[Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

While I agree with your comments and analysis found in the first three
paragraphs with some agreement with the content of the fourth paragraph with
reservations, I do not think that you made your case with respect to your
last two paragraphs:

>Let me pull out another Neil quote: "The very essence of puerility was not 
>allowing criticism of Obama in the buildup to the election by saying those 
>who held a consistent anti-war ethic somehow wanted McCain/Palin to win the

>election.  It was intellectually lazy and the sticking of one's head in the

>proverbial sand."

>Of course there is nothing ad hominem here, right? I rest my case

There is nothing literally ad hominem in the quote, which mentions no names
or particular people except McCain and Palin but comments on the use of the
term puerility as a descriptor, on the substantive nature and content of
alleged accusations made about the intent and impact of pre-election
critical comments, and about how Neil viewed and evaluated such criticisms.
It appears that you and I have very different ideas as to what constitutes
an ad hominen argument.  This surprises me since it is typically you who
have assumed a literal stances when defining and using labels and concepts
(i.e., law of the excluded middle, where you insist on defining it in
technical terms rather than regarding it as referencing in general
"either/or" types of arguments) where I have on those occasions assumed a
figurative stance (although that is not typically something that I normally
try to do but deliberately do so only in special circumstances).

With respect to the reservations that I have regarding total acceptance of
your fourth paragraph (Issue advocacy groups such as AWARE are effective
only to the extent that they put aside party and ideology and stick to the
issues being advocated), that only happens when all the parties agree in
substance and form to the general goals and means to achieve those goals;
moreover, until such unanimity as to the generalized goals and methods is
reached, it is perfectly legitimate and often necessary to engage in an
argument and debate over the differences or engage in a forced or voluntary
purge of the dissenters.  I take it that the later is not a valued
alternative, which means that until consensus is reached differences in
opinion and perspective, approach and evaluation, are legitimate and not to
be shut down under the pretense of needing to show a united front to be
effective.  As history has shown, umbrella organizations and movements are
generally not focused or effective and frequently break up into splinter
groups because the generalized consensus is more symbolic than factual when
one gets down to the details.  This is specifically true of issue advocacy
groups and may account for why AWARE is so small in active membership.

-----Original Message-----
From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Bob Illyes
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 10:33 AM
To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: [Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???

Neil complained to Mort regarding Mort's supposed "ad hominem attacks on 
Carl, me and others." This is an odd comment, coming as a part of the 
full-bore ad hominem attacks on Obama and liberals that Carl has been 
carrying on for several years at least.

At the heart of this conflict seems to be a difference of opinion as to 
whether the middle class and liberalism are the solution, or whether they 
are, as Marx thought, the problem. Obama is being used as a proxy for this 
difference of opinion, which is a waste of every ones time except for those 
who wish to argue for argument's sake.

What you may miss, Neil, is that Mort does not care if you and Carl differ 
with him on politics or politicians. What he cares about, I suspect he will 
agree, is Carl's ongoing efforts to promote Carl's unusual analysis as the 
consensus position of AWARE, which it most definitely is not.

Issue advocacy groups such as AWARE are effective only to the extent that 
they put aside party and ideology and stick to the issues being advocated.

Let me pull out another Neil quote: "The very essence of puerility was not 
allowing criticism of Obama in the buildup to the election by saying those 
who held a consistent anti-war ethic somehow wanted McCain/Palin to win the 
election.  It was intellectually lazy and the sticking of one's head in the 
proverbial sand."

Of course there is nothing ad hominem here, right? I rest my case.

Bob

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss