“I just checked at Triablogue. Hays is currently on a tear with ad hominem rants and flaming straw men about what John supposedly believes about 9/11.”
Notice that Chuck doesn’t actually quote what I said. I said that Lofton is sympathetic to the 9/11 Truthers. And I documented that statement by reference an article by Lofton himself:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=982
Let’s see if Chuck can back up his allegations about “flaming straw men.”
Oh, and the bit about “ad hominem rants” is pretty rich given the way in which Vance and Lofton characterize the American military.
“Since John is apparently frustrating him, the old ‘conspiracy’ bugaboo is currently in play. The last refuge of someone who has lost an argument.”
If Chuck has such a low opinion of conspiracy theories, then he should have a low opinion of Lofton given Lofton’s view of the 9/11 Truthers.
“The ‘anti-semitism’ red herring is in play, as well.”
When Lofton and Roberts both side with Hamas, I’d say that “anti-Semitism” is alive and well. Speaking of which:
“Do these neocons have no other ammunition than lame-o name calling and false accusation?”
i) Notice that Chuck instantly reaches for the “neocon” label. A classic example of knee-jerk anti-Semitism. Thanks for illustrating the point, Chucky boy.
ii) Notice that Chuck doesn’t document the “false accusation.” Rather, he levels a false accusation of false accusation.
As I am new to your blog (this is the first time I have read it), I haven't had the opportunity to read a great deal of it so I don't know exactly where you are coming from.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I did see that you believe when someone uses the term "neocon", it indicates an "anti-Semitic" viewpoint. Could you please explain that position?
This documents the way in which "neocon" is frequently used as a "code word" for the Jewish lobby:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg052103.asp
Steve, I didn't know which blog post to address the following general question that I have, so I'll ask it on this one.
ReplyDeleteCaveat: I am going to use the words "stupidity" and "stupid". I hope that it doesn't unnecessarily offend anyone. They just seem like the appropriate words.
This blog oftentimes takes stupid arguments on a variety of topics, and exposes them for what they are. People don't like being exposed for their stupidity on a particular issue, they take offense, dig in their heels, and a flame war typically ensues.
Honestly, I enjoy a good flame war now and then because the sinner in me likes to laugh like he used to when the 3 Stooges started throwing cream pies all over the place. It cracked me up then and it still cracks me up. A flame war is like a pie fight to me.
But I'm not sure Christians are called to pie-throwing fights. So my question is this:
What is the biblical, God-honoring, God-glorifying way of handling stupidity, even gross stupidity? Stupidity from fellow Christians and stupidity from unbelievers... How are we to do it?
I personally don't mind the approach taken by triablogue, but there are others in the Christian community who object or would object to the methods and/or the perceived spirit behind the methods in taking down another person's arguments and presuppositions.
Does my question make sense? It's along the lines of being "gentle" in the defense of Gospel and biblical truth. And I'm asking because I'm often accused of not being sufficiently gentle! You guys make me look like a soft teddy bear!
To some extent, it’s a temperamental question. One person’s psychological makeup varies in relation to another. Some people are easygoing, others are edgier. For example, Jason Engwer is obviously a much nicer guy than I am. It you could clone one of us, by all means make it Jason rather than me.
ReplyDeleteTriablogue, because of its apologetic emphasis, is a magnet for combative commenters. To some extent, the tone of the combox is set by the commenters.
I can have perfectly civil discussions with folks who disagree with me, whether believers or unbelievers. And there are examples of that in the archives.
However, we attract a disproportionate number of unreasonable commenters. Or we post on the unreasonable beliefs of unreasonable people.
In a sense, that’s inevitable, given our apologetic emphasis. Apologetics has a polemical edge. That’s the nature of the beast.
Otherwise reasonable people can be committed to an irrational belief-system like Islam or Mormonism or atheism or Catholicism. As a result, they resort to bad arguments. There are no good arguments for falsehood.
In terms of my own practice, I’ll give a commenter the benefit of the doubt for the first few rounds—unless he’s utterly egregious from the get-go.
What frequently happens, though, is that a commenter will sound fairly reasonable at first, but as his objections are shot down, one-by-one, the quality of his argumentation quickly deteriorates.
People also tend to forget that the Internet is not their friend. Like movie fans who identify with their favorite movie star as if he’s their best friend, many people are apt to forget that this is an essentially faceless, anonymous medium of communication between two or more strangers. It’s not like talking to a guy you knew in junior high or high school. But many people no longer know the difference between public and private conduct.
That also brings us to a difference between pastoral theology and polemical theology. If, say, an unbeliever launches a public attack on the Christian faith, we have a right to unsparingly attack his position.
If, however, I had a face-to-face conversation with someone who is expressing his doubts about the faith, that demands an entirely different approach.
There are also Christians who have a preconception of Christian etiquette which has no solid basis in Scripture. It’s like the parody of the Christian “gentlemen” in Victorian novels. A novel of manners.
Finally, I do not tolerate professing believers who hide behind their Christian profession as a shield to excuse their shoddy or unscriptural arguments. I do not expect people to give my arguments a free pass because I claim to be a Christian, and I hold them to the same standard of intellectual probity.
Thanks for the thoughtful answer Steve. I'm saving it in my personal archives! I'll trot it out whenever the occasion warrants!
