Saturday, November 14, 2009

When raging Jews blog stupidly.

Self-described raging, young Jew Justin Hoffer continues to get philosophical, and does to analogies what a hillbilly once did to Ned Beatty:

The obligatory post on the "chickenhawk" argument.

As I'm getting ready this morning, I feel I should do a post on the left wing "chickenhawk" argument.

The basic meaning of the argument is that those of us who are in favour of using war when necessary (not their words, mind you) shouldn't be allowed an opinion because we aren't willing to join the military ourselves. Its a ridiculous argument, made by insecure cowards who don't have it in them to join the military themselves.

The most obvious reason for the stupidity behind this argument is that it attempts to deny people the right to freedom of speech and freedom of thought. That alone should be enough to end the chickenhawk argument, but unfortunately, the left doesn't actually believe in freedom of speech and freedom of thought, so it doesn't end there.

The next reason is that it would be no different from calling someone a hypocrite for donating to injured firefighters but not being a firefighter.

No, Justin, you cementhead, that's not the analogy in play here. The analogy to being a relentless cheerleader for endless war but refusing to serve is not to refuse to be a firefighter but support people who are.

The analogy is refusing to be a firefighter while running around, perpetually lighting fires, then demanding that it's everyone else's job to put them out but you'll be happy to provide all kinds of moral support while you look for the next building to torch.

See the difference, Justin? Give it time -- it'll come to you. Or maybe not.

LuLu here: Should Justin require further edification as to why "chickenhawk" is such a wholly appropriate term for people like him, we now turn to our good friend, John "Kung Fu Monkey" Rogers.

That these unquestioning war devotees will not sacrifice their lives, their comfort, their safety: that's hardly a sin in modern society. But they are not even willing to risk emotional discomfort by admitting their faith has been misplaced. That they will not even risk this, this tiny, tiny thing ... that is the sin. It is not that that you're not risking your life. It's that you are risking nothing.

The problem is, there is no single word in English for a man risking absolutely nothing, who demands someone else risk absolutely everything. I'm sure there's a word in German -- they are a whizzer with those kicky compound nouns -- but none in English for that precise combination.

So, for now, we must let "chickenhawk" be its placeholder.

No comments: