Logic and Rhetoric: Misadventure in the Search for Truth at Free Republic (posted Nov. 6, 2001)

Essay by self | 6 November 01 | AndyJackson

[AndyJackson]

You have added a new perspective. I had not considered that he was an intentional propagandist. Only that he was self-deluded. Thanks

[AndyJackson]

I thought about it. Surely when the anti-abortionist contorts himself into a nihilist it is self-delusion, rather than deliberate. So, I am not sure whether this guy is properly a propogandist.

[MinuteGal]

It's my opinion he hi-jacked the abortion issue as a means to an end. I doubt if he's any more pro-life than Hillary Klinton. He's very good at what he does. Better than most. If you ever happen upon any more of his efforts, please flag me. Thanks.

Leni

[AndyJackson]

That was my other theory - that he is a lonely liberal pacifist and roped in some anti-abortionists for company.

[AndyJackson]

I was not, here, trying to prove that the post was drivel, which most people cotton onto pretty quickly. On the original post a lot of folks were seduced by at least one the multiple swindles. I had a good time trying to figure them out and figured I would share around the techniques he invoked. In fact, a number of our fellow FReepers, some of unquestioned conservative bent, were seduced by something or other in his argument.

[Mike Darancette]

I.M.H.O. you give the author too much credit.

I have always laughed when some book or movie reviewer credits an author, director or actor for a deeper meaning hidden in his work and the reviewer is told "Wow man the story just came to me in an acid trip" or "I just copied Shakespeare".

The guy just read the ideas somewhere else and tacked on abortion as "Red Meat".

[tpaine]

" (the idiotic Libertines being a great example of that, lately taking over the "Most Obnoxious" Award from the Buchananites."

----------------------------------

Good grief, all those words, just to get in a little slam at 'libertines'?
[you can say it coward, its spelled libertarian]

Why, you're nearly as bad a blowhard as our author.

[AndyJackson]

Other than calling everyone names around here, you have not advanced a single argument in defense of the author of this piece. Not one.

[Architect]

Why is this vanity post in News/Current events? Why isn't it posted in response to the original article, in accordance with the rules?

[Architect]

Pierce's article is not particularily good. But your "analysis" is pathetic. You start with seven paragraphs of self-indulgent navel-gazing in which your only relevant comment is that Pierce is a self-described neo-conservative. Huh???

Take my word for it. He would be offended by the characterization. That you could think this he might be a neo-conservative shows your total ignorance of political thought and theory. Unsurprisingly the rest of your vanity piece simply demonstrates your lack of knowledge and your inability to think.

[Architect]

Oops. The article in question was written by Lee Shelton, not Micheal Pierce. Of course, Shelton would be equally offended at being called a neo-con.

[tpaine]

Why should I? - I don't agree with many of his ideas, - or yours.

He presented his ideas clearly, imo, & with some semblance of reason & respect for others. - You didn't.

[sheltonmac]

"Of course, Shelton would be equally offended at being called a neo-con."

You got that right!

[sheltonmac]

I haven't seen a dissection this messy since Seventh Grade Biology class. It's flattering to know I hit a nerve. When you get around to actually adressing the question posed in the essay, let me know. I'd be interested to hear your answer.

As for some of your arguments, try reading up on history before launching into a tirade. During WWII, the practice of firebombing had one purpose, and that was to strike terror in the hearts of the population in an attempt to weaken their resolve.

As far as the abortion argument goes, you seem to be of the opinion that fetus is not a person and can therefore not be compared to the killing of people in the post-fetal stage of life. I stand by my assertion that this falls in line with the prevailing distorted view of individual liberty and personal choice. We have accepted the killing of the unborn. Why stop there? Shouldn't a mother then have the right to kill her two-month-old because she chooses to do so?

It is perplexing that you found the essay so difficult to follow. The question asked was a rhetorical one, addressing the moral bankruptcy of our nation. This is a question that many in this forum have avoided, sporting an attitude of "We are 'at war' so we can't be bothered by the treasonous rantings of the 'Blame America First' crowd."

