Ferrari Mailing List: OFF TOPIC - The good 'ole chickenhawk argument

[Dennis Liu (BigHeadDennis]

So, as I was saying...

"2.  Dr. Steve, wrapping himself in the flag and his own righteous
indignation, has resorted to the "chickenhawk" argument, the last refuge of,
well, fill it in how you will."


What's a chickenhawk?  "Chickenhawk is an epithet used in United States
politics to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who votes for
war, supports war, commands a war, or develops war policy, but has not
personally served in the military."

Dr. Steve is falling back on the old, bullying, ad hominem argument that
just because someone hasn't served in the military, he or she is therefore
automatically disqualified from speaking out on military issues.  See, e.g,
John Kerry Campaign, 2002-2004.  :-)

Let's leave aside for the moment that NOTHING that we're blathering on about
has anything to do with military service.

How many folks out here really think Dr. Steve's argument/insult holds
water?  Ask yourself these questions.

*IF* Dennis was a medal-of-honor winning Marine that helped raise the flag
on Iwo Jima in WWII, would that make his criticism of Dr. Steve's reasoning:

(a)  MORE credible
(b)  LESS credible
(c)  no effect.

*IF* Dennis was born without arms or legs (and therefore did not serve in
the armed forces), would that make his criticism of Dr. Steve's reasoning:

(a)  MORE credible
(b)  LESS credible
(c)  no effect.
 
The chickenhawk-type of argument only reveals the shortcomings of the person
that hurls it.  For example:

"You can't speak out on affirmative action because you're not black."
"No one should listen to you on abortion rights because you're not a woman."
"Marriage is a universal right, and you have no right to criticize because
you're not gay."
"Because I contracted AIDS from sharing a dirty needle, I am qualified to
speak out on health care policy and you're not."
"I'm Cindy Sheehan, and I lost a son to war.  You, President Bush, have not.
Ergo, everything I say has moral authority, and nothing you say has any
consequence whatsoever."

Hey, I'm not a child molester.  Does that mean I can't express an opinion on
laws against child pornography?

Best of all ---  Dr. Steve, you Barry Goldwater campaigner, you crazy kid:
George McGovern flew 35 combat missions in World War II.  Ronald Reagan was
an actor during the war.  Which side would you likely take in an argument
about the proper use of military force?

Yes, allow me to decry the shame of (sob) being born and raised during a
time when the good ole' US of A was not actually engaged in any combat with
an enemey state (that lasted more than a couple of weeks).  Therefore, I
must clearly be unworthy of ever asserting a position on anything even
remotely touching military matters.  Including a philosophical discussion of
what Lenin truly believed.

Yeesh.

Vty,

--Dennis



________________________________

From: BRIGANDBAR [at] aol.com [mailto:BRIGANDBAR [at] aol.com] 
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 6:54 PM
To: BigHeadDennis [at] earthlink.net
Cc: ferrari [at] ferrarilist.com
Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC - RE: [Ferrari] Related to Business Banking


Dennis:
 
I have to say that since the days that I worked as a student in Barry
Goldwater's campaign, through the time that I slugged through the jungles of
Vietnam, to years of work in counter-terrorism no one has ever called me a
"Communist". Fascist once or twice, but never a Communist. I am sure you
earned the right to do that by fighting in either the jungles with me, or in
Somalia and a few other places, or in the desert country of the Middle East,
or some other diligent service to the country either first in the Cold War
or subsequently in the Middle East or in our struggle against terrorism and
terrorist attacks upon U. S. interests. Maybe you will enlighten us on how
and when you earned the right to attach that label on anyone. I know all
about free speech, but there is also the responsibility to temper that right
with sound judgement lest you become all that you seem to oppose.
 
Frankly, I don't give a damn if the U.S. government runs the Postal Service.
I just hate special interest contractors who profit at taxpayer's expense.
Remember, it is not voluntary taxation. I'm not sure how self-publishing
postage for packages differs from self-publishing stamps for first class
mail, but I'll explore that possibility and if it is in fact a free way to
get postage at my computer without paying Pitney Bowes or some other company
for the privilege of saving the government and taxpayers the costs of
printing and publishing stamps, etc. In the meantime perhaps you can perhaps
explain how disagreeing with your interpretation of free enterprise makes me
a Communist? Nor do I believe I am one of those Viva Cuba Libre. In fact
when I was out there attempting to control the adverse effects of the
Marialito invasion of the U.S. by Cuba I don't remember you participating in
that anti-Communist sparring event either.
 
And, you deliberately mischaracterize my comment that when the government,
for better or worse, decides with public ratification to provide a public
service it should not facilitate the creation of industries that piggy-back
off of that service and through a cooperative effort with the government
agency involved whether it is Haliburton or Pitney Bowes.
 
But I sincerely appreciate your concern for fighting my brand of Communism
with great risk to your carpal tunnel processes. That is probably what true
American patriotism and the Minuteman spirit is really about.
 
Dr. Steve 
 
1964 Rolls Royce Silver Cloud III    1975 Pontiac GV Conv.
1980 MB 450SL                            1982 RR Corniche
1988 Rolls Royce Silver Spur         1994 F-350 Powerstroke 4x4          
1996 Bronco                                 2000 Lincoln Town Car
1995 Ferrari 348 Spyder                2004 Excursion
+ Audrey's 3x MB's
 
Dr. Stephen B. Spies, CES, CFI
Director, Forensic Sciences Laboratory
Explosives Engineering Technologies

Legal Notice: This message does not constitute legal or other professional
advice, nor does it create an Attorney/Client, or other confidential or
fiduciary relationship between the sender and/or any other party

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail (including attachments) is covered by
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U. S. C., Sections 2510-2521,
and is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed, and
may contain confidential or privileged material. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure, dissemination, copying, forwarding or distribution is
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient contact the sender by
reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the
intended recipient but do not wish to receive communications through this
medium please so advise the sender immediately.

Electronic Transmission Security Notice: E-mail transmission cannot be
guaranteed to be secure or error-free. The sender does not accept liability
for any errors or omissions in the contents of the message that arise as a
result of its electronic (e-mail) transmission.