead he had to resort to making statements such as this:
The Wanderer presents Vere as 'a practicing canonist' with no mention of his own biography, which reveals that he was a former Catholic, a former occultist and socialist, a former Protestant Pentecostal, and a former Catholic traditionalist (affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X).
Mr. Esquire of course knows that the readership of The Wanderer is probably for the most part anti-socialist. (Hence the "nerve" of them to have a former socialist write for them.) But that was not his main reason for inclusion of this information. There is also the idea that his readers would immediately focus on the parts that read "former socialist", "former occultist", "former Protestant Pentecostal", "former Catholic traditionalist", rather than on the merits of the arguments being advanced. For the key word here in all of these is "former." Pete has moved on in his life and the beautiful thing about Catholicism is that we can all put aside our past errors and walk anew in God's grace. Though of course with the pseudo-"traditionalists", there is no notion of forgiveness: Pete's past must be paraded about with trumpet fanfare. The reason for this of course is that Our Lord's many teachings along the lines of "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors" (Matthew vi,12; cf. Luke xi,2) and "if you will not forgive, neither will your Father that is in heaven forgive you your sins" (Mark xi,26) unfortunately do not find much in the way of actual application in the circle of those who claim to be "the true believers."
Of course there is no shortage of irony in that Mr. Esquire has defended in print a certain "recent convert" to pseudo-"traditionalism" who was born Catholic but then spent eighteen years of his own jumping through a myriad of Protestant hoops of varying sizes and shapes before reverting to Catholicism again. (While "conveniently" never mentioning the aforementioned individual's biography.) So hypocrisy is obviously in no small shortage of supply here. [I. Shawn McElhinney Squelching Fr. Gruner's 'Squawking Squire'" (c. 2003)]
{4} They who drink the juice of the Ethiopian herb Ophiusa imagine that they see serpents and horrors everywhere; and those who drink deep of pride, envy, ambition, hatred, will see harm and shame in every one they look upon. [St. Francis de Sales as quoted at Rerum Novarum circa July 22, 2003]
{5} An acid test of other persons who claim the same ideological outlooks. This means that the latter individuals to some extent are tested to see if they have a true allegiance in good faith to a particular weltanschauung -be it secular or religious in nature. This is a valid form of the guilt by association approach which has been discussed by me before at sundry times and in divers manners at this weblog and in other places. (I am not about to discuss it further at this time.)
{6} I am not inclined towards mentioning too many names here lest it become more of a matter if personalities than it already has become. (Issues are where it is important after all and mentioning names detracts the focus from where it should be.)
{7} I refer here to the kind of ideologues who are blindly supportive of anyone who remotely agrees with them or who are equally blind in their derision towards those who disagree with them. (However slight the disagreement happens to be.) All points of view have their ideologues like this; however usually the narrower the scope on the view, the more zenophobic as a rule the partisans of a particular outlook tend to be.
(Dialogue With Greg Mockeridge)
I decided in light of the diversity of topics that were covered in the previous post that posting the last part of the post on a different thread would make the subject matter easier to follow. For that reason, the previous link that was posted here was transferred to a later posting. Again, Greg's words are the ones in shale font.
Shifting gears, I am sure you are, by now, aware of the National Catholic Distorter's (err, Reporter) sliming of Deal Hudson over his engaging in sexual misconduct with a vulnerable young student of his.
As you emailed me before I blogged this weblog post where I discussed the Deal Hudson situation, I merely note its existence here to update you on the matter if you have not read it already.
If it is true (which it seems to be seeing as how Hudson hasn't denied it in his response), it does constitute something very serious. But it is beyond the pale for the NCR to dig up a sin ten hence that has, safe to say, been confessed and repented of, to make political hay. Just goes to show that even if we confess and repent of our serious sins, that does not guarantee immunity from doing major damage at a future date (just ask Dr. Laura).
Liberals are not the only ones who do not let past sins and failing go. In the Dr. Laura case, though the same kind of situation occurred, I have a hard time being too sympathetic with her in light of the degree of self-righteousness that she often displayed on her program. People who act like that are almost begging their adversaries to find something on them -particularly when those ideological opponents are without the kind of honourable scruples that would mitigate against such a skeleton-hunt to begin with.{1}
I am not saying that those who savaged Dr. Laura were right to do what they did mind you, indeed I find such activities as that to be repugnant. And when one considers that it was those who try to dichotomize between "public personas" and "private life" to justify themselves who were in on this --who did not attempt to weigh Dr. Laura's private discretions by the same scale by which they want their own to be weighed-- this was hypocrisy of the worst kind as far as I am concerned.
We don't always get to pick our penances, do we?
Nope.
As expected, Chris Ferrara took to piggy backing on the NCR "expose" on the Remnant website to launch another tirade against the "Neo_Catholic establishment."
This is as predictable as rain in Seattle. Christopher Ferrara "Esquire" is the Al Franken of self-styled "traditionalists." I do not take anything he says seriously in light of his atrocious trackrecord over the years of John Kerry-like distorting of the facts --to the extent he even deals with them that is--{2} and his annoyingly habitual tedency to continually see the worst possible interpretation in any situation or event.{3} Then he has the temerity in light of these significant lacunas in his character to consider himself a Traditionalist???{4} What a laugh and a half that notion is!!! All of this brings up another subject matter that I do not like to discuss publicly; nonetheless it bears touching on in brief.
The subject I refer to above is that of individuals. With regards to the latter, there are some of whom I see the proximity of others to them (as supporters, promoters, or other allegiances) as is a kind of acid test if you will.{5} With those who call themselves "traditionalists", I consider Ferrara to be one such individual to avoid much as I do a handful of others of various operative points of view.{6}
With regards to those who consider themselves "traditionalists", the degree to which anyone endorses or supports the aforenoted kinds of individuals{7} is the degree to which their claim of loyalty to the Ecclesia Dei is adequately questioned. It is much the same as those who call themselves "progressivists" who endorse or support someone like Hans Kung: their loyalty to the Church becomes immediately suspect and with good reason. In secular affairs the same holds true with those who endorse or promote the Michael Moores or Joe Sobrans of the "liberal" and "conservative" political sphere which are also two wings of the same kind of bird as I see it. But I digress.
Notes:
{1} I say this despite not liking Dr. Laura's entire approach to the issues she discussed -even when there was substantial agreement between us on the positions themselves.
