[dirtboy]

In contrast to the intelligence agents, George W. Bush is like the person without evidence of a fire yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. For example, Bush said that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States because the Iraqi regime was acquiring enriched uranium

Yo, professor, perhaps you want to check the veracity of statements in your posts before you put them in FR. Bush never said the threat was imminent, which calls into question the validity of this entire article.

[m1911]

Major premise: Someone emailing me negative comments about an article I wrote has anything to do with limitations on free speech.

Minor premise: I am a thin-skinned idiot, but I have the ability to write several thousand words about it, so that makes me an educated thin-skinned idiot.

m1911s conclusion: The major premise is false, but the minor premise is true. Neither one is very interesting.

[camle]

Dear Nutty Professor;

We are at war. Lose Lips Sink Ships. They provide aid and comfort to our enemies.

don't be a jerk.

[dirtboy]

From an earlier post of yours:

The key to success in academia is to support your claims with good evidence and good reasoning

Well, you just used a lie as evidence. Follow your own advice, doc.

[colorado tanker]

Ideas so stupid only an intellectual could believe them.

Criticizing a war critic is not "anti-speech." Same concept as if you don't approve of me you hate me, another typical leftie tactic.

What this guy really hates is that in the marketplace of ideas he's a clear loser, so he's become a sore loser, trying to demonize the majority as "anti-speech."

[TheBigB]

Welcome back Prof. Why the return now?

[mrsmith]

Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that 'I am the only mind which exists', or 'My mental states are the only mental states'. However, the sole survivor of a nuclear holocaust might truly come to believe in either of these propositions without thereby being a solipsist. Solipsism is therefore more properly regarded as the doctrine that, in principle, 'existence' means for me my existence and that of my mental states. In other words, everything which I experience - physical objects, other people, events and processes, in short, anything which would commonly be regarded as a constituent of the spatio-temporal matrix in which I coexist with others - is necessarily construed by me as part of the content of my consciousness. For the solipsist, it is not merely the case that he believes that his thoughts, experiences, and emotions are, as a matter of contingent fact, the only thoughts, experiences, and emotions. Rather, the solipsist can attach no meaning to the supposition that there could be thoughts, experiences, and emotions other than his own. In short, the true solipsist understands the word 'pain', for example, to mean 'my pain' - he cannot accordingly conceive how this word is to be applied in any sense other than this exclusively egocentric one.

Get a clue.

[hellinahandcart]

Bet the FR Zambian message board is really hoppin'...

[bmauer]

Ethos

Ethical arguments are appeals to the credibility (expertise and trustworthiness) of the person making a particular claim. Ethical arguments in general depend upon a syllogistic logic:

Ethical Argument
Major premise: People of good (expert and trustworthy) character only make good (true and virtuous) arguments.
Minor premise: The speaker is a person of good character.
Conclusion: The speaker must be making a good argument.

Analysis: Revealed in its stark form, the syllogism supporting ethical reasoning seems particularly weak. It is so weak, in fact, that science rejects it in principle (though scientists often resort to it in practice).

Leaving aside the obvious issue of human fallibility--even the most expert and trustworthy people are sometimes wrong--the ethical syllogism has numerous flaws. One obvious problem: a true statement remains true no matter who utters it. In other words, the soundness of a claim, or the validity of a chain of reasoning, has nothing to do with the character of the speaker. Truth claims must be tested independently of the speaker in order to be verified. Another obvious problem: the traits associated with credibility, such as expertise and trustworthiness, are not inborn traits; they are gained over time and can be lost. Also, these traits can be "faked" (such was the theme of the Spielberg film Catch Me If You Can). With these caveats in mind, consider the following arguments made by anti-speech advocates.

Argument 1: Secret Knowledge
Major Premise (hidden): Claims made on the basis of secret knowledge are true and invalidate other claims.
Minor premise: The Bush Administration had secret knowledge about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Conclusion: The Bush Administration's claims about Iraq must be true and therefore must invalidate all other claims.

