Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Paul Campos and Moral Equivalence Blindness
There are parts of Paul Campos' column in the Rocky Mountain News today that make sense. Carbon offsets are bullpucky. Al Gore is a 'do as I say, not do as I do' hypocrite. But Campos has to be Campos and reveals his inability to distinguish between substantially different situations.
Namely, Campos trots out the incredibly insulting chicken hawk argument and equates that to Warmie unwillingness to practice what they preach. Campos sets up a strawman, Jonah (Goldman?), who posts lots of things on the Internet in which he argues that the Iraq war is the central front in the war on terror, and that the war on terror is a fight for America’s survival.
Campos calls him a hypocrite and a coward for not joining the military and going to Iraq to fight. Really? So everyone who has an opinion favorable about our nation's actions in Iraq needs to join the military otherwise that person is a hypocritical coward? This is schoolyard logic. If I have a strong opinion about enforcing our laws, am I a hypocritical coward if I don't join the police force? If I have a strong opinion about the utter horribleness of our public schooI systems, am I a hypocritical coward if I don't become a teacher? The list of career choices for each of my opinions is nearly endless but I can only do one thing at a time. Campos is a maroon on this line of argument. You don't have to be a soldier to have a valid opinion about the war.
It's a little better than that because he at least distinguishes between someone who has an opinion and someone who voices his or her opinion on a blog. It's just the bloggers who support the war but don't join the military who are hypocritical coward.
But there is a real difference between a blogger, even a popular one, and Al Gore making a documentary and testifying before Congress and generally becoming the oracle of Warmie faith. That's a whole magnitude of investment greater than a blogger, just as someone with a blog is a tiny magnitude greater than a person with an unvoiced on the internet opinion.
Never strong on logic, Campos here completely abandons discriminating between the substantial differences between Gore and Jonah. But an utter lack of ability to discriminate between substantial differences has become an identifying attribute of the left.
Namely, Campos trots out the incredibly insulting chicken hawk argument and equates that to Warmie unwillingness to practice what they preach. Campos sets up a strawman, Jonah (Goldman?), who posts lots of things on the Internet in which he argues that the Iraq war is the central front in the war on terror, and that the war on terror is a fight for America’s survival.
Campos calls him a hypocrite and a coward for not joining the military and going to Iraq to fight. Really? So everyone who has an opinion favorable about our nation's actions in Iraq needs to join the military otherwise that person is a hypocritical coward? This is schoolyard logic. If I have a strong opinion about enforcing our laws, am I a hypocritical coward if I don't join the police force? If I have a strong opinion about the utter horribleness of our public schooI systems, am I a hypocritical coward if I don't become a teacher? The list of career choices for each of my opinions is nearly endless but I can only do one thing at a time. Campos is a maroon on this line of argument. You don't have to be a soldier to have a valid opinion about the war.
It's a little better than that because he at least distinguishes between someone who has an opinion and someone who voices his or her opinion on a blog. It's just the bloggers who support the war but don't join the military who are hypocritical coward.
But there is a real difference between a blogger, even a popular one, and Al Gore making a documentary and testifying before Congress and generally becoming the oracle of Warmie faith. That's a whole magnitude of investment greater than a blogger, just as someone with a blog is a tiny magnitude greater than a person with an unvoiced on the internet opinion.
Never strong on logic, Campos here completely abandons discriminating between the substantial differences between Gore and Jonah. But an utter lack of ability to discriminate between substantial differences has become an identifying attribute of the left.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 5:58 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
Rog,
I am glad the barrel is impervious to your firearms and equally glad that you remain non Campos mentis.
Of course you can't be a hypocrtical coward about the public schoo system b/c you were a teacher.
Regards,
T
I am glad the barrel is impervious to your firearms and equally glad that you remain non Campos mentis.
Of course you can't be a hypocrtical coward about the public schoo system b/c you were a teacher.
Regards,
T
# posted by 
: 12:50 PM
: 12:50 PM
And an utter lack of ability to be competent about anything has been an identifying attribute of the administration which the Right has put in power. Hell, you can't even fire people without screwing it all up.
# posted by : 4:32 PM
: 4:32 PM
You are quick to dismiss Campos as not worth the effort, Tony. How come he's a professor and we're just practicing plebes; he has a newspaper column and I just a lowly third tier blog? Anon, I know the Democrat talking point is "utter" incompetence-- but we have a roaring ecomony, low inflation, low unemployment, 50 million Muslims freed and voting at the cost of unprecedented low casualty rates; yeah, we Republicans can't do nothing right. Aren't those U.S. Attorneys still fired? Oh, that's right, it's the Democrat faux scandal of the week. The country is up in arms that a political decision was made to fire political appointees. They're manning the barricades as we chat here. Try for an original thought for once.
Rog,
I will not address your comments to Anon except to say that had the appropriate person from the Justice Dept. said the the 8 US Atttorneys: "Thank you for your service. The President wishes you to resign." I don't think there would be a controversy.
When the Justice Dept. comes up w/ explanations, like "Your performance was the reason for your dismissal," when in fact that is a fabrication, then there is a problem.
As for law school professors, I cannot generalize. Campos teaches property. He practiced for a Chicago firm, Latham & Watkins for only one year. He has 3 dgrees from Michigan: an AB; an MA in English; and a JD.
He may be book smart, but that does not make him a great critical thinker.
Why does he have a column and we do not. Good question. Remember that the RMN is at best a 2nd rate newspaper. Just b/c he writes for it does not mean he either has anything worthwhile to say or can say it w/ any elan.
I am quite certain that you or I could do better.
I am not saying he is not worth the effort. I only mean that either b/c of your superior critical thinking or b/c of his flights of fancy, shooting holes in his editorials is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Maybe we should challenge him to some kind of point-counterpoint.
"Paul, you ignorant slut...."
I will not address your comments to Anon except to say that had the appropriate person from the Justice Dept. said the the 8 US Atttorneys: "Thank you for your service. The President wishes you to resign." I don't think there would be a controversy.
When the Justice Dept. comes up w/ explanations, like "Your performance was the reason for your dismissal," when in fact that is a fabrication, then there is a problem.
As for law school professors, I cannot generalize. Campos teaches property. He practiced for a Chicago firm, Latham & Watkins for only one year. He has 3 dgrees from Michigan: an AB; an MA in English; and a JD.
He may be book smart, but that does not make him a great critical thinker.
Why does he have a column and we do not. Good question. Remember that the RMN is at best a 2nd rate newspaper. Just b/c he writes for it does not mean he either has anything worthwhile to say or can say it w/ any elan.
I am quite certain that you or I could do better.
I am not saying he is not worth the effort. I only mean that either b/c of your superior critical thinking or b/c of his flights of fancy, shooting holes in his editorials is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Maybe we should challenge him to some kind of point-counterpoint.
"Paul, you ignorant slut...."
# posted by : 11:18 AM
: 11:18 AM
"I know the Democrat talking point is "utter" incompetence-"
I hate to break it to you Roger but I hear a lot of Republicans complaining about this admisitrations incompetence as well. Hell, they were even making fun of the president on Fox the other night. As far as the republican record, I think you're once again in the small minority on that one, at least according to the polls.
I hate to break it to you Roger but I hear a lot of Republicans complaining about this admisitrations incompetence as well. Hell, they were even making fun of the president on Fox the other night. As far as the republican record, I think you're once again in the small minority on that one, at least according to the polls.
# posted by : 3:21 PM
: 3:21 PM
You're making senss, Tony, but I don't think we'll get the debate. Anon, I tend to try for truth over popularity. Sorry, it's just my nature.
Post a Comment
<< Home