{2} See these links from the side margin at Rerum Novarum as a couple examples which buttress this assertion:
Ferrara's Follies I: On the Mystical Body, Communion Ecclesiology, and Common "Trad" Misinterpretations of the (Supposedly) "Perspicuous" Pius XII/Leo XIII Magisteriums
Ferrara's Follies II: On Communion Ecclesiology, the Mystery of the Church in Dominus Iesus, and Additional Theologically Specious "Trad" Arguments
{3} This was a rather large theme in my essay response to Mr. Ferrara (who was referred to as "Mr. Esquire" in the essay) on the entire Gruner episode. Another significant thread was Mr. Ferrara's continual string of errors on the issues in question -both major errors as well as minor ones. I will now quote from that essay an excerpt that is instructive to properly understanding why Ferrara's recent treatment of Deal Hudson is not an isolated incident on his part by any means. Observe:
[I]t would take a rainforest to supply the paper needed to adequately rebut every error and exaggeration penned by the very loquacious Mr. Esquire over the years. The present author though due to time and space constraints will have to limit this response to two particular sections which constitute the backbone of the aforementioned attorney's sixteen page attempted defense of Fr. Gruner. (Along with a brief touching on the subject matter of previous sections in the thread.)
The subject headings to be covered in full from the aforementioned screed in this writing are titled (by Mr. Esquire) A Pharisaical Notion of 'Obedience' and The Right to Resist an Abuse of Power while the supposed "impossibility", "non-offense", and "unjustness" of the commands in question will be touched on in a more summary manner. Before they are dealt with though, some errors that Mr. Esquire had in his piece about this writer need to be pointed out. To quote him:
Co-author McElhinney is described as "a part-time writer and Catholic evangelist" who operates a couple of websites promoting his own peculiar views under the banner: "So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again." McElhinney's contribution to Vere's article is certainly in keeping with that motto.
Obviously if Mr. Esquire had bothered to take a look at this writer's websites, he would have seen that the phrase attributed is nowhere in use. Nor has the author ever once utilized it. But as the reader will see, this kind of sloppy scholarship is not uncommon to Mr. Esquire who seems to want to make up for in quantity what he lacks in quality. He also tries in various ways to utilize subtle forms of character assassination. Witness the fact that Pete Vere in his response had to address the fact that the same Mr. Esquire could not leave it as a discussion on issues; instead he had to resort to making statements such as this:
The Wanderer presents Vere as 'a practicing canonist' with no mention of his own biography, which reveals that he was a former Catholic, a former occultist and socialist, a former Protestant Pentecostal, and a former Catholic traditionalist (affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X).
Mr. Esquire of course knows that the readership of The Wanderer is probably for the most part anti-socialist. (Hence the "nerve" of them to have a former socialist write for them.) But that was not his main reason for inclusion of this information. There is also the idea that his readers would immediately focus on the parts that read "former socialist", "former occultist", "former Protestant Pentecostal", "former Catholic traditionalist", rather than on the merits of the arguments being advanced. For the key word here in all of these is "former." Pete has moved on in his life and the beautiful thing about Catholicism is that we can all put aside our past errors and walk anew in God's grace. Though of course with the pseudo-"traditionalists", there is no notion of forgiveness: Pete's past must be paraded about with trumpet fanfare. The reason for this of course is that Our Lord's many teachings along the lines of "forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors" (Matthew vi,12; cf. Luke xi,2) and "if you will not forgive, neither will your Father that is in heaven forgive you your sins" (Mark xi,26) unfortunately do not find much in the way of actual application in the circle of those who claim to be "the true believers."
Of course there is no shortage of irony in that Mr. Esquire has defended in print a certain "recent convert" to pseudo-"traditionalism" who was born Catholic but then spent eighteen years of his own jumping through a myriad of Protestant hoops of varying sizes and shapes before reverting to Catholicism again. (While "conveniently" never mentioning the aforementioned individual's biography.) So hypocrisy is obviously in no small shortage of supply here. [I. Shawn McElhinney Squelching Fr. Gruner's 'Squawking Squire'" (c. 2003)]
{4} They who drink the juice of the Ethiopian herb Ophiusa imagine that they see serpents and horrors everywhere; and those who drink deep of pride, envy, ambition, hatred, will see harm and shame in every one they look upon. [St. Francis de Sales as quoted at Rerum Novarum circa July 22, 2003]
{5} An acid test of other persons who claim the same ideological outlooks. This means that the latter individuals to some extent are tested to see if they have a true allegiance in good faith to a particular weltanschauung -be it secular or religious in nature. This is a valid form of the guilt by association approach which has been discussed by me before at sundry times and in divers manners at this weblog and in other places. (I am not about to discuss it further at this time.)
{6} I am not inclined towards mentioning too many names here lest it become more of a matter if personalities than it already has become. (Issues are where it is important after all and mentioning names detracts the focus from where it should be.)
{7} I refer here to the kind of ideologues who are blindly supportive of anyone who remotely agrees with them or who are equally blind in their derision towards those who disagree with them. (However slight the disagreement happens to be.) All points of view have their ideologues like this; however usually the narrower the scope on the view, the more zenophobic as a rule the partisans of a particular outlook tend to be.
More on Chris Matthews and John F-word Kerry, Etc.
(Dialogue With Greg Mockeridge)
The previous discussion thread can be found HERE. Again, Greg's words will be in shale font. My previous words will be in blue font and any referenced sources will be in darkblue font.
Chris Matthews is a liberal Democrat. He was a speech writer for Jimmy Carter.
True. But the moment we disqualify people in that manner, it is easy enough for us to be so dismissed in some similar circumstance. Therefore, more care is needed in whom we sift out and in whom we retain is needed on this matter as I see it. After all, there are some liberals who can make a reasonable attempt at being objective. No one is without some degree of bias so I do not expect it in the news media except (of course) for Brian Lamb of CSPAN. (Anyone who claims that they know with any certainty his political positions on anything are is not telling the truth.)
Having noted that, there are liberals who are capable of reasonable discourse. Alan Colmes of FOXNews is one of them.{1} And Chris Matthews' in my experience has generally been one of them too -though Matthews has in recent years been worse at it than he used to be.{2} But nonetheless, his blowing a gasket against Michelle...I have never seen him do that before. He has flirted with it before but that debacle was a first in my experience with him having that kind of meltdown.
But his show is supposed to objective (yeah right, having a political partisan host a show and be objective is like...well...expecting a political partisan to be objective.