I received this argument from an anti-speech advocate. He argued that Bush had secret knowledge about Iraqi weapons that antiwar critics didn't have and therefore Bush had credibility to warn us about Iraq and to make decisions about national security that others did not have. He wrote, "Does this also not constitute an appropriate warning since he undoubtably (sic) has more information than you or I?" (Ryan Gibbons, personal correspondence, April 23, 2003)

This kind of ethical argument appeals to secrets as a way to support a claim of expertise. Since the speaker claims to know of someone who has secret knowledge that justifies his argument, then all other arguments not based on this secret knowledge are necessarily invalid. The glaring flaw in this argument is that any evidence that remains secret cannot be independently verified. The Bush administration has resorted to defending a large number of secrets on the basis of "protecting national security." It is impossible to prove or disprove such claims and it is rather obvious that such claims are convenient ways to construct a false appearance of credibility. One should be suspicious of claims to credibility built on secrets.

Argument 2: Sacrifice
Major premise (partially hidden): Soldiers sacrifice themselves selflessly on behalf of the collective and are thus protected from criticism by a sacred force.
Minor premise: My father (brother, etc.) is a soldier.
Conclusion: My father (brother, etc.) sacrificed himself selflessly on behalf of the collective and is thus protected from criticism by a sacred force.

Every nation that has a military has a kind of civil religion devoted to honoring military service. In the U.S., the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is a powerful symbol of sacrifice on behalf of the collective.

Self-sacrifice is the ultimate guarantor of trustworthiness. If a person has nothing to gain but in fact everything to lose from following a course of action, then it cannot be said that that person is acting out of self-interest. If anything can be called a sacrifice in modern times, the death of a soldier in combat is one of them. But the argument often gets over-extended. The first letter writer I quoted says his father served in World War II but died two years ago, nearly fifty years after his service. He did not die in combat yet he, and by extension the son himself, somehow become sacred and protected from criticism. There are at least two logical fallacies in the argument as well. First, those who do not die in combat are able to defend themselves from criticism. Thus, while it may be unfair to criticize those who died selflessly, the living are still fair game. Second, those who died in combat may have sacrificed themselves selflessly, but the people who sent them into combat--the president and his staff--sacrificed nothing but have much to gain.

Argument 3: Patriotism
Major premise (hidden): Owning a flag, military uniform, collection of John Phillip Sousa records, etc. guarantees that the owner of the patriotic symbol is a patriot and thus a trustworthy person.
Minor premise: I have a flag, etc.
Conclusion: I am a trustworthy person.

Analysis: It is highly problematic to claim that patriotism is a stable entity. It is even more problematic to claim that certain accoutrements make one patriotic. Nevertheless, nearly every car dealer profits from this logical fallacy. If patriotism means "committed citizenship," then our definition of citizenship needs to be redefined. It should include one's responsibility to the local community, the state, the nation, and the planet. Surely if I sell out my community, my state, and my planet in order to give total allegiance to the nation, I have betrayed my broader allegiances.

Argument 4: Military Credentials
Major premise: Only military credentials enable one to speak knowledgeably about war.
Minor premise: Most critics of the war in Iraq do not have military credentials.
Conclusion: Most critics of the war in Iraq cannot speak knowledgeably about war.

Analysis: The major premise might be true if the critics of the war in Iraq had limited their comments only to battlefield strategies and tactics. Most critics of the war in Iraq, however, raised a host of issues related to the war, including political, moral, and ethical issues. Surely there are people who do not have military expertise who are nonetheless qualified to speak about these issues. The logical fallacy behind this argument enabled the major media outlets to rely heavily upon military generals for commentary and to ignore other speakers who could have contributed much to the public discussion of the war.

Argument 5: Academic Freedom as a Veil
Major premise: Academics (meaning only those opposed to the war) hide behind special free speech rights that allow them to speak irresponsibly.
Minor premise: Dr. ----- is an academic.
Conclusion: Dr. ----- hides behind special free speech rights that allow him to speak irresponsibly.

