Posted on 12/04/2005 2:11:59 AM PST by Gordongekko909
I've noticed several leftists pulling the "chickenhawk" argument with impunity. Probably the most public example of this is Michael Moore in Farenheit 911 pointing out that only one member of Congress has a kid serving in Iraq, and that the rest of Congress is cowardly for not "sending" their kids to Iraq (which makes no sense, as the military is all-volunteer).
Something else that I've noticed is the lackluster and, to be frank, wussy response to this argument. The response that I've seen on FR and other places, including from Rush, is generally something along the lines of "we live in a democracy, and you don't need to be neck-deep in something to hold an opinion on it, etc." While I don't disagree with this response, I advise against using it from now on. Especially in the presence of leftists.
The problem with that response is that it is inherently defensive. If a leftist has pushed you so far against the wall that you actually have to justify your right to hold an opinion, then you are losing. Big. The proper course of action is to go on the offensive.
First, the "why." In making the chickenhawk argument (which generally goes something like 'if you like the war so much, why aren't you in the military'), the speaker crosses a big, bright, thick line: he has moved from civil discourse on substantive issues to personal attack. The chickenhawk argument is a not-so-subtle way of calling you a coward. It has literally no substantive value in terms of whether the war itself is justified, but merely questions your conviction.
If someone decides to go that route, then they do not deserve for you to continue to fight according to the Queensbury rules. It's time to remove the gloves.
And now, the "how." Start by asking what the leftie has done in support of his anti-war position. The answer will range from "nothing" to "I attended a protest." This should clinch it immediately: point out the absurdity of drawing a parallel between moping around with a placard and picking up a rifle. Follow that up by throwing a modified chickenhawk right back at the leftie: why has he or she not done more to stop the war? Hell, if you've so much as Freeped a protest, you've done as much as he has, removing any grounds to complain he may have.
The response will likely be, "but I've done all I can, whereas you haven't." See? You've already got the retreatnik on the defensive. This means that you're advancing. Point out that the leftie is incorrect; there is plenty more that he can do to oppose the US presence in Iraq. For example, he could join the insurgency. If you're talking face-to-face with the leftie, odds are he hasn't done that. Fire off the reverse chickenhawk again: why is he not planting roadside bombs and beheading hostages if he feels so strongly about his position?
The leftie has two options now: whine that you've made it personal, in which case you return to square one (that HE made it personal with the chickenhawk argument, see above), or he can stay the course and tell you that he's opposed to all of the violence, man, so of course he's not going to actually hurt anyone. To deal with this, simply beat him over the head with the reverse chickenhawk again: if he's as gung-ho as he claims to be about US withdrawal from Iraq, then he would be doing everything in his power to make his vision a reality; ends justify means and all that. The fact that he isn't in Iraq makes him a coward.
Now that you're in full charge, exploit your victory. DO NOT give your opponent time to breathe or even think, let alone respond. You have a few options here.
A) Attack the House Democrats. Segue from him being all talk to Murtha and his crew being all talk. Hell, they won't even vote for a non-binding resolution calling for the instant removal of troops. Odds are, you'll get him to go on the attack against the Congressional Democrats (in much the same way that Republicans will routinely hang conservatives out to dry if said conservatives draw the ire, deserved or undeserved, of the MSM).
B) Continue the personal tear. Don't feel guilty about this; he started it. If this causes him to wuss out and make the same arguments that conservatives have been making lately (I can think what I want, yatta yatta), then cross-apply this to the original chickenhawk argument and flat-out tell him that he can't use it anymore. Then make absolutely sure that YOU decide where the next battle starts in terms of argument. DO NOT surrender the initiative.
Cerebral substantive arguments are fine and good if the person you're up against will play by the rules. That's how political arguments are really supposed to be executed. But if your opponent decides to take it outside, so to speak, you won't look as good as you think you do by keeping your jacket and glasses on while he punches you in the kidneys. You've got to hit back.
Only way to go. Return fire.
harder and more severe
WOW! That's amazing. Their problem was that you were so dead on with the facts.
You should have taken video! How did the rest of the meal go?
For Americans, largely ignorant of world history, Islamic radicalism mysteriously appeared on their television screens for the first time on Sept. 11, 2001, and has dominated our national security concerns ever since. But for those more familiar with the major forces shaping world events, the violent spread of Islam is recognized as one of the most important geopolitical forces in the last 14 centuries, one that has touched billions of lives.
For instance, I personally lost dozens of family members – perhaps over 100 – in the genocide of the Christian Armenians by the Muslim Turks. I'll mention just one of those family members – my great grandfather, Steelianos Leondiades. A Protestant minister, in 1908 he was attending a conference of Armenian and Greek ministers in the major Turkish city of Adana. Here's how his daughter, my maternal grandmother Anna Paulson, recalled the terrible events that unfolded: "Some of the Turkish officers came to the conference room and told all these ministers – there were 70 of them, ministers and laymen and a few wives: 'If you embrace the Islamic religion you will all be saved. If you don't, you will all be killed.'"
Steelianos, my great grandfather, acting as a spokesman for the ministers group asked the Turks for 15 minutes so they could make their decision. During that time the ministers and their companions talked, read the Bible to each other and prayed. In the end, none of them would renounce their Christian faith and convert to Islam.
"And then," Anna recalled, "they were all killed.
