Moranic Argument From Assertion

2.15.2007
Ore : 8:14 AM

Rick Moran at the apparently unironically titled Right Wing Nuthouse pulls a not-so-fast one. (The column has to be long, you notice, because there's a lot of pretzel-twisting going on -- not even a blockquote from Jizzshake McCockslap, as famous for his intricate empty-calorie verbosity as he is for his ability to pack a whopping amount of non-information into one sentence, can find him a bridge to brevity.)

He wants to defend Instahack for his typical Glennocidal tendencies ("Thou shalt not speak ill of a [notional ally]" and all that) while still being on the right side of the issue. So he attacks
Greenwald's mostly moral condemnation of Reynolds's plan while back-handedly lauding Yglesias's evisceration of its practicality. But Moran wastes no time demonstrating why even a junior-high schooler may disregard his disagreement with Greenwald:

How Lambchop managed to wangle a column at Salon is a mystery. They obviously haven’t been reading his shallow, calumnious, hate filled rants toward conservatives and Bush supporters. His generalized assaults on people who disagree with him are wildly beyond the pale of decency and common sense – coarse, exaggerated, full of laughably simplistic analysis coupled with nauseating, moralistic lecturing. Lambchop is a Calvinist without the redeeming belief in God’s mercy.
...Because by the time you're in 9th grade, you quickly learn from the low scores on your essays in Freshman English that you cannot continue neglecting to provide concrete examples in support of even the most mundane claims without ultimately failing the class. "Shallow"; "calumnious"; "hate filled [sic]"; and laughably, "beyond the pale of decency and common sense": All without a single link or quote to shore up his, let's face, far from mundane assertions. He even has the nerve to call Greenwald's posts "...full of laughably simplistic analysis..." without illustrating how this is so -- Rick cannot go beyond Moranic invective. While, to wit, Jeff Goldstein accusing someone of arguing in bad faith is utterly hilarious on the face of it.

But that is a digression.

There are not many, there is one holistic argument against government-conducted assassinations of civilian scientists and religious leaders, and Greenwald stressed its moral elements while Yglesias focused on the practical (a careful and ingenuous reading of each reveals that neither did so exclusively.) And there was no tag-teaming and shifting of goal-posts between Greenwald and Yglesias; one's argument (that Glenn's plan is wrong and nastier than a shithouse rat) reinforced the other's (that Glenn's plan is impractical and deeply stupid.)

Granted, here at Freedom Camp I
only rarely delve into moral issues, knowing full well how tricky they can be, how unauthoritative I am, and how much easier it is to smack down the Rick Morans of Blogistan simply with observations that hew as close to materialism or utilitarianism as possible. But I can without any arrogance assert that unlike many of my counterparts on the Right, I know damn well there's a hell of a lot more to morality than, say, adhering to doctrinaire codes of sexual behavior.

For one thing, I've often noticed that a good litmus test for what is truly moral is that it virtually always accords with true pragmatism. It is morally feasible as well as materially pragmatic to fully fund and support public education. Torture is wrong as well as ineffective. Lying in order involve your country in an unjustified foreign war is as concretely damaging and counterproductive as it is evil and reprehensible. There's just no splitting the difference here.

PS "Lambchop"? "Sock-puppet"? This is an inside joke if I've ever heard one -- did I miss some Right-wing gotcha moment in which Greenwald was revealed as
Sprezzatura II? What gives?

Labels: , , , , , , ,


posted by teh l4m3 at 8:14 AM | Permalink |

[ back home ]

Comments for Moranic Argument From Assertion
i love this x-blogger-and-or-commentator-slash-academic-is-angry-and-says-so-equals-hate-speech meme, as though right-wing pols and the boobs who love them somehow qualify as an economically-culturally oppressed minority since they represent a driven and insane slice of the otherwise apathetic though larger populace.

fiddle-dee-dee! oh the blogmanity!

Guys like Instatwit and Moran live in a cartoonish world where "our Special Forces boys" carry out brave missions and then disappear back into the shadows, just like the movies. In the movies it's all good versus evil, and no innocent people ever get hurt, so it's easy to posit all kinds of stupid ideas because there's no down side. Jesus, if it was as easy as all that, why didn't we just assassinate Saddam instead of invading the whole country?

In the real world, those Special Forces have to deal with everything from dust storms to the understandable reluctance of our allies to using their countries as staging areas for assassination attempts. Even if Bush and Cheney don't get it, the generals sure do.

And Lambchop? If I had to, I'd bet that it's meant to be a snotty reference to Greenwald being gay.

If I had to, I'd bet that it's meant to be a snotty reference to Greenwald being gay.

Were that true, it would totally make my day. He's kinda hot.

There was sort of a fuss about this a while ago. Here are the details.

http://tinyurl.com/3da4xa

Ooh snag. Great omnibus link. It also explains the "sock puppet" libel. Too bad he's already hooked up...

Jizzshake McCockslap

Oh no you didn't!

yyxnSo, a wingnut accuses a realist of doing exactly what the wingnut is doing to cover up what the wingnut is doing...who would of thunk it?

© 2006 Freedom Camp | Blogger Templates by layoutstudios.com and Gecko & Fly.
No part of the content or the blog may be reproduced without prior written permission.
Learn how to Make Money Online at GeckoandFly


Web This Blog
My Photo
Name:
Location: Camp X-Ray, Gitmo, Cuba

I know why the caged bird gets beaten.


Bulls, Bitches & Screws