Analysis: The major premise is false. Since a number of academics throughout the country have been suspended for speaking out against the war and face threats of intimidation and reprisal, any claim about their special free speech status must be questioned. (Keefe-Feldman, 2003) The major premise also assumes that any anti-war speech is irresponsible. As I argue throughout this essay, this is not the case.

Argument 6: Academics as Spoiled Elitists
Major premise: Academics (meaning only those opposed to the war) are elitist and spoiled, and thus are not credible experts.
Minor premise: Dr. ----- is an academic.
Conclusion: Dr. ----- is not a credible expert.

Analysis: The unfairness of the claim in the major premise is obvious. Professors who agree with administration policy never get labeled "elitist." Rather, they get labeled "expert." It is worth pointing out that the president, vice president, most of the cabinet, most of the congress are multi-millionaires with connections to powerful business and media elites. (The Straits Times, 2003) By contrast, most professors are anything but millionaires and have few connections to business and media elites. Academics are by definition experts in their fields yet few are consulted in the shaping of public policy. Public policy, like the Bush-Cheney energy plan, is shaped now largely by corporate executives in secret meetings. (NRDC, 2001)

Argument 7: Criticism as a Sign of Untrustworthiness
Major premise (partially hidden): Because critics use negative language and are willing to attack others, they must be untrustworthy.
Minor premise: Opponents of the war in Iraq (or other U.S. policies) use criticism.
Conclusion: Opponents of the war in Iraq (or other U.S. policies) are untrustworthy. Conversely, supporters of U.S. policies are trustworthy.

Analysis: War is far more "negative" than criticism, which can be understood as an alternative to physical conflict. Nietzsche claims that Socrates, by inventing the dialectic, "discovered a new kind of agon, that he became its first fencing master for the noble circles of Athens." (Nietzsche, 1895) In other words, Socrates envisioned the dialectic as a form of verbal combat in which the person with the best reasoning, rather than the person with the greatest strength, carried the day. The major premise above is false because one can criticize others truthfully and still be trustworthy. If we modified the major premise to state that false or unfair attacks make the critic untrustworthy, then it would be acceptable. The minor premise would then need to be revised to reflect this change; it would state: "Opponents of the war in Iraq (or other U.S. policies) use untrue or unfair criticism." Since much of the anti-war criticism has been truthful and fair, we must reject the minor premise as well. The conclusion is false because it doesn't follow from the revised premises. The converse is false as well; many supporters of the war in Iraq used negative language and attacked others, and many did so using untrue and unfair criticism. One example: Rush Limbaugh stated, "It is beyond me how anybody can look at these protesters and call them anything than what they are: anti-American, anti-capitalist pro-Marxists and communists." (Signorile, 2003)

A critic remains trustworthy, no matter how harsh her criticism of the government, if her criticism is true and fair. Supporters of the 2003 war against Iraq ought to agree that it would have been fair to criticize the Reagan administration in the 1980s for supporting Saddam Hussein; on Dec. 20, 1983, Current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, then a special envoy for Reagan, visited Saddam Hussein to discuss U.S. support for Iraq in its war with Iran, after US intelligence had confirmed that Iraq was using chemical weapons "almost daily." (Borger, 2002) Pro-war advocates should accept the principle that criticism of one's government can be both truthful and fair and does not make the critic untrustworthy. Yet the intense fear of criticism within the Bush administration and their supporters makes even obvious statements of truth--like the statement that no weapons of mass destruction have yet been found in Iraq--suspect. The Bush administration's extreme paranoia about criticism has been satirized brilliantly by The Onion recently in their lead article, "Bush Asks Congress For $30 Billion To Help Fight War On Criticism." (The Onion, 2003)

Argument 8: Anti-war Critics are Controlled only by Emotion
Major premise: Anyone who is controlled by emotions cannot be a rational person.
Minor premise: Anti-war critics are controlled by their emotions.
Conclusion: Anti-war critics cannot be rational people.

