"Yowling" about torture
Linking is one of the things the Minnesota lefty blogosphere needs to get better at. Towards that end, I added a new blogger to our blogroll, Yowling from the Fencepost. When I posted about the four conservative rationalizations for torture, Moses from Yowling backed me up and linked to his own interesting take on the conservatives' emotional investment in torture.
Take a look at his posts:
Abu Ghraib scandal - Buckle your safety belt.
On the Geneva Conventions prohibition of torture.
From rationalized torture to prospective hit squads.
P.S.: In the course of linking to other blogs, I hereby promise not to say, "Just read the whole thing."
posted by Luke Francl @ 8:43 PM |
| 
14 Comments:
Typical liberal nonsense structure.
1. Let me tell what Rightwingers think.
2. Let me tell why its wrong.
Reply from a righty.
1. Um, we don't think that.
2. You've conveninetly ignored "this."
Reply to the reply.
1. Liar!
2. Your arguement doesn't make sense given the way I've told you that you think.
3. "This" isn't applicable because it disproves what is OBVIOUSLY correct.
I'm sorry, but what the hell are you talking about? This comment has nothing to do with my post.
Its predictive of upcoming posts.
You postulate; Conservatives have an emotional investment in torture. They are wrong because torture is evil.
Someone will post,
1. Um, conservatives don't support torture
2. Besides, this was isolated, those involved are being prosecuted...
You'll reply something like
1. Liar!
2. How can you say you don't support torture when you support the war, and without the war there would be no abu graib! Supporting the war is supporting torture.
3. They aren't actually prosecuting those involved, Bush hasn't been indicted and he's the COMANNDER AND CHIEF! How can torture not be EVIL? Obviously my arguement is true.
You are officially an idiot.
Read my previous post to see my thoughts on what conservatives believe about torture.
And Luke steps up to number one -
He's using his psychic and clairvoyant abilities to tell conservatives what they think.
(I'm on track so far.)
Wow! A personal attack. Calling me a coward too.
The best part is it invites (demands?) reply...falling into the pattern described.
You've already decided that you know what I think and judged it. Any evidence of my position would be discounted as unimportant or off topic. If it didn't match what you decided you'd try to tell me what I really thought.
I'm not going to bite.
Sounds like you just did, little cowboy.
LOL!
Hey, Anonymous Cowboy, why haven't you challenged the arguments that have been critical of American torture? Could it be that you have no argument, so you must resort to off the cuff, simplistic and dismissive retorts?
C'mon, tell me and everyone else how our country's engagement in torture does not present a serious problem to us domestically, internationally, ethically, spiritually... just provide us with one little tidbit of a rational challenge (heck, a half-hearted attempt will do).
Thanks.
I got a guy calling himself "theyeti" calling me a coward for not using my name. Then he slides into more random personal attacks and winds up struggling with his own homoerotic insecurities. Somehow this is supposed to threaten me?
That'd be a swing and a miss.
Then I get Moses gonna take another crack at telling me what I think: He's decided I (representative of all conservatives) support terrorism. His evidence is that I don't add my voice to the shrill cries of Luke, theyeti and his own bad self.
He's actually begging for a response, "just provide us with one little tidbit of a rational challenge."
Still not playing.
However, based on the responses I'm adjusting my prediction. Behold!
Revised Typical liberal nonsense structure*.
A. Subject intro.
1. Let me tell what Rightwingers think.
2. Let me tell why its wrong.
B. Reply from a righty.
1. Um, we don't think that.
2. You've conveninetly ignored "this."
C. Reply to the reply.
1. Liar!
2. Your arguement doesn't make sense given the way I've told you that you think.
3. Dismissial of evidence.
a. "This" isn't applicable because it disproves what is OBVIOUSLY correct.
b. "This" is from an "impeachable" source.
*failure to follow the predicted pattern will result in personal attacks.
You're still an idiot.
In my other post, I listed justifications I have actually heard used for the situation that happened at Abu Grahib. I didn't make them up.
Lame site. I'd debate you anytime. Cookiecutter arguments.
www.libhater.blogspot.com
-Jesse
yeti - begging help get you chicks? It don't work here either.
Luke - is it a fact you estimated you heard? Cite'em or shut up.
Uh, Jesse, I just looked at your site and you can't even fucking spell, let alone debate a point.
Post a Comment
<< Home