This is pretty long for a stifled debate

Amillennialist contra Vox:

If Day’s argument is that Shapiro seems defensive, and that this defensiveness reveals a lack of courage, then that is the argument he should make. But the intimation of physical or moral defect on the part of his target is childish and inconsistent with Christ’s example.

Amil gets right out of the blocks with a blown reading comprehension test. First, that’s not my argument. Second, the suggestion of the possibility of a physical or moral defect is far from childish, it is absolutely necessary in order to admit the real possibility that the entire argument does not apply. Now, it was vicious, yes, because I’m quite aware of the fact that most people can’t read properly. But this is how we do it….

(When certain self-styled intellectual and moral experts engaged in ad Hominem attacks against Him, Jesus encouraged them to testify to what He said that was false. That’s still good advice, even to-Day.)

I doubt that Shapiro would argue that members of the military cannot use the term (and anyone who serves on the battlefield deserves the highest honors his or her fellow citizens can bestow); his assertion that the use of “chickenhawk” is “a leftist attempt to silence debate” is in most contexts today, true, which is the context in which Shapiro was making it. It is intellectually dishonest of Day to imply otherwise.

I testify to what Shapiro said that was false. His assertion is largely incorrect and is only true in the single context of conservative media commentary, which, ironically enough, features a high percentage of people who many on the Left and Right would consider to be chickenhawks. I took a poll of some of the most extreme right-wing people on the planet – in the last election, Bush came in third behind the Libertarian and Constitution party candidates – and 85 percent believe that the chickenhawk appellation applies to Mr. Shapiro.

And I note that if there is anyone less interested in genuine debate than the conservative commentariat, I have yet to meet them. Malkin was afraid to show even when she was called out in public and asked live on the air to defend her book. I doubt Shapiro has the balls to defend himself or his positions either. Hugh Hewitt won’t even permit libertarians on his radio show. Conservative commentators talk a good game as long as they think they’re dealing with brain-dead leftists, but they’re cowards for the most part. At least the lefties will show up and froth at the mouth for a while. Anyhow, the fact that leftists can’t debate properly doesn’t mean they won’t; you have to remember that to them calling names IS how you debate.

So, Shapiro is demonstrably wrong. My very willingness to debate blows his (and Amil’s) talking points-derived notion away. I’m right here… Shapiro and Lowry and all the other war cheerleaders know where I am. Shall we talk about the invasion of Pakistan? Or do you prefer Egypt? To quote our president, Bring It On. And what debate, precisely, is being stifled? From what I’ve seen, the left seems more than willing to debate the war. President Bush is the one who won’t answer any questions.

But it is dishonest to personally attack someone rather than expose the fault(s) in their argument. And neither is military service a prerequisite to having a valid opinion on the use of military force…. He was not writing of legislation regarding hypocrites, as Day jests. Now that’s silly.

I did both, so why the word “rather”? There’s nothing dishonest about attacking someone, indeed, I’d think the openness would be rather refreshing in light of all the fake Crossfire-style friendliness. An opinion is one thing, a call to action is another. Shapiro wasn’t simply expressing his opinion about the war, he was telling Americans what their duty was and what sacrifices they have to make. And Amil is right, Shapiro wasn’t talking about legislation, which is precisely why that argument was so phenomenally stupid. Why does the Supreme Court so often wrestling with questions of constitutionality? Why? Because it is the judicial branch! (In other words, it usually involves laws.)

An ad hominem attack is intellectually dishonest and therefore immoral. What is immoral is un-American. And Shapiro’s reference to the President’s daughters was in the context of the Left’s misuse of them. He was not misusing them himself.

Amil skips over the small matter of the First Amendment rights. And there is nothing intellectually dishonest about an ad hominem attack, it is merely irrelevant if it is not accompanied by a more substantive attack, as this was. Shapiro’s intellectual sloppiness appears to be rubbing off here, as the attempt to equate moral with American is a monumental failure of both logic and personal observation. Shapiro brought the daughters up as a red herring defense for himself, so my point is not only funny, but appropriate.

Name-calling is almost always an attempt to silence opposition or avoid debate (or to discredit the opposition in the minds of those who are easily deceived). That Day has criticized the War is the exception, not the rule, as most who use such terms have no real intellectually-honest argument to make against the War, they just hate President Bush and/or the military (even if it results in our nation “enjoying” the reign of the Religion of Peace).

