“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
Comment has been blocked.
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.
Comment has been blocked.
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?
Comment has been blocked.
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.