The chickenhawk fallacy
One of the more idiotic and tiresome arguments I see being made about the Iraq conflict (or the larger struggle against jihadism generally) is that if you support fighting the war, you are somehow obligated to enlist and go participate in the fighting yourself. If you don't, you are a "chickenhawk", one who advocates war but wants others to go do the fighting for him, and your position is somehow invalid or suspect. There is at least one entire website dedicated to promoting this meme.
That's not how it works. In a free society, everyone is entitled to express opinions about anything. One can take a person's background into account in evaluating his opinions, but it's usually wisest to focus on the message rather than the messenger.
This weird form of ad hominem attack is not applied in other, comparable situations. I believe that we need firefighters, but no one argues that this belief obligates me to become a firefighter myself. I firmly support the difficult and dangerous struggle of the police against violent criminals, but no one would claim that this viewpoint means I have a duty to join the police force. I am very pleased that there are medical researchers hard at work developing treatments for the infectious and degenerative diseases which threaten our species, but I have not yet heard anyone claim that I have no right to feel that way unless I become a researcher myself. What a chickenhawk I am, advocating the defense of society while sitting at home and letting other people face those dangerous fires, criminals, and viruses in my place.
Update: Operation Yellow Elephant's response to this posting is here. At least so far (they are up to four comments as I type), I don't think their arguments would be convincing to anyone who did not already agree with their views in the first place. Your mileage may vary. They also seem to think that I am, broadly speaking, a Bush supporter or perhaps even a Republican. Frankly I doubt the Republicans would have me any more than the Democrats would, but I can't speak for them.
That's not how it works. In a free society, everyone is entitled to express opinions about anything. One can take a person's background into account in evaluating his opinions, but it's usually wisest to focus on the message rather than the messenger.
This weird form of ad hominem attack is not applied in other, comparable situations. I believe that we need firefighters, but no one argues that this belief obligates me to become a firefighter myself. I firmly support the difficult and dangerous struggle of the police against violent criminals, but no one would claim that this viewpoint means I have a duty to join the police force. I am very pleased that there are medical researchers hard at work developing treatments for the infectious and degenerative diseases which threaten our species, but I have not yet heard anyone claim that I have no right to feel that way unless I become a researcher myself. What a chickenhawk I am, advocating the defense of society while sitting at home and letting other people face those dangerous fires, criminals, and viruses in my place.
Update: Operation Yellow Elephant's response to this posting is here. At least so far (they are up to four comments as I type), I don't think their arguments would be convincing to anyone who did not already agree with their views in the first place. Your mileage may vary. They also seem to think that I am, broadly speaking, a Bush supporter or perhaps even a Republican. Frankly I doubt the Republicans would have me any more than the Democrats would, but I can't speak for them.
Labels: Politics
posted by Infidel753 at 4:29 AM
3 Comments:
Infidel753-
We don't know whether you're eligible to serve, so we'll reserve judgment until you answer that question: Are you eligible to serve (healthy heterosexual 41 and under)? Have you considered it? What happened?
If you are 41 or under and a military recruiter has told you that you are not eligible, you're off the hook.
We only focus on those eligible to serve who support the war, because there's still time for them to demonstrate the courage of their convictions, and enhance their future political careers in the national leadership of our governing party.
Please give Karl and friends a break. They never claimed that logic was their strength. Illogic rules!
Thanks for your comments.
Karl: I believe your point is more than adequately answered in the very posting upon which you are commenting. I do not need you to declare me "off the hook" since I do not consider myself to be on the hook in the first place. I do not accept the basic argument that, because I believe a given activity is necessary, I am obligated to participate in that activity. If you actually read the posting, surely you udnerstand this.
Anonymous: Their logic strikes me as more flawed than actually nonexistent, but I'm not quibbling. My concern is mostly that the "chickenhawk" accusation is fundamentally an ad hominem line of attack, and thus a distraction from the real issue of the case for or against the war itself.
Post a Comment
<< Home