This May Be Satire, But It's Deadly Serious to Me!

Actually, I've spent a fair bit of time in the south and I just love the people there. I could live in Texas very easily and very happily. But same for California, or France, or anywhere I've been, in fact. Every population has its own share of dorks, but they are, at least in my experience, not much of a problem.

But let's look again at a logical error that's occured above related to 'authority'. Where an appeal to authority is fallacious is where one makes an appeal to someone who might be an expert or very knowledgeable on some matter, but on a different matter than is at issue. For example, one could quote Einstein on a moral question and that would be a fallacious appeal to authority (not his area of particular expertise or knowledge).

However, if Einstein were to be quoted on the subject of physics, that would not be a fallacious appeal, it would be legitimate.

The other side of this is refusal to acknowledge that authority through special expertise and knowledge/experience has bearing and weight. If one were to argue that what Einstein says about relativity is effectively worthless because there are hundreds of plumbers in New Jersey who doubt that the speed of light is absolute, then that would be fallacious.

Fox, and whoever else above has tried to suggest these 26 folks have 'merely a viewpoint' are committing this fallacy.

After checking the credentials of three on the list, I could find no reason to assume the list is anything other than a political ploy. If the GOP comes up with their own list, it will also mean little other than that they found 26 people with some kind of title who are supportive. I have said that would not be difficult to do and I stand by that.

My opinion remains that the proof will be the outcome in November.

That will be the 'proof' only of electoral victory fox. Regardless of who wins, your argument is fallacious.

Let's see, we have a list of 26 names, you check three, and determine it is nothing but a political ploy. Why is it that you have kept your revelations about this three from us? Did you only pick three from democratic administrations?

Did you check the credentials on Jack F Matlock Jr?


And then we have the anonymous GOP strategist.


Of course we still will not know the full contents of the statement until Wednesday, but as the article said, "It is unusual for so many former high-level military officials and career diplomats to issue such an overtly political message during a presidential campaign".

Yes, it seems very unusual for this to happen to a "uniter, not a divider".

Blatham (and possibly others) have posted that list on numerous threads. The three I checked were the three that somebody attached titles to. I saw no reason to check any of the others. It's as simple as that.

Every election somebody generally buys a whole newspaper page or a large ad with a list of people who sign on to support or oppose this candidate or that candidate. I saw this list as no different from that.

That's the way I saw it, too.

If prominent Republicans pulled the same thing on Bush as Kennedy and the Dem party pulled on Carter--you'd have something substantial.

Otherwise, it's business as usual.

There are fifteen ways to drive to Timbuktu. But there is no other way you two could apprehend the above than as you have. Little in life is predictable, but you guys fit in that little bit even leaving some elbow room for McG when he hasn't been layed for a while.

You two will be pleased to know that I see in your President some of the very things I see in you.

And, you will be pleased to know you have morphed into Terry McAuliffe.

Do you walk away from all the other letters written against all other candidates? Such as this one?

Former Military Colleagues: Kerry 'Unfit to Be Commander in Chief'
Marc Morano, CNSNews.com
Monday, May 3, 2004

Hundreds of former commanders and military colleagues of presumptive Democrat nominee John Kerry are set to declare in a signed letter that he is "unfit to be commander in chief." They will do so at a press conference Tuesday in Washington.

"What is going to happen on Tuesday is an event that is really historical in dimension," John O'Neill, a Vietnam veteran who served in the Navy as a PCF (Patrol Craft Fast) boat commander, told CNSNews.com. The event, expected to draw about 25 of the letter-signers, is being organized by a newly formed group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

"We have 19 of 23 officers who served with [Kerry]. We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit to be commander in chief," O'Neill said.

O'Neill, an attorney in Houston, Texas, is no stranger to Kerry. O'Neill served in the same naval unit as Kerry and commanded Kerry's swift boat after Kerry returned to the United States.

Kerry's command of the PCF boat lasted four months and ended shortly after he received his third Purple Heart. According to naval regulations at the time, any soldier who received three Purple Hearts could request a transfer out of the combat zone.