The vast majority of media personages have a way of deluding themselves into thinking that they are objective. Outside of Brian Lamb, there is not a news reporter or commentator out there which approaches things with what I would call pure objectivity. That is right, all of the others -even our favourites- have some degree of evident bias to them.
The difference is, the ones we tend to like most often (i.e. those who call themselves "conservatives") freely admit to having a bias. Not only do those with a lefty slant usually deny that they have a bias, but they actually go further and claim to be objective when they so evidently are not. This is a serious damper on their credibility -particularly in the age of alternative media outlets.
You get the picture.)
Crystal.
Unlike you, I did expect such behavior from Matthews because of this and ot her reasons. For instance, I remember every other word of his being bleeped out in an interview with Michael Medved.
I did not see that show by my own admission.
In the past four years or so, the power slippage has been even more dramatic with the arrival of the blogosphere as an entity that now must be taken seriously as a source for news and opinion on issues. And bloggers are inclined by nature to discuss what they want to discuss which can often mean the very issues that the mainstream media does not want to talk about.
In addition to blogosphere, alternative media like talk radio has loosened the death grip the mainstream media (which is, as Dr. Bernard Nathanson once said, "Irredeemably leftist." Okay, technically, there is some possibility of redemption, albeit very faint.) and they haven't gotten over it yet.
Talk radio has been an underground force for a long time. I started listening to talk radio around 1990 with Rush Limbaugh and Alan Colmes being among the first shows I listened to. (Though my view of Limbaugh has changed to some extent over the years, he is still to be credited with reviving the viability of the AM medium -particularly after he went national.) Since the late 1980's, talk radio started a kind of paradigm shift in major media with the overwhelming conservative voice that it possessed (and possesses).{3} However, that was not adequate by itself to reach those who were attached to the visual mediums -and whom comprise the largest block of consumers out there. In the case of the latter, it was the rise of the Internet with board forums, message boards, news outlet sources like World Net Daily/NewsMax/ Drudge, and now the blogosphere that has coalesced and really kicked alternative media forms up into the position of being an undeniable challenge to the establishment media.{4}
With regards to the Swift Vets for Truth (SWFT), interestingly enough, I predicted in mid August that the media would try to bury the story of the SWFT on the basis of the paucity of coverage it was getting. Though seldom wrong on my predictions, I am sure glad to have been flat out wrong this time. However, my statements about the major media were correct: they wanted this story dead. What is keeping it alive is the alternative media which is forcing the major media to deal with it -however dismissingly they attempt to do so. Fortunately, those who see the value of this story are usually able to get beyond the superficiality of the major media who yet again vindicate the McElhinney Media Dictum as they so often do.
[I]n light of the recent comments by Senator Bob Dole on the issue,{2} there are a lot of questions that need to be answered here...
Dole personally warned Kerry not to use his service in Vietnam as the central focus of his campaign. So Kerry is just getting what he deserves.
I noted in the other post why he is doing this. In brief, this is the reason.
What the campaign spokesman does not point out is that the citations for some of Kerry's medals are alleged to have been written by Kerry himself. If this assertion is true, then referencing the "official Navy records" on the matter is a matter of begging the question. Heck Greg, I could tell you all day that "I am an honest man, if you do not believe me, then just ask me." Self-verification is inherently circular logic.
In fairness to Kerry, do-it-yourself medal write-ups for medals is not uncommon in the military. I know of which I speak. I saw many guys put themselves in for Navy Achievement Medals (NAM for short, interestingly enough) in my eight years in the Navy. We were also encouraged to submit "brag sheets" for our evaluations. Success in a military career does depend, to a great extent, on self-promotion.
Your points are well taken.
That being said, what I find strange about the Kerry medals is that many of those who were in his command structure at the time are the ones casting aspersions on the veracity of Kerry's account. They claim that Mr F-Bomb did an end run around his chain of command to get his medals. For instance, the first Purple Heart request was turned down by his immediate superior, who unceremoniously told him to get the hell out of his office. The Doc who treated the wound said it was superficial, to say the least. I also think that if the SBFT were lying, the Kerry campaign w ould be breaking out the long knives to refute their allegations, point-by-point instead of accusing them as being a front for the Bush campaign.
Did you hear that some Kerry campaign supporters are calling on the Justice Department to go after the Swift Vets for their ads??? It gets even more interesting because John Kerry's site claims that he got a Silver Star with Valor. According to the Navy, they do not EVER issue a Valor citation with a Silver Star. Now either the John Kerry site exaggerated (to put it nicely) or else they took that statement off of his Navy records and the latter were forged. In light of how Kerry is insisting on people looking at his actual record, I am inclined to believe that the record may well indicate that nonetheless. If I am correct on that view, then there are felonies involved here. And I doubt the major media will disclose that fact without being forced to do so by alternative media.
When it comes to the armed forces, the only thing worse in my mind than those who denigrate the armed forces are those who fake certificates of valor and then denigrate the armed forces using the fake citations as at tempted "credentials" to both attempt to reinforce what they are doing and to try at the same time to shut down the criticisms of others. For those with an irrational agenda against Bush and/or who incapable of avoiding the argumentation fallacy of appeal to authority, these sorts are easily snared by this kind of prevaricating.
On that note, I have a few bones to pick with the President.
Well, we all do Greg. He is far from the ideal candidate in this election.
All he had to say is that the issue of Kerry's service in Vietnam, whether legit or not, is not relevant to this campaign. Instead of griping about the 527 groups, he should have upheld the right of the SBFT to give their side of the story and leave it at that. He then says that he thought that the McCain-Feingold bill he signed (a gross violation of the First Amendment if there ever was one) did away with ads like that. What? He doesn't know what was in bill that he signed into law? That really does wonders for his credibility.
This is where the subject of riders may well come into play Greg. As you probably know, I have dealt with the issue of riders before - indeed I have set forth on this very weblog a rider reform proposal that would fix a lot of problems with both budgetary excesses and the sticking of unrelated subjects into a bill undetected to obtain a signature. (Where the proposal not so disguised may well not be passed.) It is one of the dirty tricks of politics and among the most damaging at that. My proposal allows for riders but also has a way of holding accountable to the voters those who have recourse to this measure. But I digress.
How can he say Kerry served nobly? He wasn't there.
My guess is that President Bush is trying to grant Kerry his premise on one point to skewer him on another point. I sometimes do that in discussing issues myself for tactical or practical reasons. In Bush's case, my guess is that he is taking the approach of "yeah, he served with honour, now let us discuss his Senate voting record." If I was Bush, that is what I would probably do. Kerry is using the Vietnam stuff to run from his Senate record like a vampire fleeing from a crucifix. My guess is that the Republicans in convention will focus very heavily on the Senate record with nary a direct mention of the Swift Vets.
