Calendar Check: National Conservative Student Conference, July 29-August 4, Washington, D.C.
The National Conservative Student Conference takes place July 29-August 4 at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.Military recruiters seeking to ensure that they make their FY-2007 [ends Sept. 30] quotas should find many well qualified, motivated patriots who should already want to Be A Man! Enlist!
posted by OYE @ 6/25/2007 03:51:00 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
From Mr. X:
It is incorrect to say that all you do is encourage the future leader's of the President's part to set a good example. If this were the case you wouldn't need to attack young Republicans by calling them chickenhawks.
Continuing with the numerous flaws in logic:
You tell your readers, You can't support the war unless you fight in it. You also assert that TRUE supporters of the president enlist and fight. This what is known as a false choice. (another logical fallacy) Of course it's possible to support the war and not fight in it, of course it's possible to support the president but not fight in the war. To assert these as one or the other, as a soldier or a coward is flaw in logic because this is an incorrect analysis of the choices in the matter.
George Bush commited the same flaw in logic after 9/11 when he said "you're with us or you're against us (in the war on terror)."
"And the way for the Republican Party to Support President Bush and restore its credibility is for the College and Young Republicans to Be A Man! Enlist!"
This quote is what's known as a red herring argument (and argument made on an unrelated topic in order to deflect attention from the original discussion) This is also a logical fallacy. We are not discussing the credibility of the Republican party. I am directly addressing your use of language like "chickenhawk" and other similar language directed at one person, which are an attack on someone's character. You are not attacking their beliefs when you call them a chickenhawk, you are attacking them as individuals. a right wing equivalent to "chickenhawk" is when Republicans call young democrats "pinkos" or "commies." The vast majority of the time the person has nothing to do with communism, but ad hominem attacks like these are an easy way to avoid answering questions on policy from Democrats. Both sides are guilty of this.
[Who cares what a communist has to say? They're a communist.]
OYE uses this tactic to avoid directly addressing the underlying arguments for and against the war, [Who cares what a coward has to say about fighting?]
Reading these examples, it is clear that OYE is rife with logical fallacies. The issue at hand is the credibility of this blog. If the use of obvious flaws in logic continues, the credibility of relevance of your writings will continue to decline.
Anonymous sophistry! What a treat!!
From Mr. X:
Sophistry? Care to make an argument to that effect? Or were you just hoping people would believe you without thinking twice?
Mr. X-
It is incorrect to say that all you do is encourage the future leader's of the President's party to set a good example. If this were the case you wouldn't need to attack young Republicans by calling them chickenhawks.
We don't call anyone "chickenhawks." By definition, chickenhawks are too old to serve.
We only focus on Yellow Elephants, who are eligible to serve but refuse even to consider volunteering.
You tell your readers, You can't support the war unless you fight in it.
Wrong. Anyone is free to support, oppose, or not care about anything they want. But respect for one's opinions is not a right; it must be earned.
You also assert that TRUE supporters of the President enlist and fight.
Are you saying that the Young Republicans who have served, and are serving, in our military are not TRUE supporters of the President? I don't think so.
Of course it's possible to support the war and not fight in it, of course it's possible to support the President but not fight in the war.
Yes, but if you are eligible to serve [and choose not to] we, and the American people, have every right to take that fact into account in evaluating the sincerity of your support for the President and/or the war.
To assert these as one or the other, as a soldier or a coward is flaw in logic because this is an incorrect analysis of the choices in the matter.
Please see OYE 101. We are asking those eligible to serve who support the war to consider military service, and to share the results of their deliberations to the same audiences to whom they have shared their support of the war. Please read the basics [OYE 101-105] to complete your analysis of this blog.
OYE uses this tactic to avoid directly addressing the underlying arguments for and against the war, [Who cares what a coward has to say about fighting?]
Although you don't believe this, OYE has not taken a position with respect to the war.
All we say is that full disclosure of relevant personal circumstances [e.g., a war supporter is eligible to serve and has yet to consider volunteering] is essential for one's own credibility; respect for one's opinions is not a right, but must be earned.
Thank you.
Post a Comment
<< Home