Over at PrismWarden, Robbie offers some insight into the recent debate between Christopher Hitchens and George Galloway. Hitchens shares his thoughts on the debate here (HT: Powerline), but I found Robbie’s post a better read. As an outside observer, he provides a most unique perspective.
Robbie noted that:
Galloway’s entire argument, it seemed, was that Christopher Hitchens opposed intervention in Iraq during the 1991 Gulf War, thus supporting it now nullifies anything to be said on the topic. Similarly, Galloway’s answer against the present war on terror seems to rest entirely on the realpolitik practices of the U.S. and Britain during the 1970’s and 1980s. We helped create the situation, you see.
To oppose these various regimes now makes us hypocrites.
Indeed, Robbie finds that “For many on the Left, hypocrisy is quite possibly the greatest crime one can ever possibly commit.” Thus, instead of engaging supporters of the war (or indeed, advocates of any argument they oppose), liberals are all to eager to nitpick at the hypocrisies (or alleged hypocrisies) of conservatives rather than address the merits of their arguments. Recall, the ruckus a few months back over the supposed hypocrisy of Jeff Gannon? As if the hypocrisy of a reporter for a two-bit news organization who happened to get a White House press pass somehow merited national attention.
Anyway, I think Robbie’s right on the money about many on the left. They’re all to eager to dwell on our hypocrisy (or supposed hypocrisy) as if it absolves them of the responsibility of making real arguments. He has more to say on this topic — and says it in a manner that is fun to read — so just read the whole thing!
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
Yes, it’s liberals that all dwell on hypocrisy.
“Shocking… simply shocking. I never would have guessed! Funny, the Gay Leftists want marriage but hate the institutions of religion… and they protest against the war (one in where we were attacked repeatedly), yet want gays to be allowed in the military. Can you say bi-polar?”
Guess who said this? Yeah. Talk about dwelling on hypocrisy:
http://gaypatriot.net/2005/09/16/national-gay-groups-to-march-in-anti-war-demonstration
Haha, you guys really are the “parents” in the gay household. “Blah blah blah Hypocrisy” “We don’t dwell on hypocrisy! You do!” “Wah-Wah-Wah!”
Yeah, yeah…
Joey,
Pointing out hypocrisy is not dwelling on it, nor does it absolve someone of their own.
A good example of not dweling on it would be providing sound solutions, not mearly attempting to break down another’s argument, like a defense lawyer getting a guilty client off through slight-of-hand or trickery.
You seem to be pointing towards possible hypocrisy in an attempt to deflect hypocrisy charges. I am asking this as polite and sincere as possible … did you read Robbie’s blog entry, as Dan said to ?
(I love how Dan does that, it reminds me of my time as an educator when I told my students to ‘look it up’ and then get back to me 🙂 )
This entry reminds me of something from earlier today; Mother Moonbat calling out Hillary for voting to authorize the war, and claiming Hillary really opposes the war, but just hasn’t spoken out yet.
The fact is, I think a lot of the anti-war Democrats really do understand that the War in Iraq is necessary, really don’t believe their own rhetoric about “war based on lies,” and understand that we’re doing good over there. I think even John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, The NYT Editorial Board and Howard Dean realize that. (Although probably not Barbara Boxer, who’s just not the sharpest tool in the shed.) Just like the Democrats know there’s no reason to vote against John Roberts or expect him to answer any question other (liberal) judges have not been required to answer. And they know the hyperbolic Bush bashing about Hurricane Katrina is over the top, but they do it anyway.
And they fact that they know the truth, but just echo the ttacks and the lies lies just makes them so much more reprehensible. They only do it because of a cynical, greedy calculus that there’s political advantage to tearing down our war effort. In the meantime, they encourage our enemies, and they weaken our resolve to do the right thing.
Joey-
Putting “Wah-Wah-Wah!” in someone else’s mouth isn’t the best way to convince others that you are the mature one.
VtK-
I continue to believe that alot of the name-calling from the left is a self-defense technique. If you know that you are guilty of arguing “ad hominem” — quickly accuse your opponent of doing so. When he then responds by quite correctly pointing out that that’s exactly what you’re doing, the accusation will just sound lame, like he couldn’t even make up his own unsupported accusation.
Dont’cha know…dey’s all about hypocricy, brotha! Yes’m. Dey loves da Jews but hates Israel. Dey loves da Blacks but hates Condi Rice. Dey loves da troops but hates da military. Dey loves dey freedom but dey hates America.
Yup, dat’s da left fo ya. Hip-o-crits! Dirty, dirty hypocrites. Ever lass one of um.
Curious that when someone moves from the Left to Right, they’re called hypocrites, but when they move to the Left, they’re “maturing” or “growing”.
As opposed to conservatives who point at two men and yell about the downfall of civilization yes?
I mean, who needs real arguments.
I can’t believe this only just hit me.
Read #1 again.
Dan wrote that instead of addressing (his) arguments, leftists just call (him) a hypocrite.
Joey responded: You hypocrite!!
Artfully done. Bravo!
#9 – That was too deliciously perfect for words.
Folks on BOTH sides of America’s great political divide talk about hypocrisy as if each stands as the sentinel against it, when the truth is there is an ample supply of hypocrisy which serves as the foundation of the arguments of both sides. You want to do something novel here? Each time you point out hypocrisy from the “other side”, rest a moment and find an example of it on your “own side”. Can’t do that, can you? For that would quickly undercut some of the cheap positions on which each side rests.
QP (or DL or Reader or Monty or whoever you feel like being today)
The point was — if you, like Galloway, spend your time insulting the man, and never even bother to state your “argument” on the basis of facts and logic, then you, like Galloway, deserve no respect.
No. 12, I note that in our first discussion here, you open with an attempt to belittle any contrary points by calling into question the person making the point. That being your contribution to the art of conversation, why should anyone expect anything meaningful from you?
QP-
Perhaps we should tie this knot into a pretzel.
Since your response to this discussion, of hypocrisy-accusations as distractions from substantive arguments, is to question whether, given my response to your topic-changing accusation of “your side does that too” pointing out that this was a distraction rather than a response, anyone should expect anything meaningful from me, why would anyone here expect anything substantive from you?
How was that?
If I recall correctly, according to Chomsky (when he was doing good work in Linguistics, rather than producing insane foreign policy rants) we should be able to cram in one more clause, before our “syntactical buffer” gets overloaded.
That was actually a lot fun, and I assume it was for you too. I thought you might be able to bat the ball better than I saw in No. 12. Cheers.
I LOVE YOU CLINT! I want to have your baby. You are the cutest guy I’ve ever seen and I’ve seen a lot. Do you love me back?
Baby? You want to have his baby? You can’t HAVE babies. You’re at Gay Patriot.
So No. 16, as is being reported in other threads here, you are “Bruce”, sometimes “Monty”? Queer Patriot is now thoroughly confused — and just when I was starting to get the names straight.