As far as the blanket "let us eliminate all 527's" approach,{5} when you consider that 90% of the 527's support Kerry -and the latter has received about 60 million in free advertising from his 527's compared to maybe a million or two tops for Bush, there is a definite tactical ploy there in trying to get Kerry to agree with him on condemning all 527's.
In addition to the problems you have outlined at least over the past year, a major problem with the Bush Administration (as well as the conservative movement as a whole) is that they let the other side define the terms of the debate. It's time for us to break out the long knives and stop treating them as simply honorable opposition.
Indeed. I have always made it a practice of defining the terms of any debate or discussion I am involved in. My reasons for this are adequately explained HERE as well as an outlining of the exceptions to the rule where one has to at times (for tactical or practical reasons) relegate the subject to a stalemate. I agree with you that the self-styled "conservatives" fail to define the terms of debate a lot. That is also why they have lost many more battles than they have won over the years since the Gipper left office. Even those who did not care for President Reagan have to admit (if they are honest about it) that he did define the issues of debate when he was involved in it.
Notes:
{1} See footnote two as what is noted there viz. Matthews may also apply to Colmes. As I see it, Colmes has gone in the opposite direction of Matthews over the years -from flaming lib to more moderate. (I remember listening to his talk radio show in the early 1990's and he was red like a fire engine back then if you catch my meaning.)
{2} Unless I am doing a bit of retrojection here in his case which certainly is possible.
{3} It is a simple fact that liberals usually cannot cut it in this medium -though Alan Colmes made a decent run at it before joining FOXNews in 1996. He was the exception in that respect rather than the rule.
{4} I would argue that FOXNews would not exist on TV and be kicking the tail of CNN and the alphabet network news programs in the ratings if not for the alternative media sources proving over time that there was a market for it.
{5} It looks a bit like President Reagan's approach to the Soviet ICBM situation when the Gipper got the USSR to agree to eliminate all ICBM's -and to allow independent sources to verify this on both sides- when the USSR had four times the stockpile of them that we did.
(Dialogue With Greg Mockeridge)
The previous discussion thread can be found HERE. Again, Greg's words will be in shale font. My previous words will be in blue font and any referenced sources will be in darkblue font.
Chris Matthews is a liberal Democrat. He was a speech writer for Jimmy Carter.
True. But the moment we disqualify people in that manner, it is easy enough for us to be so dismissed in some similar circumstance. Therefore, more care is needed in whom we sift out and in whom we retain is needed on this matter as I see it. After all, there are some liberals who can make a reasonable attempt at being objective. No one is without some degree of bias so I do not expect it in the news media except (of course) for Brian Lamb of CSPAN. (Anyone who claims that they know with any certainty his political positions on anything are is not telling the truth.)
Having noted that, there are liberals who are capable of reasonable discourse. Alan Colmes of FOXNews is one of them.{1} And Chris Matthews' in my experience has generally been one of them too -though Matthews has in recent years been worse at it than he used to be.{2} But nonetheless, his blowing a gasket against Michelle...I have never seen him do that before. He has flirted with it before but that debacle was a first in my experience with him having that kind of meltdown.
But his show is supposed to objective (yeah right, having a political partisan host a show and be objective is like...well...expecting a political partisan to be objective.
The vast majority of media personages have a way of deluding themselves into thinking that they are objective. Outside of Brian Lamb, there is not a news reporter or commentator out there which approaches things with what I would call pure objectivity. That is right, all of the others -even our favourites- have some degree of evident bias to them.
The difference is, the ones we tend to like most often (i.e. those who call themselves "conservatives") freely admit to having a bias. Not only do those with a lefty slant usually deny that they have a bias, but they actually go further and claim to be objective when they so evidently are not. This is a serious damper on their credibility -particularly in the age of alternative media outlets.
You get the picture.)
Crystal.
Unlike you, I did expect such behavior from Matthews because of this and ot her reasons. For instance, I remember every other word of his being bleeped out in an interview with Michael Medved.
I did not see that show by my own admission.
In the past four years or so, the power slippage has been even more dramatic with the arrival of the blogosphere as an entity that now must be taken seriously as a source for news and opinion on issues. And bloggers are inclined by nature to discuss what they want to discuss which can often mean the very issues that the mainstream media does not want to talk about.
In addition to blogosphere, alternative media like talk radio has loosened the death grip the mainstream media (which is, as Dr. Bernard Nathanson once said, "Irredeemably leftist." Okay, technically, there is some possibility of redemption, albeit very faint.) and they haven't gotten over it yet.
Talk radio has been an underground force for a long time. I started listening to talk radio around 1990 with Rush Limbaugh and Alan Colmes being among the first shows I listened to. (Though my view of Limbaugh has changed to some extent over the years, he is still to be credited with reviving the viability of the AM medium -particularly after he went national.) Since the late 1980's, talk radio started a kind of paradigm shift in major media with the overwhelming conservative voice that it possessed (and possesses).{3} However, that was not adequate by itself to reach those who were attached to the visual mediums -and whom comprise the largest block of consumers out there. In the case of the latter, it was the rise of the Internet with board forums, message boards, news outlet sources like World Net Daily/NewsMax/ Drudge, and now the blogosphere that has coalesced and really kicked alternative media forms up into the position of being an undeniable challenge to the establishment media.{4}
With regards to the Swift Vets for Truth (SWFT), interestingly enough, I predicted in mid August that the media would try to bury the story of the SWFT on the basis of the paucity of coverage it was getting. Though seldom wrong on my predictions, I am sure glad to have been flat out wrong this time. However, my statements about the major media were correct: they wanted this story dead. What is keeping it alive is the alternative media which is forcing the major media to deal with it -however dismissingly they attempt to do so. Fortunately, those who see the value of this story are usually able to get beyond the superficiality of the major media who yet again vindicate the McElhinney Media Dictum as they so often do.
[I]n light of the recent comments by Senator Bob Dole on the issue,{2} there are a lot of questions that need to be answered here...
Dole personally warned Kerry not to use his service in Vietnam as the central focus of his campaign. So Kerry is just getting what he deserves.
I noted in the other post why he is doing this. In brief, this is the reason.