Perhaps the next essay on Friday will clear up some of the confusion.

[Demidog]

Lee writes circles around you. Perhaps your anger is due to the fact that your intellectual discomfort has made you extremely tired and grumpy. When that happens to my three-year-old, I put her to bed. Why don't you take a nap and try again.

[AndyJackson]

Now, lest I continue to be pummeled for not answering the question that you actually did ask and that you ran away from as fast as your pen would carry you, our ethics are very different from those of islamic fundamentalists who use terror to advance their cause. For one, I don't believe that stoning to death adultresses, killing mother and unborn child, is a moral alternative to abortion. Neither did Christ. Two, I think that the adulterer is as much to blame as the adultress, a symmetry absent from Islamic Law. Three, I think that keeping women ignorant, locked up with windows painted black to keep the light out, and denied basic medical care is inhumane. They don't treat their goats that poorly. Taking women out and shooting them for reading a book or escaping into the daylight I find extreme. This list goes on, and I have not even addressed the issue about slitting peoples throats to hijack a plane to crash it into a building to provoke a war for a despicable end.

No, I don't think that I am the least like the terrorist, and I resent the fact that you suggest that I am. What is despicable is that you know those answers as well as I, but thought that laziness, nihilism and fraud could get you further than you have gotten so far with positive arguments against abortion.

Your moral relativism has dire consquences. By equating this act to that to the other, without providing any solid moral ground from which to navigate, my inclination is to throw in the towel, admit to the historical bombing of civilians, ask why didn't I see this all before, and bomb Kandahar, Kabul into your nihilistic nothing.

Let me address the rest of what you have written me:

In this recent post to me, you have shifted the terms of the debate yet again. Your essay did not advance the propositon that our country is morally bankrupt. If you want to write on that topic, please go ahead and do so. Second, therefore, what? What consequence, about my war against terrorism am I supposed to draw from this. Because others accept abortion I am not allowed to fight terrorists. Or I have a moral obligation to fight the abortionist, who does not threaten my life and property, first, before I turn to the terrorist who does and also threatens the lives of the children born and unborn that you hold so precious.

Or if nothing about the war against terrorism why did you drag the terrorists into this argument right at the beginning, since surely you can argue about abortion or moral bankruptcy with no knowledge about terrorist attacks on New York City.

You go on: this is a question that many in this forum have avoided, sporting an attitude of "We are 'at war' so we can't be bothered by the treasonous rantings of the 'Blame America First' crowd." Boy am I am having trouble deciphering the meaning of this. Which is the question we (I) have avoided? Be clear because, I don't know unless it is the "moral bankruptcy question" which wasn't the topic of your essay either. Whatever question we have avoided, I am a scoundrel because why? Did you mean because I am more concerned with the blame America First Crowd than with abortion? But in general I am not. You are putting words in my mouth again. I am concerned with the terorists. I have enough people on my side in to carry the war. The blame the America first crowd can rot in their lonely isolation and it bothers me not a wit.

[AndyJackson]

Perhaps your anger is due to the fact that your intellectual discomfort has made you extremely tired and grumpy.

I had a grand time writing that, as others have noted. I laughed my way through it. You sound like the fellow who was told that he had been cheated by a card sharp, when the dealer turned up five aces. He argues back that it is impossible since he cut the deck himself. When you point out that there are currently 58 cards in the deck he responds that that dealer has a great set of gozonga's. If you want to be cheated, fine, but fraud is still fraud.

[AndyJackson]

Ooooopsss is right. I apologise. He calls himself a paleo-conservative. What I was interested in pointing out is that he is a self-proclaimed conservative, not a liberal even though he argues like one. Otherwise, I am only interested in whether what he says is correct, and not what he calls himself, or what you or tpaine call me.

[AndyJackson]

He presented his ideas clearly

I am still trying to get you to tell me even one of his ideas that you think is clear.

[jackbill]

I will not apologise for the length of this.

No need to apologize. I had better things to do than read it.