Analysis: The major premise is false because emotions can be entirely rational. Isn't it rational to feel fearful if you see an oncoming car swerve towards you? Your fear helps you respond appropriately to the situation by alerting you to move out of the way. Sometimes emotions can be inappropriate to a situation: such is the case in common phobias like fear of heights and fear of spiders. The minor premise is false because critics of the Iraq war, in general, are not controlled by our emotions. Rather, our emotions have been appropriate to the situation. We were outraged that the Bush administration used forged documents and numerous big lies (Rangwala and Whitaker, 2003) to get the U.S. into a war. We were afraid that the Iraq war would cause needless suffering; this fear is being borne out every day as we see lootings and shootings in Iraq, terrorist attacks in the Middle East, and political repression here and throughout the world. By contrast, we saw pro-Bush supporters express inappropriate emotional sentiments at every turn; it was inappropriate for them to fear Iraq, a defeated and impoverished nation halfway around the globe under a huge U.S. enforced no-fly zone, UN weapons inspectors roving everywhere, a degraded military, no air force or navy, no known weapons of mass destruction, no connection to the 9/11 hijackings and no proven links to al-Qaeda. It was inappropriate for pro-Bush supporters to hate anti-war protestors who had done nothing to harm the nation. It was and still is inappropriate for anybody to feel pride when soldiers kill innocent civilians for no good reason.

[dirtboy]

Well, FR does allow a few liberal posters. However, we ask that they be honest liberals and not resort to the lies we see all the time in the media and coming from the Democratic Party. When you claimed that Bush said that the threat from Saddam was immenient, you failed the honesty test ... and hence the FR longevity test as well. Go back and spoon-feed your lies to a captive room of students who dare not call you on it. Just realize that we're waiting to straighten them out with a good dose of the truth once they get away from your clutches.

[M1Tanker]

I address this to the author of the article, not the poster, if they are different people (some of the responses indicate they may be the same, but I'm new):


"Argument 1: Soldiers Defend Free Speech
Major premise (hidden): Only soldiers can defend the rights of all to free speech.
Minor premise: You are not a soldier.
Conclusion: You cannot defend the rights of all to free speech."

With this point, what are your views on the 2nd Ammendment and the right of individual civilians to keep and bear arms?

Rights entail Responsibilities. They are not entitlements. Those who speak must be willing to accept criticism. If you yell "fire" in a theater, and the resulting panic causes deaths, you are reponsible for thoses deaths, but you are still free to shout "fire". In the same vein, when you accuse the President of executing his Constitutional duties for the sole purpose of gaining power, and this applies to most claims by the "anti-war" crowd, you must be prepared to answer such claims with facts, logic, reason, and without emotion. You can say whatever you want, you have that right. You have the responsibility to back up those claims and, especially considering accusing someone of acts entailing treason.

I fully support the war with Iraq on firm, logically based arguements. I would support it even if Al Gore or Hillary Clinton was President. When I speak on those arguements, I am called many names and threatened with bodily harm. Since I am a soldier, fully capable of defending myself and others, I find this quite outlandish.

When, in the 1990s, as I attended college, I was also threatened and shouted down for simply believing in the US Constitution, being a member of the ROTC and the Army, and speaking out against the abuse of power in the Clinton Adim. I defended those positions and tried to debate my opponents, who also called me "anti-American" for daring to question Clinton. That was my responibility for my right to free speech. Consequently, I learned those on the Left care not for debate, only obediance to thier views, however misguided.

The short of it is, you have full rights to your views and full rights to express them. When you make accusations as such, you have the responsibility to defend those views and the responsibility to debate them while listening to other's views in a rational manor.

[DrNo]

It is my understanding that in a democracy the people lead and the government must be responsive to them. To prevent tyranny from developing in a democracy, people must be free to criticize their government.

Hey! I thought we were talking about the U.S.?

The U.S. ain't a democracy; wasn't designed to be.

You almost get it right though, when you note that there is a whole lot of representin' goin' on, it is a constitutional republic.

Or, at least it was designed to be.

Buy a pocket constitution; check it out!

[MEGoody]

"This email is typical of several anti-speech responses I received."

So what the author says is called 'speech,' but what someone who disagrees with him says is 'anti-speech'.

::::sigh::::

The sad thing is, the lefties will eat up that kind of silly 'logic' like it's candy.