Kerry and O'Neill engaged in a nationally televised debate in 1971 on "The Dick Cavett Show" over Kerry's allegations that many Vietnam soldiers had routinely engaged in atrocities such as raping and cutting off ears and heads of Vietnamese soldiers and citizens. Kerry was the then spokesman for the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

"We are going to be presenting a letter that deals with Kerry's unfitness to be commander and chief that has been signed by hundreds of swift boat sailors, including most of those who served with Kerry," O'Neill explained.

"The ranks of the people signing [the letter] range from admiral down to seaman, and they run across the entire spectrum of politics, specialties and political feelings about the Vietnam War," he added.

Among those scheduled to attend the event at the National Press Club and declare Kerry unfit for the role of commander in chief are retired Naval Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, who was the commander of the Navy Coastal Surveillance Force, which included the swift boats on which Kerry served.

Also scheduled to be present at the event is Kerry's former commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard. Hibbard recently questioned whether Kerry deserved the first of his three Purple Hearts that he received in Vietnam. Hibbard doubted the severity of the wound and whether it resulted from enemy fire.

"I've had thorns from a rose that were worse" than Kerry's wound for which he received a Purple Heart, Hibbard told the Boston Globe in April.

Organizers are confident that Tuesday's event and the letter with hundreds of signatures would educate people about Kerry.

"It is one of the largest outpourings of concern about him being commander in chief that anybody could have in a presidential campaign, and it is by the people who know him best," O'Neill said.

'Unfit Commander in Chief'

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth maintains that Kerry's fellow Vietnam veterans are almost uniform in their disdain for his military service and anti-war protests.

"Not only a majority of the people who served with him feel that way, but a vast and overwhelming majority," O'Neill said. He added that more than "90 percent of the people contacted by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth responded to the request to sign their name, with only 12 declining to sign."

"Comrades who actually served with him, almost all of them, are opposed to him, and believe he would be an unfit commander in chief and intend to bring the truth of his actual record to the attention of the American people," O'Neill said.

He hopes the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth can reveal to the American people what he sees as Kerry's flawed character.

"In the military, loyalty between commanders and the troops serving them is a two-way street. We have here a guy that with all of us in the field, actually fighting the North Vietnamese, came home and then falsely accused all of us of war crimes at a time when the people in uniform couldn't even respond," O'Neill said.

"And he did that knowing that was a lie," he added.

---------
Anyone who can hold a pen can sign a letter. These men knew Kerry, served with him--hundreds... and the solidarity of so many, who cross party lines, should tell people something.

But, in fairness, these things happen all the time. Why you cover your eyes to a letter signed by hundreds--and act as though Bush is the only one to have such a letter written about him, speaks to your predictability, not mine...

Sofia writes:


Okay, that was good.

You might want to check out the relationship between Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Sampley...but you won't. That's the Sampley John McCain speaks of below...


You two are winning the blue ribbon in the obtuse category. Even if people like Sampley and O'Neill weren't involved in the above, the two cases are dissimilar in logically important ways. However, I suspect you'll lay your heads down upon your pillows tonight not have much of a clue about that.

Well I'm honored and pleased to be obtuse in the company of Sofia.

Yes

One more time--

Having followed US politics with glee and distain, but great interest for my adult life, I have seen letters such as you discuss many times, blatham. Though I throw them into the mix with varying assignations of import, I have never given one paramount consideration.

They are political ploys. Why would you give those 26 men godly virtues--believing them, as if they are devoid of any ulterior motives, bias, or any other human frailty?

And, why the need to insult those who don't give them the same unquestioning deference as you do?

You know, I'm sure blatham doesn't mean that in an absolutist way or anything. What he really meant when he said you're being obstuse is that you and him are both equally right. At least, that's what blatham tends to say when I advance an argument against him and he can't refute it.

Well, perhaps not always gracious.

The claim made is false. Sofia has not seen many letters like the one in question.

She has, like all of us, seen many letters initiated or composed and signed by multiple authors. She includes one for our comparison. They aren't comparable or 'like', for reasons which ought to be obvious and which I've explained above.

