! MisGuided Rhetoric !

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Soldier

And what would the armed services be without friendly rivalry?

(Fire one torpedo) Since when is the Air Farce part of the military?

[Soldier]

Since we started delivering Army and Marines, and providing them a nice umbrella.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

This service rivalry: if I were in charge, I would tell those involved - in no uncertain terms - to shut up and start sounding like a team.

A question for the military types out there: Are there really high-ranked officers (or politicians with duties pertaining to the military) voicing my opinion above?

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Soldier]

No, as far as I know, that opinion isn't specifically voiced - because it doesn't need to be. Friendly rivalry is always present, and, I think, fine, when we're training or just sitting around here stateside. When people get to the desert, though, they do get along. I can't think of a single officer I know who wouldn't come down hard on real rivalry in the field.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

You're missing my point.

No, unfortunately I do not think I am...

1. Smearing others is bad. I think we agree here.
2. Pointing out that somebody is smearing is appropriate. This is my primary point. I hope we agree.

Alas, it's not quite so cut-and-dried. ( Completely aside from the terminology, which seems designed to inflame. I suppose you are quite sure that "smearing" is only done by the other side, and yours only traffics in heroically "pointing out the truth"... )

You weren't just "pointing out" a practice, you were engaging in it, albeit indirectly.

Now, the correct response, logically, would be to point out ( and prove ) that the Republicans' accusations are in fact fallacious themselves, constituting various sorts of ad hominem attacks and thus proving nothing...

3. Pointing out that one group (let's call them R) smears another group (D) for lack of certain virtues falls under #2. Mentioning that group R's most notable proponents and smearers lack those virtues, while the very people they attack in D have them, emphasizes R's hypocrisy and dishonesty.

And constitutes the tu quoque, which translates roughly to "Yeah well, you're another". How is it you are not seeing this?

One refutes an argument, X, by demonstrating not-X. One does not refute it by "mentioning" things about the person making the argument. The latter does not contribute anything to disproving the truth of the person's contention or accusation...

If I mug kids for their milk money, and bilk widows and orphans out of thei savings - and then turn and accuse you of being a thief - if you turn around and say "No, you're the crook", I don't think an accusation of 'tu quoque" would be in order.

Unfortunately, if you have no other defense that's the very definition of the fallacy.

Just because it's in Latin doesn't make it right.

At this I can but shrug and lift my palms, and suggest that maybe you should take that up with Aristotle. But I scarcely expect that What Jeff Believes about it's validity is going to overturn several thousand years of acceptance of the fact that it IS a logical fallacy, whether in Latin or in Urdu...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Republicans have used rhetoric of smearing Democrats as pacifists,

Wait----pacifism is a dirty word in your book? Calling someone a pacifist constitutes a "smear"???

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

I just read this story from the campaign of the first President Bush.

Do tell....where did you read it? Sounds interesting.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Bush I had Lee Atwater and the Willie Horton smear, and after all, Dukakis did lose. Maybe you lose if you don't go into the gutter.

It wasn't Willie Horton that did for Dukakis, though. It was things like the picture of him in that tank, complete with helmet, trundling around looking decidedly un-Presidential, and it was being out-debated on television. And it must be admitted, it was that the first Bush was not roundly hated enough to bring all Democrats together sufficiently to support someone from the left of the Party...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Isn't the real struggle enlisted vs. officer?

Heh, the military is a big tent, there's plenty of room for lots and lots of rivalries.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by Point_Left

I think that there would be fewer muggers, but those that were would be far more bold. They would have guns, and they would make sure that they drew first (before you even see them). Lower risk of being mugged, but the potential consequences are much greater.

This flies in the face of human nature, I think.

It's been amply demonstrated that even animals obey certain behavioral laws, such as utility maximization and assessment of risk to reward. Criminals are no different. Think about it: their reward is whatever valuables you are carrying. Their risk is being caught. If the potential victim may be possessed of lethal weaponry, their risk rises dramatically, to include death or crippling.

I may have related this before, but here goes again. I was on my way to work when motorcycle gang went past me on the freeway. When I got to work I asked a veteran officer about them, what their reputation was and whether they were dangerous. His reply: "Yeah, but not as much as they were in California, before the Hell's Angels drove them out. They walk pretty softly here, because everybody here carries a gun."

Criminals are often stupid, but they are not dense. They prefer helpless victims whenever possible, and faced with the possibility of their own destruction they'd really rather just go find an easier target...