What the campaign spokesman does not point out is that the citations for some of Kerry's medals are alleged to have been written by Kerry himself. If this assertion is true, then referencing the "official Navy records" on the matter is a matter of begging the question. Heck Greg, I could tell you all day that "I am an honest man, if you do not believe me, then just ask me." Self-verification is inherently circular logic.
In fairness to Kerry, do-it-yourself medal write-ups for medals is not uncommon in the military. I know of which I speak. I saw many guys put themselves in for Navy Achievement Medals (NAM for short, interestingly enough) in my eight years in the Navy. We were also encouraged to submit "brag sheets" for our evaluations. Success in a military career does depend, to a great extent, on self-promotion.
Your points are well taken.
That being said, what I find strange about the Kerry medals is that many of those who were in his command structure at the time are the ones casting aspersions on the veracity of Kerry's account. They claim that Mr F-Bomb did an end run around his chain of command to get his medals. For instance, the first Purple Heart request was turned down by his immediate superior, who unceremoniously told him to get the hell out of his office. The Doc who treated the wound said it was superficial, to say the least. I also think that if the SBFT were lying, the Kerry campaign w ould be breaking out the long knives to refute their allegations, point-by-point instead of accusing them as being a front for the Bush campaign.
Did you hear that some Kerry campaign supporters are calling on the Justice Department to go after the Swift Vets for their ads??? It gets even more interesting because John Kerry's site claims that he got a Silver Star with Valor. According to the Navy, they do not EVER issue a Valor citation with a Silver Star. Now either the John Kerry site exaggerated (to put it nicely) or else they took that statement off of his Navy records and the latter were forged. In light of how Kerry is insisting on people looking at his actual record, I am inclined to believe that the record may well indicate that nonetheless. If I am correct on that view, then there are felonies involved here. And I doubt the major media will disclose that fact without being forced to do so by alternative media.
When it comes to the armed forces, the only thing worse in my mind than those who denigrate the armed forces are those who fake certificates of valor and then denigrate the armed forces using the fake citations as at tempted "credentials" to both attempt to reinforce what they are doing and to try at the same time to shut down the criticisms of others. For those with an irrational agenda against Bush and/or who incapable of avoiding the argumentation fallacy of appeal to authority, these sorts are easily snared by this kind of prevaricating.
On that note, I have a few bones to pick with the President.
Well, we all do Greg. He is far from the ideal candidate in this election.
All he had to say is that the issue of Kerry's service in Vietnam, whether legit or not, is not relevant to this campaign. Instead of griping about the 527 groups, he should have upheld the right of the SBFT to give their side of the story and leave it at that. He then says that he thought that the McCain-Feingold bill he signed (a gross violation of the First Amendment if there ever was one) did away with ads like that. What? He doesn't know what was in bill that he signed into law? That really does wonders for his credibility.
This is where the subject of riders may well come into play Greg. As you probably know, I have dealt with the issue of riders before - indeed I have set forth on this very weblog a rider reform proposal that would fix a lot of problems with both budgetary excesses and the sticking of unrelated subjects into a bill undetected to obtain a signature. (Where the proposal not so disguised may well not be passed.) It is one of the dirty tricks of politics and among the most damaging at that. My proposal allows for riders but also has a way of holding accountable to the voters those who have recourse to this measure. But I digress.
How can he say Kerry served nobly? He wasn't there.
My guess is that President Bush is trying to grant Kerry his premise on one point to skewer him on another point. I sometimes do that in discussing issues myself for tactical or practical reasons. In Bush's case, my guess is that he is taking the approach of "yeah, he served with honour, now let us discuss his Senate voting record." If I was Bush, that is what I would probably do. Kerry is using the Vietnam stuff to run from his Senate record like a vampire fleeing from a crucifix. My guess is that the Republicans in convention will focus very heavily on the Senate record with nary a direct mention of the Swift Vets.
As far as the blanket "let us eliminate all 527's" approach,{5} when you consider that 90% of the 527's support Kerry -and the latter has received about 60 million in free advertising from his 527's compared to maybe a million or two tops for Bush, there is a definite tactical ploy there in trying to get Kerry to agree with him on condemning all 527's.
In addition to the problems you have outlined at least over the past year, a major problem with the Bush Administration (as well as the conservative movement as a whole) is that they let the other side define the terms of the debate. It's time for us to break out the long knives and stop treating them as simply honorable opposition.
Indeed. I have always made it a practice of defining the terms of any debate or discussion I am involved in. My reasons for this are adequately explained HERE as well as an outlining of the exceptions to the rule where one has to at times (for tactical or practical reasons) relegate the subject to a stalemate. I agree with you that the self-styled "conservatives" fail to define the terms of debate a lot. That is also why they have lost many more battles than they have won over the years since the Gipper left office. Even those who did not care for President Reagan have to admit (if they are honest about it) that he did define the issues of debate when he was involved in it.
Notes:
{1} See footnote two as what is noted there viz. Matthews may also apply to Colmes. As I see it, Colmes has gone in the opposite direction of Matthews over the years -from flaming lib to more moderate. (I remember listening to his talk radio show in the early 1990's and he was red like a fire engine back then if you catch my meaning.)
{2} Unless I am doing a bit of retrojection here in his case which certainly is possible.
{3} It is a simple fact that liberals usually cannot cut it in this medium -though Alan Colmes made a decent run at it before joining FOXNews in 1996. He was the exception in that respect rather than the rule.
{4} I would argue that FOXNews would not exist on TV and be kicking the tail of CNN and the alphabet network news programs in the ratings if not for the alternative media sources proving over time that there was a market for it.
{5} It looks a bit like President Reagan's approach to the Soviet ICBM situation when the Gipper got the USSR to agree to eliminate all ICBM's -and to allow independent sources to verify this on both sides- when the USSR had four times the stockpile of them that we did.
Friday, August 27, 2004
"Argumentation Fallacy" Dept.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
One of the most frequently means of arguing a point is resorting to an erroneous usage of what is called argument from authority. Now I should note in advance that to some extent, everyone relies on those whom are recognized to various degrees as "authorities" outside of themselves to develop and/or maintain a position in an argument. (As no one can possibly know everything there is to know about any subject in question, let alone the entire spectrum of subject matter.) Nonetheless, there are proper and improper ways of doing this -and the post you are reading will endeavour to explain the proper means versus the improper means of appealing to authority.
