Here is one definition of arguing ad hominem, replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. Seems to me that is what you are doing, attacking Greenwald rather than any of his positions.
Here's the deal, if you wish to cast stones at someone at least have the courtesy to provide a few examples.
"Shouting down debate," you must be kidding. He seems to relish debate.
And, exactly what sort of "behavior" are you talking about? As far as I can tell his behavior is pretty much sitting at his computer and typing.
"If you can’t generate gravity through the usual methods of intellectual and moral responsibility, then you can just grab hold of some of the saddest and most terrible moments of human history, and squeeze out importance and pathos like juice from an orange– and the only cost is that you are reducing human loss to fuel for careerism."
What are these banal, "usual methods," you speak of?
I read Rosenbaum's "Explaining Hitler" when it was newly published. As I recall he made the argument there that Hitler was convinced of his own "rectitude."
North, I do not deny the good the Church has been involved with. Even today good works are done everyday in the name of the RCC and other religions. My charitable donations go to Catholic Charities and The Salvation Army because I understand they use my donations effectively. But that said I really do find the good out weighed by the bad.
You really do ignore a lot of unsavory aspects of the church, how about that situation in Ireland as recently as the 1950's and 60's? The list of misdeeds by the Catholic Church is long and sicking, and more completely listed below. You are correct, the church does put on a good show, high production values. Perhaps a good analogy is lots of perfume to cover lack of personnel hygiene.
"But Catholics? I mean, here is an institution devoted to peace and justice!"
Gee, I took your point to be that the Church is devoted to injustice toward gays, and secondarily really not very good on women issues, or married priests, unless they be Anglican. Other than that, devoted to justice.
Mark, I'm going to address the mocking point. I do mock religious thinking just as I mock racial or gay bigots as wrong headed. For me it is imperative to speak. I guess such a stance is what largely defines New Atheism, a term I detest. I'm sure you are aware of polls that rank atheist lower than gays as suitable to hold public office. Not a shocking result given the religious bent of the country. And personally not troubling to me given the fact that I am not seeking public office. But I do find such attitudes troubling for obvious reasons. Atheists are immoral and untrustworthy. They are unpatriotic to boot.
Mocking has a long honorable history. I'm not student enough to mention ancient practitioners of it but certainly goes back to Greece and Rome. More recent American practitioners would include Mark Twain, H.L Mencken, Steven Colbert, John Stewart, P Z Meyers, Bill Meher. Lots of people mock lots of things. In a nut shell holding up to ridicule is perfectly OK by me. Not everywhere every time. For example I would not mock a religious wedding ceremony or funeral I might be attending, good taste would shut me up. But religion is to be mocked, I mean, just look at it. They can't even get their stories together. My God!
The relative age of fundamentalism, a new phenomenon, makes for interesting discussion but what does any of that have to do with the merits of Christianity? Let's give Chris his point, the main stem of Christianity has always seen the Bible as metaphor. The question then is - metaphor for what?
Nothing is resolved by denying or quashing a literal reading of the water/wine story and embracing a metaphorical reading if we still place supernatural being in the tale. Substantially has anything changed? Religious folk can happily pick the literal or metaphorical.
I have always believed, and still believe, that her style was deliberate. Did it offend? I'm putting up my hand. But it was not style that earned her banishment. But for the life of me I really don't understand why it happened.
Given Freddie's opening, it seems he is aware that he may be abusing the "rule." Freddie writes,"I know that, here at the League, and among most decent people, we’d like to believe that the true strength of argument comes from mutual respect, argumentative decorum and a dedication to the exchange of ideas." But fuck it. He is pissed and he is going to have his say. To hell with "mutual respect" and the other stuff.
But if vulgar language is allowable when it is directed at those outside the League all well and good. Now I know and any misunderstanding Freddie might have had is also cleared.
I'm not familiar with that provision but does it have a threshold level?
But no. When I cat sit or clean out the litter box it is done without reward of any sort, well it's appreciated, by the cat. Is that taxable?
Oh, wait, I did water a friends garden this summer while he was in Italy. I did take several really tasty tomatoes. Should I declare that as income? But remember I can't itemize.
I don't but more to the point I can't. Every penny of income is reported and I am unable to itemize so whatever the tax table shows I pay. This is a common situation.
"And if the science says differently, you go with the SCIENCE!"
Science can't speak to this, if you can point to one reputable scientist that says science can *disprove* the water into wine miracle I would be very surprised. This is not the realm of science. Even Dawkins admits there is no proof that god does not exist, but there is equally no scientific proof that god does exist. Science is not a tool well equipped to speak on these matters.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Toward an organic society”
The Tea people like big government.
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/06/26/tea-partiers-manufacturing-environmental/#comments
On “And You Thought That French McDonald’s Ad Was Edgy”
France, avant-garde, Albertville opening ceremony winter Olympics 1992.
Inter-species homo sex seems right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ysWQJ-rUNI
On “Toward an organic society”
@Observer,
Here is one definition of arguing ad hominem, replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. Seems to me that is what you are doing, attacking Greenwald rather than any of his positions.
Here's the deal, if you wish to cast stones at someone at least have the courtesy to provide a few examples.
"Shouting down debate," you must be kidding. He seems to relish debate.
And, exactly what sort of "behavior" are you talking about? As far as I can tell his behavior is pretty much sitting at his computer and typing.
On “The new anti-war right”
Jack Hunter is not a politician, hence he can remain principled, hew to his conservative beliefs. Bravo!
