Saturday, June 23, 2007

Responding to yet Another Anonymous

In response to the anonymous comment 6 on 21 June, 2007

Anon: I'm saying I don't support large portions of Bush's agenda. You assume that because i'm a Republican I therefore a support the war, and therefore deserve to be a target of your attacks. When in reality these are nothing more than assumptions, and incorrect ones at that. I, like many other Republicans, am incredibly frustrated with the war and would like to see it come to an end as soon as possible. The issue is far more nuanced than you'd like to make it out to be. Of course I want the war to end. Who in their right mind openly advocates a solution that isn't designed to speed up the withdrawal process while leaving Iraq secure? (Don't waste my time citing names, we all know who they are.) The argument about the war is in the manner in which we will leave Iraq. Few are questioning that it's time to leave.

Wek from O.Y.E: If you are really in favor of leaving Iraq I'm wondering if you have anything documented displaying your opposition to Our Country's war- Have you written to a newspaper? Participated in protests? Maybe you have a saved E-mail when you contacted your Senator? Do you post as anonymous for fear of being ridiculed by your Republican peers when you can display true leadership by bringing your convictions forward? Or are you one of the Republicans who have recently (and curiously) been haunted by "buyer's remorse" over the Iraq War (it's a growing movement with the impending 2008 elections) and now seek to distance yourself from it? We, at O.Y.E., would not waste our efforts targeting those that were never in favor of the conflict. Look through our archives. O.Y.E. hasn't exactly searched long and far in finding eligible-to-serve-Republicans who are in favor of the war they're unwilling to fight in. If you truly wish for Our Country to expedite the withdrawal process what's a better way to help than to Be A Man! Enlist! Our Servicemen sincerely need help to complete the mission.

Anon: Furthermore, don't act like "this blog hasn't taken a stance on the war." How stupid do you think people are? You're clearly anti-war and anti-Republican. You're also a perfect example of one of the root causes of the deep divide in this nation. You are a group of amateur journalists that are, in a small way, contributing the rapid decline in the civility and productivity of political discourse in this country. What do you aim to accomplish by publicly embarrassing young republicans? Sure, you've made a few of them look like asses, which will last in peoples memories for a day or so. But to what end do you spend your life "investigating" young men and women who support the war yet are not signed up in the military?

Wek: Wrong on anti-war- O.Y.E. has never taken a stance for/against the war. Our Armed Forces are in Iraq and will continue to be in Iraq for at least the next 19 months. Bickering about how and why we got there does not help our Servicemen. Getting more boots on the ground will.

Wrong on anti-Republican- O.Y.E was pleased to document George P. Bush's entrance into the Naval Reserve. There is NO reluctance on our part to chronicle credible members of the Young Republicans. O.Y.E. also called out actor Matt Damon (hardly a far right guy). It just 'so happens' that there are many Young Republicans that are/were for the war that will cost them/their families nothing.

I find it odd that you'd criticize us "amateur journalists" for ruining political discourse. We've taken the liberty to give YOU a voice by posting and responding to your comments at the top of our blog. Call MSNBC and ask them if they can get you on at the top of the hour to debate an issue. Drop by the Wall Street Journal and ask them to have your thoughts on their front page. Never before in Our Nation's history have so many people been able to voice their thoughts/opinions/hell, even cooking recipes. By it's very nature, journalism left to publicly traded corporations would be uneager to cover every story with brutal honesty. Whether you agree with the topic at hand or not, even a loony argument (i.e. Sept. 11th was an inside job) can possibly lead to some type of intelligent discourse.

Anon: I think it's time for OYE to Be a man! and start using wit over sarcasm and intellect over vacuous insinuations about other people's character. attack Ideas, don't attack people. You can destroy one person's character, but there will always be someone else to pick up the torch of the ideas they espoused. It is in the intellectual destruction of ideas that you will find relevance in your writings.

Wek: You may believe that we have, in some part, contributed to destroying a person's character. The fact is they have done this to themselves by not being a credible leader in setting the example they expect others to follow. You call for us to attack only ideas, but you neglect to comprehend that it is PEOPLE who spawn these ideas and PEOPLE should be held accountable for the thoughts they express. Fortunately for many we've posted on it's not too late- most are still within the age limits to Serve Our Country and redeem themselves. O.Y.E. will gladly do an updated post if any of our past subjects Step Up.

Of course there will be people to "pick up the torch" of ideas spoken by the less-than-credible. Every one's hope should be that the next in line should have more integrity.