What is about to be covered here is hardly something that I am discussing for the first time.{1} However, there is a perceived need to round out and develop a complementary thread to those where this issue was previously dealt with -a "counter-thread" if you will focusing more on positive exposition and less on negative pronouncements. For though I have dealt with this subject before, the genesis of this kind of argumentation was barely touched on in those links.{2} And in not dealing with the foundational presuppositions angle -mainly because I was livid when those threads were written for reasons I am not about to go into at this time- provides to some extent a kind of cover for those guilty of this fallacy to continue to perpetuate it.
With the reception of some recent emails espousing variations of this problem, essentially we reached critical mass here at Rerum Novarum. The previously gruff treatments of this subject was in large part because I cannot stand sophistic time wasters who prefer a character assassination to legitimate discussion of issues.{3} However, it is not only these sorts of individuals who engage in fallacious forms of argument from authority. No my friends, even people interested in genuine dialogue on issues often appropriate this method fallaciously. The question that needs to be answered is essentially one of how people can legitimately argue from authority -should they want to do this. In that regard, it is done primarily by noting first of all how one cannot legitimately do so -and from there avoiding the snares of improper argumentation methodology.{4} To assist in achieving this is the purpose of the post you are reading.
To start with, arguments that base themselves on any presumed "credentials" of the person so arguing are intrinsically fallacious. I have dealt with this subject before in a number of ways -including using a methodology of argumentation which can be accurately referred to as reducionum ad absurdum. The reason why this kind of argument is logically specious should be obvious on its face. However, because many of those who are agenda-minded can tend to ignore what is (or should be) obvious, a few notes on the matter are worth sketching out for the benefit of those of good will.
To start with, it should be obvious that no opinion is either intrinsically valid or invalid on the basis of the espousing party's particular learning degrees. For one thing, oftentimes people posit degrees after their names of a generalized nature -such as a PhD. This can be deceiving to the reader because they would naturally presume that the author's degree so noted applies to the subject matter in which they are writing about. However, quite often this is not the case. And that of course brings us to the first principle that is essential to take into account when considering the accreditation of said writers -should they posit any of course.
--A recognized authority in one area is not necessarily worth listening to in another area.
It would involve a degree of investigation on the part of the inquirer to determine if such a person is actually to be listened to in the area in which they are speaking. Or should I say, it would be if their primary concern about considering the merits of an argument is based on letters after a name. Those who are familiar with the foundational tools of reason and logic are able to equitably weigh someones arguments on those standards and receive a kind of "acid test reading" of the relative stability of the arguments advanced.{5} If the arguments pass muster there, then they are worth considering further whereas if they fail there, then there is no reason to consider them any further.{6}
--On topics which are of a controverted nature (or where there are disagreements among recognized experts), it is fallacious to accept the opinion of an authority.
Opinions are usually based on some form of argumentation; however not all forms of argumentation are equal. This is another area that could call for careful discernment -though even "experts" can be found to not infrequently argue in facile ways to support a particular opinion they may have on an issue. While it is true that it is not necessarily fallacious to accept the arguments of an authority which support a particular opinion; at the same time the arguments themselves had better have some solid foundation to them beyond the mere "say so" of the "expert" so cited. It should be obvious (though often it is not unfortunately) that if the authority being cited has grounded their opinion on fallacious argumentation or questionable evidences, then one should not be predisposed to accept their opinion on the matter in the natural sphere of things.{7}
--In areas where there is disagreement among recognized experts, individuals then have to turn to various sources. However, whatever the sources turned to, the purpose cannot be for conclusions or opinions of said authority.
In the above scenario, what must be sought out from the sources turned to is evidences for a particular opinion along with reasons and arguments all working in symbiotic fashion to sustain a particular opinion. Merely accepting conclusions or opinions in and of themselves is a fallacious appeal to authority.
--Appeals to any presumable "authoritative" source should take into account (to the extent this is possible) the track record of accuracy of the source being utilized.
As this is a principle that can itself be easily abused -as one person's conception of error is not necessarily the same as anther's- the general rules of charity should apply here. For those unaware of what I refer to, the principle should be considered basically is this one:
--Do not presume to put an unfavourable interpretation upon the words or actions of another because the same words or actions can be looked upon in different circumstances or contexts.
When there is an obvious misuse of a source in an argument, that is one thing. However, an argument that is based on one particular frame of reference (or context) may be true within that frame of reference but false within another frame of reference. To determine if this is the case or not would of course require some work to be done on the part of the inquirer.
To summarize the above points, these principles if followed will not guarantee that one will be successful in their quest to ascertain the truth from the varying threads of opinion or argumentation out there. However, along with the additional tools of logic and reason,{8} they will mitigate significantly the problem of falling into fallacious forms of argumentation as per the appealing to any presumed "authority." (Within the context of attempting to set forth or sustain a particular position within the framework of a dialogue or debate on issues.)
In conclusion, it is neither necessarily fallacious nor improper to appeal to an authority in dialogue or debate (or other forms of discussion). Nor is it necessarily inappropriate for those who have certain specializations in a field to denote this with the credentials they have gathered.{9} However, there are appropriate and inappropriate ways of both doing this. Appeals to supposed "credentials" in order to buttress one's arguments (and try to at the same time silence an opposing view) is the tactics of a poltroon -no matter whom the party is who engages in these tactics.
Now obviously those with related credentials should be accorded a measure of respect. However, such individuals should never presume that they can protect themselves from criticism on this factor alone -particularly if their arguments are specious ones. Also, in the citing of authorities or sources to support one's point of view, one should be careful in how they go about interacting with the work of presumed "experts" to support a particular position being advanced and maintained by argument.{10}
Hopefully this brief post is of assistance to many in separating the wheat from the chaff and avoiding the all-too-common fallacious forms of argument from authority in your future arguments and elucidations.
Notes:
{1} Two examples of this were the following posts addressed to a certain self-styled "traditionalist" whose entire approach to debate with me was this very fallacious notion of argumentation. Those threads can be read HERE and HERE. Though this was hardly the only person to have done this with me over the years, this particular person's robotic appeal to this tactic -accompanied with their public libeling of me personally- was the genesis of those threads being posted and in a less-than-irenic tonality at that.
{2} See the links at footnote one but also this link as well:
"Learn to Argue Like a Sophist in Ten Minutes" Dept.
{3} I have already mentioned those who are psychotic enough in their Orwellian Doublespeak methodology to accuse me (falsely) of slander after they have obviously (to anyone who is not blind) libeled me numerous times. (As a way of trying to compensate for their lacking of the basic mental equipment to separate actual slander or libel from a legitimate critique -even sharply- of them and their outlooks.)