Already dealt with this on the blog. Amillenial is only correct about the parenthesized bit, though he leaves out that this group covers 95 percent of the populace so it’s rather important if you have any interest in influencing them. Name-calling is primarily shorthand to harm the target for those casual observers, and the more accurate the name the more effective it will be. Given how panicked the chickenhawks are over getting successfully nailed with the name, it’s quite obvious that the label is both accurate and effective.

The country needs more intelligent, morally-sound young people who can string together a coherent thought. Perhaps he better serves his nation on his current career path. If Vox Day wants to play with words, he shouldn’t do it at the expense of someone who seems to be a decent kid. And liberal use of a thesaurus is no substitute for intellect.

I don’t think “coherent” is the synonym for “obvious” that Amil seems to think it is. If Ben wants to play with the big boys, then he’d better learn to think more carefully and choose his words with more precision. My column today was nothing but a well-earned spanking, perhaps Mr. Shapiro will learn something from it and begin rethinking his asinine calls for empire and sacrifice of liberties.

And Amil, not only do I not use a thesaurus, I don’t even use a spell-checker.

Trotsky was a fascist too… and Stalin… and Mao

From the Washington Times:

The name-calling got a little ridiculous when in the 1969 Sino-Soviet split, Moscow and Beijing called each other fascist…. Having combed their literature, Professor Gregor has shown beyond a shadow of doubt the affinities, too long ignored, between fascism and Marxism-Leninism… Richard Pipes has written that “Bolshevism and fascism were heresies of socialism.” Recalling that Mussolini began his political career as a distinguished Italian socialist, Professor Gregor writes: “Fascism’s most direct ideological inspiration came from the collateral influence of Italy’s most radical ‘subversives’ — the Marxists of revolutionary syndicalism.”

Even Nikolai Bukharin, the leading Soviet ideologist purged by Josef Stalin, began to have misgivings about the Revolution and to allude to the emerging system’s fascist features. Says Professor Gregor: “By the early 1930s, the ‘convergence’ of fascism and Stalinism struck Marxists and non-Marxists alike. … By the mid-1930s, even Trotsky could insist that ‘Stalinism and fascism, in spite of deep difference in social foundations, are symmetrical phenomena. ‘…

Fascist theoreticians pointed out that the organization of Soviet society, with its inculcation of an ethic of military obedience, self-sacrifice and heroism, totalitarian regulation of public life, party-dominant hierarchical stratification all under the dominance of the inerrant state, corresponded in form, to the requirements of fascist doctrine.”

Left liberals have never dared face the fact Marxism-Leninism and fascism, V.I. Lenin and Mussolini had a common origin.

Not face it? They run screaming from it, frothing at the mouth all the while. I nevertheless suspect the oft-confused Jesse would argue that he and the demographically challenged Amanda know a lot more about what is and isn’t socialist than Trotsky and Bukharin.

Chickenhawk or not II

Is Ben Shapiro a chickenhawk?
YES (I am a civilian)
YES (I am a veteran or active-duty military)
NO (I am a civilian)
NO (I am a veteran or active-duty military)

Although I am notoriously skeptical of all things democratic, I am curious to know how public opinion shakes out here. Vote only once, please. It will be interesting to compare this to the military-only vote, which was 66 YES and 45 NO.

I’m sure it will also be interesting to hear Chuck’s latest theory on how the mere asking of this question is tantamount to “wanting to suppress” freedom of speech and “overturning the Bill of Rights”. Perhaps Mr. Shapiro could save him a seat in this semester’s upcoming Constitution 101 class.

Mailvox: chickenhawks and other 11-letter words

GT expresses a veteran’s view:

Thank you! I am a veteran who shares your sentiments regarding Boy Shapiro. I had even considered sending an email. But now I don’t have to since you have done so far more effectively than I could have. Not to mention the fact that the said email would only been seen by Boy Shapiro, while your excellent rebuke is there on WorldNetDaily for all the world to see.

All of your points were excellent, but it was the first one that cut to the heart of the matter. If Boy Shapiro is so in favor of Bush Wars, why doesn’t he join the military? As a college graduate, I’m sure he could find a position replacing the many junior-grade officers who are making an exit.

I suspect one of the reasons that the pro-war commentators have gone so astray on this chickenhawk thing is not only because so many of them feel personally defensive about it, but also because they simply are not acquainted with many individuals serving in the military. In my personal experience, I’ve usually heard the word “chickenhawk” preceded by an adjective that starts with the letter F.