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am of eligible age to serve. I am also heterosexual. I was determined to be not healthy to serve in the Army in 2004 due to a heart condition known as Hypertrophic Cardio Myopathy. I was naive (arrogant?) to think that my past 'physical resume' of having been a collegiate athlete, and more recently a competitive bodybuilder and duathlete, would have been enough to have been granted a waiver. I was wrong and I regret wasting hours of my recruiter's time.


At 24 June, 2007 08:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is hypertrophic cardio myopathy a condition that you brought to the recruiter's attention? If you were so intent on serving I'm surprised you mentioned the condition at all.

At 24 June, 2007 09:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You call for us to attack only ideas, but you neglect to comprehend that it is PEOPLE who spawn these ideas and PEOPLE should be held accountable for their thoughts they express.

So why did you highlight Tyler Whitney? What was his crime that he needed to be held accountable for? That he was an anti-war republican working for a pro-war republican candidate? You think it is a better situation that republican candidates surround themselves with no one who could influence them against Iraq or future conflicts? This site needs to stop pretending to be anti-war. It is only anti-republican.

At 24 June, 2007 12:46, Blogger OYE said...

anonymous (24 June, 2007 08:35)-

Is hypertrophic cardio myopathy a condition that you brought to the recruiter's attention? If you were so intent on serving I'm surprised you mentioned the condition at all.

Our military has specific standards and requirements. Applicants are required to tell the truth. This includes full disclosure of diagnosed medical conditions.

Wek contacted a recruiter and told the truth. It was the Army's decision not to take him.

How about you? Have you ever seen the inside of a recruiting office, or spoken with a military recruiter?

At 24 June, 2007 16:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous,

When exactly did you change your mind about the war in Iraq?



At 24 June, 2007 17:01, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I've never changed my mind about Iraq. It has always been a bad idea.

At 24 June, 2007 17:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous,

What did people say when you told them this?


At 24 June, 2007 18:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Said they disagreed and then we'd discuss.

At 25 June, 2007 01:18, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is from the anonymous that they are responding to with the most recent post.....from now on known as "Mr. X"

You can't attack people's character and expect to be taken seriously. Your posts about young Republicans are what is known as an adhominen argument (attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself) and it is a logical fallacy (false argument). If you are ok attacking someones character rather than their ideas, then you do not deal in the realm of logical thought. as a result, no person interested in a logical discussion about the war, or those that fight would come to you for your thoughts. Nor are your thoughts relevant in a line of logical thinking or discussion.
The only place and ad hominem attack is deemed an appropriate line of argumentation is in a courtroom where the credibility of a witness is in question. (I don't see a judge or jury here)
Because of your insistence on attacking SOMEONE rather than their arguments, you have relegated yourself to the ash heap of intellectual discourse along side people like Rush Limbaugh and al Franken. (Both of whom consistently attack people rather than ideas)

At 25 June, 2007 18:07, Blogger OYE said...

Mr. X, AKA anonymous (25 June, 2007, 01:18)-

Since we've taken no position on the war itself, you're missing the point, but here are some relevant comments:

We're not attacking anyone's character. We're just encouraging the future leaders of Our President's Party to set a good example for the rest of us.

You seem to forget that Americans must volunteer for military service. This is the essence of national leadership responsibility: If you only support a war if "other people" fight it, then you don't really support the war after all.

So, to the extent that you might perceive Operation Yellow Elephant as ad hominem [we don't agree], it has to do with credibility.

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!

At 25 June, 2007 18:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

you are a sack of feces, the ultimate coward. you are a despicable child who is quite content sniping at those you perceive to be your domestic adversaries that it consumes your (admittedly few) resources. what a punkass bitch. at least you are in the party that doesnt give a damn about truth or accountability. stolen any elections lately?

At 27 June, 2007 10:22, Blogger nonsequitur said...

It's not a logical fallacy to pester Republicans who support the war about enlisting, as long as its not meant to discredit anyone's argument in favor of or against the war. It's only a fallacy--the ad hominem is a fallacy of relevance--if one is meant to draw the erroneous conclusion that the young Republicans' arguments in favor of the war are hollow because he doesn't not want to fight it. His arguments may be fine, but he's a cynical or deceptive person for not making the obvious connections--if the war is a good one, the army is hurting for recruits (it is), I support the war, then I ought to consider fighting it. So that really is a separate question from whether the war is justified or not, or whether the arguments in favor of it or against it advanced by anyone are any good or not. So, sorry, it's not a fallacy.


Post a Comment

<< Home