On “conservatives as self-parodies”
Possible "tags" for this interview if posted by the estimable John Cole:
"Good News for Conservatives"
"General Stupidity"
"Assholes"
"Clown Shoes"
"Hoot-Smalley"
"
"This interview with Andy Schlafly [below] of conservapedia.com is hard to watch. It’s almost embarrassing."
NO! It "is" be embarrassing but Andy is to fucking stupid to have a clue. God help this country.
On “can’t win by not losing”
John Cole, balloonjuice, has a "tag" "good news for conservatives." It's good news 24/7 in Conservo land.
On “The Evolution of Blogging: An Interview with John Cole”
It's a tie. LOOG/BJ one day, BJ/LOOG the next.
On “Anti-Fascist Super Heroes”
Thanks, no pathos squeezing there.
"
"If you can’t generate gravity through the usual methods of intellectual and moral responsibility, then you can just grab hold of some of the saddest and most terrible moments of human history, and squeeze out importance and pathos like juice from an orange– and the only cost is that you are reducing human loss to fuel for careerism."
What are these banal, "usual methods," you speak of?
"
I read Rosenbaum's "Explaining Hitler" when it was newly published. As I recall he made the argument there that Hitler was convinced of his own "rectitude."
On “gay marriage and the catholic church in maine”
Maybe it was Plan B. I think that is the morning after pill Bush fought so long against.
"
E.D., will there, could there, be a point at which you might admit that there is less to Catholicism/religion than meets the eye.
"
North, I do not deny the good the Church has been involved with. Even today good works are done everyday in the name of the RCC and other religions. My charitable donations go to Catholic Charities and The Salvation Army because I understand they use my donations effectively. But that said I really do find the good out weighed by the bad.
"
You really do ignore a lot of unsavory aspects of the church, how about that situation in Ireland as recently as the 1950's and 60's? The list of misdeeds by the Catholic Church is long and sicking, and more completely listed below. You are correct, the church does put on a good show, high production values. Perhaps a good analogy is lots of perfume to cover lack of personnel hygiene.
On “Post-election ruminations”
Jaybird, sometimes I just want to grab you in cyberspace and give you a big hug. Consider yourself hugged.
On “gay marriage and the catholic church in maine”
"But Catholics? I mean, here is an institution devoted to peace and justice!"
Gee, I took your point to be that the Church is devoted to injustice toward gays, and secondarily really not very good on women issues, or married priests, unless they be Anglican. Other than that, devoted to justice.
On “The Meaning of Water and Wine”
Mark, I'm going to address the mocking point. I do mock religious thinking just as I mock racial or gay bigots as wrong headed. For me it is imperative to speak. I guess such a stance is what largely defines New Atheism, a term I detest. I'm sure you are aware of polls that rank atheist lower than gays as suitable to hold public office. Not a shocking result given the religious bent of the country. And personally not troubling to me given the fact that I am not seeking public office. But I do find such attitudes troubling for obvious reasons. Atheists are immoral and untrustworthy. They are unpatriotic to boot.
Mocking has a long honorable history. I'm not student enough to mention ancient practitioners of it but certainly goes back to Greece and Rome. More recent American practitioners would include Mark Twain, H.L Mencken, Steven Colbert, John Stewart, P Z Meyers, Bill Meher. Lots of people mock lots of things. In a nut shell holding up to ridicule is perfectly OK by me. Not everywhere every time. For example I would not mock a religious wedding ceremony or funeral I might be attending, good taste would shut me up. But religion is to be mocked, I mean, just look at it. They can't even get their stories together. My God!
"
The relative age of fundamentalism, a new phenomenon, makes for interesting discussion but what does any of that have to do with the merits of Christianity? Let's give Chris his point, the main stem of Christianity has always seen the Bible as metaphor. The question then is - metaphor for what?
Nothing is resolved by denying or quashing a literal reading of the water/wine story and embracing a metaphorical reading if we still place supernatural being in the tale. Substantially has anything changed? Religious folk can happily pick the literal or metaphorical.
On “Two Quick Responses”
Like E.D. I have only two words, Southern Strategy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
On “Bruce Buschel, you are a douche of the first order”
I have always believed, and still believe, that her style was deliberate. Did it offend? I'm putting up my hand. But it was not style that earned her banishment. But for the life of me I really don't understand why it happened.
"
Given Freddie's opening, it seems he is aware that he may be abusing the "rule." Freddie writes,"I know that, here at the League, and among most decent people, we’d like to believe that the true strength of argument comes from mutual respect, argumentative decorum and a dedication to the exchange of ideas." But fuck it. He is pissed and he is going to have his say. To hell with "mutual respect" and the other stuff.
But if vulgar language is allowable when it is directed at those outside the League all well and good. Now I know and any misunderstanding Freddie might have had is also cleared.
"
I'm not familiar with that provision but does it have a threshold level?
But no. When I cat sit or clean out the litter box it is done without reward of any sort, well it's appreciated, by the cat. Is that taxable?
Oh, wait, I did water a friends garden this summer while he was in Italy. I did take several really tasty tomatoes. Should I declare that as income? But remember I can't itemize.
"
I don't but more to the point I can't. Every penny of income is reported and I am unable to itemize so whatever the tax table shows I pay. This is a common situation.
Would I cheat if I could? "Signs point to yes."
On “The Meaning of Water and Wine”
"And if the science says differently, you go with the SCIENCE!"
Science can't speak to this, if you can point to one reputable scientist that says science can *disprove* the water into wine miracle I would be very surprised. This is not the realm of science. Even Dawkins admits there is no proof that god does not exist, but there is equally no scientific proof that god does exist. Science is not a tool well equipped to speak on these matters.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.