[RightWhale]

Drop the Aristotelian syllogisms and go with dialectic of negatives. It won't help, but at least the failure won't be so obvious.

[m1911]

"Major premise (unstated): All men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights . . .
Minor premise: I am a man.
Conclusion (unstated): Therefore I deserve equal treatment and recognition of my rights. "



And yet you spend a whole article undermining your minor premise. Come out from under the bed, I don't think the JBTs are after you.

[VRWCmember]

For example, Bush said that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States because the Iraqi regime was acquiring enriched uranium, a key component in the development of nuclear weapons. The "evidence" for this claim was a forged document. It appears that the Bush administration knew their claims were phony.

1. President Bush did not state Iraq was an imminent threat. He stated that we could not afford to wait until Iraw became an imminent threat because to do so would put us in unnecessary and unacceptable peril. Your misunderstanding or misrepresentation of this fact destroys your credibility.

2. President Bush did not state Iraq "was acquiring enriched uranium" but rather stated that British intelligence had learned that Iraq had attempted to acquire weapons-grade uranium. (Do you comprehend the difference between those two statements or not?) Is this additional inaccuracy a case of misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation?

3. The evidence for the claim was much more than just the document that turned out to be a forgery. British officials stand by the previous intelligence data in spite of the one forgery that you cited as the basis of the claim. Are you ignorant of the continued insistance of the British government that the intelligence was valid, or are you again deliberately misrepresenting the facts?

Thank you for your dubious contribution to the forum.

I detect ozone.

[Billthedrill]

Labeling those who disagree with your point of view "anti-free-speech advocates" is a childish and unworthy attempt to - yes, a logical term - beg the question. And it doesn't work.

[glock rocks]

American citizens who now face greater risk of terrorist reprisals as a result of the war.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

I find intimidation and the atmosphere it produces to be incompatible with free speech values.

All liberals have to offer is intimidation! This guy should apply his logical analysis to his own speech for cyring out loud.

[FourtySeven]

Seems like the author here has been STALKED by a CULT of RYANS!

One anti-speech advocate wrote to me: "the troops are risking their lives to give you the very right which you are so ironically, (sic) now using to attack the very government that sent them to protect this right in others." (Ryan Gibbons, personal correspondence, April 23, 2003)

and then, on the SAME DAY, ANOTHER "Ryan" (apparently another Ryan) writes to our hapless hero...

Criticism . . . needlessly undermines the government. Our nation cannot be run without the support of its citizens. The voice of one influences many, and fools are prone to listening to and acting upon rebellious voices they hear when they would otherwise have a simple void where that undermining voice takes hold. In light of this, it is a needless endangerment not to our troops, but to our nation itself to criticize the government and its worthy officials in such a way. (Ryan [last name unknown], personal correspondence, April 23, 2003)

AMAZING, don't you think "bmauer"? hehe

At any rate, this little display should convince you of two things: One, despite the protestations to the contrary, vaunted "intellectuals" like YOU, the author of this hit piece, are not as smart as they "appear". Two, that I DID read the entire article you posted. However, I STILL remain unconvinced that the critics, or "anti-speech advocates", you so admirably, and without a SPECK of bias (sarcasm) describe them, are in any way trampling on the First Amendment rights of anyone.

In times of war, criticism is fine. I support the right of ANYONE to criticise the war effort. However my hapless "intellectual" friend, that is a two edged sword; I ALSO support the right of others to call those who criticise the war in Iraq, and the war in terror in general, IDIOTS. Because that's exactly what they are.

When one puts forth claims that are NOT rooted in FACT, rather EMOTION, it is not only just, but NECESSARY to call them fools, for fear that others may be convinced by their innane ramblings. That's not "trampling on anyone's rights". That's simply saving the less informed, from the WILLFULLY ignorant!

GOD, I hope you're reading this right now. LOL Can never be sure, since you were spotted as a troll anyway, 10 seconds after you posted this garbage, apparently. And deservedly so. But maybe my post will help save some other "less informed", from YOUR "wilful ignorance".

Dare to dream. :)