{4} Logically if you avoid what is incorrect in your approach to issues, you end up by default utilizing a legitimate method of inquiry. This is the foundation behind the method that seeks what is true only after identifying first of all what is false to thereby narrow the number of potential paths of inquiry.
{5} I have in my life taken on and confuted "experts" in several fields XXXX. In the process, I have come to believe an old maxim of one of my intellectual mentors Arthur Jones that "ninety-five percent of what is published on all subjects is hogwash." And that includes by the way what is published by those who are called "experts." If they write in an area that they have extensive knowledge in, their views are of course to be accorded proper respect. However, if the arguments they utilize are shoddy, then no amount of appeal to their "expert status" can fix that deficiency. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Excerpt from an Email Correspondence circa 6/27/04]
{6} Mike Mentzer was the man who refined and developed further Arthur Jones' theories on exercise science. He also was one who was an even larger influence in a subsequent refining of my intellectual approach than Arthur Jones was. (Indeed it was through Mike that I learned about Jones to begin with.) Mike used to often dissuade people from accepting what he had to say on subjects of exercise science simply on the basis of him possessing one of the hallmark "credentials" in the particular field he was involved in. (In this case, being one of the greatest physical specimens of all time.) Indeed, rather than base any of his arguments on this factor, Mike would instead often make statements akin to the following:
I've always reasoned that if the material I presented was valid in and of itself, was offered in a logical manner, and designed to appeal to one's reason and common sense, then the likelihood of it being accepted for its intrinsic worth was greater.
That is a direct quote taken from his last written work (published shortly after he passed on) but he often made statements in that vein of thought throughout his lifetime. And that is how I have throughout my life approached discussing any subject matter as a rule. It should go without saying that I therefore recommend the same approach to anyone who wants to make a contribution of value to the arena of ideas: focus only on the intrinsic validity or lack thereof of any argument proposed. For that is what really matters in the legitimate advancement of ideas if we take it down to brass tacks.
{7} I say "natural sphere of things" because on religious subject matters, there can be a supernatural dimension which needs to be accounted for by those who accept a particular religious weltanschauung in question. (Whatever it may be.)
{8} Such as the Laws of Identity and Non-Contradiction.
{9} It is generally a practice of those who are setting forth an argument in peer review journals or other mediums of this sort to denote their degrees relative to the subject matter being discussed. Such a practice is of course fine and proper in those environs to do. In weighing the merits of the arguments advanced, it is incumbent upon the reader who is interested in the subject matter to avoid accepting or rejecting propositions advanced by someone on those criteria rather than on the solidity (or lack thereof) of the arguments said individuals actually advance.
{10} There is also the appeal to an unnamed authority -often in the context of generalized statements. This can be either a legitimate or illegitimate method depending on the circumstances and the context in which this is conducted. Even when legitimate, this is not a very strong form of argument and therefore should be used prudently or in conjunction with other forms of argumentation which have a stronger foundation to them.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
One of the most frequently means of arguing a point is resorting to an erroneous usage of what is called argument from authority. Now I should note in advance that to some extent, everyone relies on those whom are recognized to various degrees as "authorities" outside of themselves to develop and/or maintain a position in an argument. (As no one can possibly know everything there is to know about any subject in question, let alone the entire spectrum of subject matter.) Nonetheless, there are proper and improper ways of doing this -and the post you are reading will endeavour to explain the proper means versus the improper means of appealing to authority.
What is about to be covered here is hardly something that I am discussing for the first time.{1} However, there is a perceived need to round out and develop a complementary thread to those where this issue was previously dealt with -a "counter-thread" if you will focusing more on positive exposition and less on negative pronouncements. For though I have dealt with this subject before, the genesis of this kind of argumentation was barely touched on in those links.{2} And in not dealing with the foundational presuppositions angle -mainly because I was livid when those threads were written for reasons I am not about to go into at this time- provides to some extent a kind of cover for those guilty of this fallacy to continue to perpetuate it.
With the reception of some recent emails espousing variations of this problem, essentially we reached critical mass here at Rerum Novarum. The previously gruff treatments of this subject was in large part because I cannot stand sophistic time wasters who prefer a character assassination to legitimate discussion of issues.{3} However, it is not only these sorts of individuals who engage in fallacious forms of argument from authority. No my friends, even people interested in genuine dialogue on issues often appropriate this method fallaciously. The question that needs to be answered is essentially one of how people can legitimately argue from authority -should they want to do this. In that regard, it is done primarily by noting first of all how one cannot legitimately do so -and from there avoiding the snares of improper argumentation methodology.{4} To assist in achieving this is the purpose of the post you are reading.
To start with, arguments that base themselves on any presumed "credentials" of the person so arguing are intrinsically fallacious. I have dealt with this subject before in a number of ways -including using a methodology of argumentation which can be accurately referred to as reducionum ad absurdum. The reason why this kind of argument is logically specious should be obvious on its face. However, because many of those who are agenda-minded can tend to ignore what is (or should be) obvious, a few notes on the matter are worth sketching out for the benefit of those of good will.
To start with, it should be obvious that no opinion is either intrinsically valid or invalid on the basis of the espousing party's particular learning degrees. For one thing, oftentimes people posit degrees after their names of a generalized nature -such as a PhD. This can be deceiving to the reader because they would naturally presume that the author's degree so noted applies to the subject matter in which they are writing about. However, quite often this is not the case. And that of course brings us to the first principle that is essential to take into account when considering the accreditation of said writers -should they posit any of course.
--A recognized authority in one area is not necessarily worth listening to in another area.
It would involve a degree of investigation on the part of the inquirer to determine if such a person is actually to be listened to in the area in which they are speaking. Or should I say, it would be if their primary concern about considering the merits of an argument is based on letters after a name. Those who are familiar with the foundational tools of reason and logic are able to equitably weigh someones arguments on those standards and receive a kind of "acid test reading" of the relative stability of the arguments advanced.{5} If the arguments pass muster there, then they are worth considering further whereas if they fail there, then there is no reason to consider them any further.{6}
--On topics which are of a controverted nature (or where there are disagreements among recognized experts), it is fallacious to accept the opinion of an authority.