[jeff]

Just a few for Inq, as typing on a Euro keyboard is painful:

First, are you under the impression that Aristotle spoke Latin? Wrong dead language, no? Also, dont I remember a long exposition on your part about the lack of validity of resorting to the words of authorities? Why then do you resort to it?

While Dukakis sank for many reasons; part of it was the Atwater brand of dirty tricks. Openly bragged about by Republicans at the time.

Of course you can smear somebody by calling him a pacifist. Sad, but true. In times of war that is very common.

You still miss the point. At this time the Republican campaign is largely based on smearing - and I will use that word - Dems as weak and unwarlike. Should Bush win it will be due to this. At such a time, pointing out which side does lack warlike virtues (if that is the right phrase) while posturing otherwise, is entirely relevant. It shows their dishonesty and hypocritical nature. Tu quocque is too blunt an instrument for meaningful use if it cannot reconcile itself with legitemate comparisons

To reuse a phrase from my computer science theorem proving days: just because you cant see something doesnt constitute a proof of nonexistence.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Just a few for Inq, as typing on a Euro keyboard is painful:

Are you back in England pestering Louweasel again?

First, are you under the impression that Aristotle spoke Latin? Wrong dead language, no?

LOL!

No, and Moses didn't speak English, either, but pick up the nearest motel Bible and voila...

Also, dont I remember a long exposition on your part about the lack of validity of resorting to the words of authorities?

The argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy pertains not to citing and authority but to citing an extraneous or inexpert authority. Thus to advert to, say, Adam Smith or Milton Friedman on a matter of economics would
( probably ) be valid; to advert to Albert Einstein would not. The latter is an authority, to be sure, but not regarding economics.

Aristotle is the ur-authority on logic, and he first explained the fallacy in question, so you can't have a more apposite authority on the matter than that...

Of course you can smear somebody by calling him a pacifist. Sad, but true. In times of war that is very common.

But the fact that you linked the two implies that YOU think "pacifist" is some sort of dirty word...

You still miss the point. At this time the Republican campaign is largely based on smearing - and I will use that word - Dems as weak and unwarlike. Should Bush win it will be due to this. At such a time, pointing out which side does lack warlike virtues (if that is the right phrase) while posturing otherwise, is entirely relevant.

I give up.

( Not really. )

[scrapinpeg]

Originally Posted by jeff

On the other hand, Bush I had Lee Atwater and the Willie Horton smear, and after all, Dukakis did lose. Maybe you lose if you don't go into the gutter.

You seem to have forgotten that the Willie Horton ads were done by the Al Gore campaign during the primaries.

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

You seem to have forgotten that the Willie Horton ads were done by the Al Gore campaign during the primaries.

YOU seem to be confused or misled.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by scrapinpeg

You seem to have forgotten that the Willie Horton ads were done by the Al Gore campaign during the primaries.

Actually, no.

In one of the debates during the primary--Gore raised the prison furlough system (which is what Horton was out on)--however, he did not mention Horton by name, race nor did he ever run any ads which mentioned him or showed his picture.

--Philistine

[scrapinpeg]

Dang, you're right. I stand corrected, and retract my previous comment. Gore raised the issue, but did not do the ad. Atwater and others got the idea for the ad from Gore's campaign, which had gotten the idea originally from a pulitzer-prize winning series of newspaper articles.

[geezer]

Draft...? Draft...? Did I see..."DRAFT"...? Me x-USMC!!! ...but I'll pack my kids off to Canadia, hang with RUSH, and drink Moosehead all day before I'll let them get involved in Geo. Weasel's Debacle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Death to Tyrants!

[Maeve_Mari]

Originally Posted by geezer

Draft...? Draft...? Did I see..."DRAFT"...? Me x-USMC!!! ...but I'll pack my kids off to Canadia, hang with RUSH, and drink Moosehead all day before I'll let them get involved in Geo. Weasel's Debacle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Death to Tyrants!

Exactly what they think Americans would say if their children were drafted and sent off to fight this consequence! We'd see an immediate call to end the action in Iraq if the children of the middle class and rich were compelled to send their children.
Amazing how slowly we'd enter in a mess like this again, if the possibility of draft was there.

[scrapinpeg]

Oh for crying out loud. The military is opposed to a draft, because its all-volunteer force is of a much higher caliber than what they'd have under a draft. And as for the upper classes being more likely to serve if there was a draft, just who do you think got out of it back when there was one?

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

A criminal isnt very likely to observe gun control laws you know. If you take away guns, then the people who suffer are the people getting shot by the criminals who dont give a flying feck about the law.