ReplyDeleteMy personal experience is this: Some/many people equate their personhood with the positions that they adopt and espouse. This is a gross and common mistake. But they do. So when their deeply held position is exposed for the stupidity that it contains..., then they take it PERSONALLY, and they think you're demeaning them personally, and calling them stupid.
They rarely get the point that while I'm saying that the position that they're arguing for is specious and faulty, they themselves are not necessarily stupid.
And I apply the same standard to myself. If I hold an untenable position, and you expose the stupidity in my position, and the poor reasoning and bad presuppositions of my argument, then believe it or not... I'm GRATEFUL!!!
I don't get pissed off. Nor do I think that you think I'm stupid for having held an erroneous position. For goodness sakes, how is anybody gonna learn anything unless they learn what's wrong and to be humble as well in accepting the correction?
There is "Political Correctness" and there is "Christian Correctness". Both of them are bad.
I appreciate you and I appreciate this blog.
P.S. If we can merge polemical and pastoral together, then that's the ideal. But I always like what John MacArthur said, "What's more loving than telling someone the truth?"
From http://www.nationalreview.com/
ReplyDeletegoldberg/goldberg052003.asp
The word "neoconservative" was coined by Michael Harrington and the editors of Dissent to describe their old friends who'd moved to the right. It was an insult, along the lines of "running dog" or "fellow traveler." Or perhaps the "neo" was intended to conjure "neo-Nazi," the only other political label to sport the prefix. As Seymour Martin Lipset, one of the most-respected social scientists of the 20th century and an original neocon wrote, the term "was invented as an invidious label to undermine political opponents, most of whom have been unhappy with being so described."
Since this definition of "neocon" explains that it is a term used to describe one's political philosophy, how is it that it is now defined by you as an anti-Semitic slur?
If I oppose someone's political philosophy, and they label themselves "neoconservative", how is it that if I oppose their political philosophy and use their own term "neoconservative" or "neocon", that I would be consided by you to be "anti-Semitic"?
A quote from Irving Kristol
"A neoconservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality."
TUAD most of the time this style of arguing leads to endless quibbling and squabbling between theologically conservative Christians who agree about 99% of everything. For evidence, see:
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/05/tektonic-faultlines-1.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/02/postmortem-on-holding-1.html#comments
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/12/circular-excuses.html
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/12/on-condescension-and-hubris.html
For examples of how they treat RCCs:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/anti-catholicism-index-page.html
Abolitionist said:
ReplyDelete"Since this definition of "neocon" explains that it is a term used to describe one's political philosophy, how is it that it is now defined by you as an anti-Semitic slur?"
You're confusing how a word originated with how it evolved. Jonah Goldberg, in the very article I referred you to, explains how the term has come to single out Jewish conservatives.
Moreover, I made my statement in the context of The American View, where the anti-Semiticism is already on display, from Lofton and Roberts. That setting selects for the Jewish denotation.
Vegetarians take the same position as Hitler. Are they genocidal Anti-Semites as well?
ReplyDeleteI'm actually not confusing anything. The author Goldberg seems to be deflecting criticism of ideas using the anti-Semitic label. Since he holds the same viewpoints as the "neoconservatives" he writes about, isn't he just dismissing criticism of his viewpoints?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that if someone disagreed with and criticized Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton for their political viewpoints and was labeled a racist for doing so, the charge of racism would hold as much water as the charge of antisemitism when one criticizes a neoconservative's viewpoint.
Many people label George W. Bush and Dick Cheney neoconservatives. The same is said of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Hugh Hewitt. They are labeled such because of their political philosophy. None are Jewish.
Also, could you point me to some examples of antisemitism displayed on the American View blog?
Thanks for the links thnuhthnuh.
ReplyDeleteI've crossed paths with Michael Spencer, the Internet Monk, and he has never apologized to me for the offenses he has committed against me. The Centuri0n is aware of the InternetMonk's hypocrisy.
So, I guess I'm saying that Steve Hays and the Internet Monk having a disagreement is no surprise to me. The I-Monk has a following, no doubt about it, but I'm rather dubious about the I-Monk's post-evangelical journey. Nor do I consider him a conservative. Him being a SBC pastor seems kinda weird to me.
Thanks again.
Pax.
I'm actually not confusing anything. The author Goldberg seems to be deflecting criticism of ideas using the anti-Semitic label. Since he holds the same viewpoints as the "neoconservatives" he writes about, isn't he just dismissing criticism of his viewpoints?
ReplyDeleteI think you need to reread the article. He says very clearly that the term "Neoconservative" is used to conjure images of bagel snarfing Rasputins. (eg. Jews). So, he's saying that term is used in a perojorative sense to refer to the Jewish lobby.
Cf: First, if being a conservative for war and democracy makes you a neocon, then roughly 90 percent of the Republican party is "neoconservative" according to most polls. This may say something historically interesting about Republicans today — it does — but doesn't it also suggest that maybe, just maybe, talk of a "neoconservative cabal" is a bit misleading? When liberal journalists vent about "crusading neocons" who have "mesmerized the president" into war (Dowd's words), they make it sound as if these presumably bagel-snarfing Rasputins are forcing the president to do something a normal, non-prefixed conservative would oppose.