Opinions are usually based on some form of argumentation; however not all forms of argumentation are equal. This is another area that could call for careful discernment -though even "experts" can be found to not infrequently argue in facile ways to support a particular opinion they may have on an issue. While it is true that it is not necessarily fallacious to accept the arguments of an authority which support a particular opinion; at the same time the arguments themselves had better have some solid foundation to them beyond the mere "say so" of the "expert" so cited. It should be obvious (though often it is not unfortunately) that if the authority being cited has grounded their opinion on fallacious argumentation or questionable evidences, then one should not be predisposed to accept their opinion on the matter in the natural sphere of things.{7}
--In areas where there is disagreement among recognized experts, individuals then have to turn to various sources. However, whatever the sources turned to, the purpose cannot be for conclusions or opinions of said authority.
In the above scenario, what must be sought out from the sources turned to is evidences for a particular opinion along with reasons and arguments all working in symbiotic fashion to sustain a particular opinion. Merely accepting conclusions or opinions in and of themselves is a fallacious appeal to authority.
--Appeals to any presumable "authoritative" source should take into account (to the extent this is possible) the track record of accuracy of the source being utilized.
As this is a principle that can itself be easily abused -as one person's conception of error is not necessarily the same as anther's- the general rules of charity should apply here. For those unaware of what I refer to, the principle should be considered basically is this one:
--Do not presume to put an unfavourable interpretation upon the words or actions of another because the same words or actions can be looked upon in different circumstances or contexts.
When there is an obvious misuse of a source in an argument, that is one thing. However, an argument that is based on one particular frame of reference (or context) may be true within that frame of reference but false within another frame of reference. To determine if this is the case or not would of course require some work to be done on the part of the inquirer.
To summarize the above points, these principles if followed will not guarantee that one will be successful in their quest to ascertain the truth from the varying threads of opinion or argumentation out there. However, along with the additional tools of logic and reason,{8} they will mitigate significantly the problem of falling into fallacious forms of argumentation as per the appealing to any presumed "authority." (Within the context of attempting to set forth or sustain a particular position within the framework of a dialogue or debate on issues.)
In conclusion, it is neither necessarily fallacious nor improper to appeal to an authority in dialogue or debate (or other forms of discussion). Nor is it necessarily inappropriate for those who have certain specializations in a field to denote this with the credentials they have gathered.{9} However, there are appropriate and inappropriate ways of both doing this. Appeals to supposed "credentials" in order to buttress one's arguments (and try to at the same time silence an opposing view) is the tactics of a poltroon -no matter whom the party is who engages in these tactics.
Now obviously those with related credentials should be accorded a measure of respect. However, such individuals should never presume that they can protect themselves from criticism on this factor alone -particularly if their arguments are specious ones. Also, in the citing of authorities or sources to support one's point of view, one should be careful in how they go about interacting with the work of presumed "experts" to support a particular position being advanced and maintained by argument.{10}
Hopefully this brief post is of assistance to many in separating the wheat from the chaff and avoiding the all-too-common fallacious forms of argument from authority in your future arguments and elucidations.
Notes:
{1} Two examples of this were the following posts addressed to a certain self-styled "traditionalist" whose entire approach to debate with me was this very fallacious notion of argumentation. Those threads can be read HERE and HERE. Though this was hardly the only person to have done this with me over the years, this particular person's robotic appeal to this tactic -accompanied with their public libeling of me personally- was the genesis of those threads being posted and in a less-than-irenic tonality at that.
{2} See the links at footnote one but also this link as well:
"Learn to Argue Like a Sophist in Ten Minutes" Dept.
{3} I have already mentioned those who are psychotic enough in their Orwellian Doublespeak methodology to accuse me (falsely) of slander after they have obviously (to anyone who is not blind) libeled me numerous times. (As a way of trying to compensate for their lacking of the basic mental equipment to separate actual slander or libel from a legitimate critique -even sharply- of them and their outlooks.)
{4} Logically if you avoid what is incorrect in your approach to issues, you end up by default utilizing a legitimate method of inquiry. This is the foundation behind the method that seeks what is true only after identifying first of all what is false to thereby narrow the number of potential paths of inquiry.
{5} I have in my life taken on and confuted "experts" in several fields XXXX. In the process, I have come to believe an old maxim of one of my intellectual mentors Arthur Jones that "ninety-five percent of what is published on all subjects is hogwash." And that includes by the way what is published by those who are called "experts." If they write in an area that they have extensive knowledge in, their views are of course to be accorded proper respect. However, if the arguments they utilize are shoddy, then no amount of appeal to their "expert status" can fix that deficiency. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Excerpt from an Email Correspondence circa 6/27/04]
{6} Mike Mentzer was the man who refined and developed further Arthur Jones' theories on exercise science. He also was one who was an even larger influence in a subsequent refining of my intellectual approach than Arthur Jones was. (Indeed it was through Mike that I learned about Jones to begin with.) Mike used to often dissuade people from accepting what he had to say on subjects of exercise science simply on the basis of him possessing one of the hallmark "credentials" in the particular field he was involved in. (In this case, being one of the greatest physical specimens of all time.) Indeed, rather than base any of his arguments on this factor, Mike would instead often make statements akin to the following:
I've always reasoned that if the material I presented was valid in and of itself, was offered in a logical manner, and designed to appeal to one's reason and common sense, then the likelihood of it being accepted for its intrinsic worth was greater.
That is a direct quote taken from his last written work (published shortly after he passed on) but he often made statements in that vein of thought throughout his lifetime. And that is how I have throughout my life approached discussing any subject matter as a rule. It should go without saying that I therefore recommend the same approach to anyone who wants to make a contribution of value to the arena of ideas: focus only on the intrinsic validity or lack thereof of any argument proposed. For that is what really matters in the legitimate advancement of ideas if we take it down to brass tacks.
{7} I say "natural sphere of things" because on religious subject matters, there can be a supernatural dimension which needs to be accounted for by those who accept a particular religious weltanschauung in question. (Whatever it may be.)
{8} Such as the Laws of Identity and Non-Contradiction.
{9} It is generally a practice of those who are setting forth an argument in peer review journals or other mediums of this sort to denote their degrees relative to the subject matter being discussed. Such a practice is of course fine and proper in those environs to do. In weighing the merits of the arguments advanced, it is incumbent upon the reader who is interested in the subject matter to avoid accepting or rejecting propositions advanced by someone on those criteria rather than on the solidity (or lack thereof) of the arguments said individuals actually advance.
{10} There is also the appeal to an unnamed authority -often in the context of generalized statements. This can be either a legitimate or illegitimate method depending on the circumstances and the context in which this is conducted. Even when legitimate, this is not a very strong form of argument and therefore should be used prudently or in conjunction with other forms of argumentation which have a stronger foundation to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)