"They were not even buried. They were all thrown down the ravine."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47469
Excellent. You have warmed my heart this morning with your account. I shall use your tack in my next argument. Thank you.
I call them "keyboard commandos"....
I'm often asked why George Bush hasn't sent the twins to Iraq yet. The twins question seems to be their favorite line to come back with after they have thrown out they orginal Chickenhawk question and find out that I have three sons serving. I answer by telling them that he is a conservative and only liberals seem to advocate conscription. So far it has always caused a look of dejection on the part of the moonbat.
ping
The chickenhawk argument supposes that if one does fight for the cause, one's support is legitimate. If this is the case, there is no consistent reply to any service man or woman who supports the effort.
My mother (89) won't allow politics to be discussed at the dinner table, so this all occured after we had gone to the living room.
In the past, I had attempted to ignore their barbs, I didn't know how to battle them. A freeper gave me the tactic of putting the ball in their court with questions, it may not have gone as smoothly as I have presented it here, there were many "now wait a minute, let me finish" interjections on my part. I also had to stop them and ask them to answer my question, as my brother and sister will change the subject if you let them.
They went on to the "disarray in the Republican camp" mantra, along with predictions of doom for the pubbies in the next election, but they never brought up Iraq again.
"They never brought up Iraq again".
It sounds like a win to me. We all have those smug Liberal relatives, like your brother and sister, who are constamtly doing their missionary work. At least you were able to shut them up on one subject. Good for you.
I'm sure you're going to get this from them again, and there are at least two good options here:
"Isn't that what you predicted for 2004? And look how that turned out."
Or, if you really want to turn the knife :
"NO WAY! Ever since we got control of the voting boxes way back in 2000, EVERY election belongs to us."
From the brief description you've given of them, that last one is a line they've discussed at least among themselves many times as to the reason they're losing elelctions. Coming from you, it will bring them up short.
I'm not worried about the "chickenhawk" argument. Most leftists are not worth our time and arguing with them only makes us look and smell like pigs.
But if we must ... I can't remember who said it recently, but I like the "hit them until they stop twitching, then hit them again" approach.
Do you support abortion? Then why haven't you voluntered to work at an abortion clinic?
Are you against Bush's tax cuts? Why haven't you been paying your taxes at the old rate?
Against Global Warming? Why are you driving a car?
It's fun, works with any arguement.
LOL. Yes, they did predict a win for Kerry and Gore too. In baseball terminology, libs are being "shut out" on predictions.
Oh, man, yeah...I can hear myself now...."name for me just ONE prediction......."
Sounds like you've got 'em cornered! They're going to dread running into you.
When pushed, the lefty will trot out the next canard.
For example, when you charge on the "Why aren't you in Iraq" he'll respond by saying "What about the Tortue at Abu Graib and Gitmo"?
This places you in the position of either defending torture or going into a 10 minute discussion about the facts that Koran's weren't flushed, Saddam actually shredded and gassed people, on and on.
If you begin to win points on torture, the next canard pops out. Bush lied and misled us into war, on and on.
The left's arsenal is in it's brevity. The talking points reference a litany of stories the MSM has been dredging up for years now.
For example, they'll say "Iraq is worse now than before the war". Eight words. To respond, you'd have to start quoting statistics.
Since May 2003, unemployment in Iraq has fallen by nearly 50%
170 independent newspapers are now open across Iraq.
80 independent television stations are broadcasting in Iraq.
Iraq has 168,000 Internet subscribers-- there were just 4,000 before the war.
27,000 new businesses have opened in Iraq.
Over 3,000 schools have been rehabilitated and reopened.
8.7 million Iraqi children are enrolled in primary school.
5 million Iraqi children between the ages of 6 and 12 have received vaccinations.
There is an average of one new hospital under construction every six months in Iraq.
The death rate in Iraq is half of what it was under Saddam, and is among the lowest in the middle east.
76 water treatment projects have now been completed.
33 fire stations have now been built.
In July of this year, Iraqi oil production hit the highest level in Iraqi history.
A poll this year found that 80% of Iraqis believe their lives will be better one year from now.
Voter turn out was over 60% for October's vote on the Iraqi constitution.
The Iraqi economy is expected to grow 17% next year.
Iraqi per capita income has doubled since 2003-- it is now 30% higher than it was before the war.
Inflation in Iraq is one quarter of what it was before the war
See the problem? They spout in 8, It took me 225+ words to refute it. We need to be able to distill success down to talking points. If I could reference "The Monica Memo", the "Iraq is worse now than before the war" argument is effectively countered.
Even if you could deflect every argument they throw at you in short quips, you'll find that in the end, nothing has changed. The next meeting with the leftist will have him tossing the same turds on the table as if you never refuted them at all. Basically they're just mindless little children who are doing the "I know you are, but what am I" routine upgraded to support a marxist agenda.
The problem for Democrats, in civil argumentation, is that neither the facts nor logic, are on their side. This is why they so continually bray that they are (without, I might add) actually offering any.
Merry Christmas.
I recently saw statistics showing that Congress's children are serving in the military at about the same percentage as the general population. I believe this figure was 1.8 or 2.8 percent. As would be expected Republicans kids were overrepresented in this number and Defeatocrats are underrepresented.
I'd love to see that analysis. I you can find it, please ping me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.