If she, or perhaps you thomas, can find another example of such a group...comprising probably some cumulative 500 years of foreign affairs/ambassadorial/intelligence experience at the highest levels and who worked chosen for their posts by administrations in both parties, and making the public statement with its conclusion, then you ought to forward such examples. The one forwarded is importantly dissimilar.

To suggest, which she does, and perhaps you do to, that this group's opinion is of no greater authority (that is, real authority arising from unique expertise, specialized knowledge, and experience) than the folks in the example she provides, is comparable to suggesting that a group of fellas talking at the barbershop about 9-11 has an opinon of equal consequence or merit to that of the 9-11 commission.

And I'm curious to hear your perception, thomas, regarding your response when I advance an argument against you and you don't manage to successfully refute it?

Sofia's point I was responding to was not about the substance of your argument, on which I agree with you. Unless I misunderstood her completely, the point I quoted was about form. Failure to account for an expert's opinion, or a commision's opinion, the way you do does not constitute a character flaw on her part. It doesn't constitute intentional ignorance on her part either. All it reflects is a difference between her judgment and yours.

On this point of form, I agree with Sofia. Apart from the etiquette side of it -- I get annoyed when conservatives do this to me too -- this is just stupid tactics. You aren't going to change any mind by insisting that your point is a good one, and that failure to see this constitutes a flaw on your opponent's part. All this is is going to accomplish is that you'll end up preaching to the choir or even talking to yourself -- no matter if you're right or wrong on the substance.

That's all I'm saying.


I don't remember every single time this happened, and in any case it would depend on your definition of "successfully". But the last time this happened, we agreed to disagree.

There are a several handfuls of people kicking about here with whom I greatly enjoy debate, and you are one, either because they bring fresh and unexpected wit or because they hold different notions than I but argue them with care and coherence. On many more occasions than is probably prudent, I have ignored amber traffic signals so as to get a bit more time to engage in such exchanges.

Other exchanges have not been of that sort. I have, I confess it, often become impatient and that is reflected in what has gone on above or, even more acutely, in discussions of late where state-sanctioned torture has been excused or justified or denied. I have been rude. I have been insulting. I have been alternately angered or despairing.

Two years ago, during an on-line conversation, craven suggested that I "wasn't funny any more". The comment took me up short, but the reason for it (unless of course it is really just some consequence of cellular change at the testicular level, a possibility I don't rule out) was immediately plain to me...I considered that a singular American dominance presented an incredibily unique opportunity for international political structures to be realigned, for more libraries to be built, more people to be fed and fewer people blown to bits.

But it clearly seemed not to be going that way. What alternative but to try and understand the dynamics of where things did seem to be heading? To the extent of my time and capabilities, I've read what I could, following this or that line of questions. You know, through some of the conversations we've had, various conclusions I have reached and the degree to which they are held as tentative or pretty damned certain.

And a fundamental conclusion is that world dominance by America is beset by particular failings which are a consequence of America's unique history, its self-identity and the mythologies which are not only at odds with real states of affairs, but which commonly inhibit or prohibit perception of those states of affairs. Of course, this or something similar would be the case regardless of what culture/nation was dominant, but that is an observation which, once noted and acknowledged, has no further service but justification.

There are any number of dangers in holding such a view, not least of which are some of those described in Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style of American Politics. I might be guilty myself of exactly what I condemn.

But 57% of Americans still believe that Sadaam supported the terrorists behind 9-11. And America is now torturing innocent people. And these pages here offer up every justification for these events that one might have once found floating about your city, or Boise Idaho, or North Bend BC as to why Jews were better when not living. Meanwhile, there is the Sudan, and coastal cities world-wide preparing or not for beach homes getting really wet.

What does one do when bits of the sky are landing about one's feet? Re-read the child's story to gain perspective?

This is an excellent piece I just bumped into
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/06/17/anti_americanism/index.html

One tries to persuade Americans that they are living in "The Truman Show". One acts understandingly when they meet such an assertion with skepticism. One leaves it for them to decide whether they find one's argument persuasive, and one doesn't hold it against them when they don't.

At least that's what makes the most sense to me.