Although the results of Friday’s little poll are completely unscientific, I don’t think they can be easily dismissed. Blackfive’s readership tends to lean fairly heavily pro-war, and while the veterans and active military there were less supportive of my position than the veterans and active military here, a substantial majority still agreed nevertheless.

CH recommends the road less travelled:

I wonder too about defending people who we know will stab us in the back at their first opportunity (Shiites, Afghans). I am not there being wounded and killed along with the other volunteers. I am too old. But did you really have to deliver that very low blow about the San Francisco bathhouse sex? If the guy is a pervert, and you can back it up, then do so. If you can’t then debaters know what you are doing, calling names for lack of an opposing argument. You didn’t win this one, you diminished your credibility. Stick to the high road.

Yes, yes I did, because it was funny and it amused me. In any event, CH didn’t read the first paragraph closely enough as I was merely giving Mr. Shapiro an out, (so to speak), against the charges which otherwise appear to apply so very well indeed. What’s ironic is the way that CH somehow manages to completely miss the substantive arguments which completely demolish Shapiro’s five previous points because she’s so hung up on something that isn’t even an accusation!

Meanwhile, BH is a man who would fight for Ben’s honor. He’ll be the hero Ben’s dreaming of. They’ll live forever, knowing together, that he did it all for the glory of love:

Vox, with all due respect to your ostensibly prodigious intellect: Screw you. No, Ben hasn’t seen combat – just look at him; he’s a baby. I have seen combat, both in Desert Storm and as a civilian police officer, and I’m telling you the ad hominem attacks have got to stop. First you rake Michelle Malkin over the coals for taking a fairly reasonable position on the internment of American citizens of particular ethnicity during WWII, and now you’re going after Ben Shapiro for supporting the substance of the Iraq war. But the problem is you’re full of shit. It doesn’t make a bit of difference as regards the merits of his argument whether or not he has, does, or ever will serve in the US military. I’m no Bush cheerleader, but clearly the invasion of Iraq was eminently justified, and while I don’t support its continued occupation, I don’t agree with your position that to do so is tantamount to empire building.

If you were as intelligent as you think you are, you would understand that, as a student at Harvard Law School, Ben Shapiro is swimming upstream in a sewer, and you would attribute his rhetorical excesses to his youth and perhaps to a conditioned response to the vehement, caustic, knee-jerk liberalism that assaults him on a daily basis. Some of your writing has a positively pugilistic air, and if in the final analysis that’s all you respect, I’ll kick your ass as a service to you – free of charge – that may provide you with a modicum of humility that is becoming to a Christian man and absent in some of your columns.

1. Malkin didn’t dare stand up for herself. Why do you bother?
2. What is ad hominum in responding directly, (and, some would argue, ad infinitum) to the question of military necessity for internment? What is ad hominum about in directly to the five arguments Ben Shapiro raised in his two previous columns?
3. Ben Shapiro is not merely supporting the Iraqi war and he obviously disagrees with BH on the empire-building aspect of the situation.
4. I’ve gotten my ass kicked hundreds of times. In the unlikely event BH was able to deliver, how would that prove whatever point BH is trying to make? And by the way, the last Marine to take me on tapped out in less than 10 seconds. Linsel daidar is a bitch!

New blogs

If you’re getting bored with playing pin the tail on the chickenhawk, why not check out the newest Voxologisti?

Stop the ACLU
Volume 11

In the meantime, we are all breathlessly awaiting the imminent return of The Virgin Queen from her Summer Court.

Is it time to dump the GOP

A Townhaller opens his eyes:

Thanks to the incredible expansion of federal entitlements, regulations and pork spending sanctioned by the GOP leadership in Congress since 2001, there is virtually no chance that Big Government is going to be shrunk even a little any time soon.

And since there is no sign the folks running Congress are willing to change course, why shouldn’t conservatives dump the GOP?

Mark Tapscott isn’t bold enough to follow through on his logic – he ends up calling for an intervention, as if that will do anything – but I do think it is noteworthy that after five years of abuse at the hands of a Republican president, Congress and Supreme Court, even media Three Monkey Republicans are beginning to realize that their party is not simply blundering into Democratic snares, but is actually the treacherous faction of the bifactional Government Party.

I encourage conservatives to vote Libertarian, Constitution Party or even not to vote at all rather than continue to lend their support to a party that despite its words, is adamantly opposed to almost everything conservatives hold dear.