June 30, 2005


Jay Tea over at Whizbang has a great post up demolishing the "chickenhawk" strawman that the Moonbat Minions of the Left love to use as an "argument" as to why any of us who support the war effort in Iraq should be discounted in our opinions as cowards not willing to back up our rhetoric.

Jay Tea is right on the mark when he says:

"I've always believed that one should limit one's arguments to the issues, not the individuals. I always try to refrain from gratuitous personal attacks when discussing matters of grave import... [snip]

"That belief stands in stark contrast with the "chickenhawk" argument, which tries to shift the discussion from the message to the messenger. It tries to move the topic from "is this a good idea?" to "who the hell are you to say anything?" It is an attempt to silence the opposition by assailing them personally, by punishing them for daring to have a dissenting opinion."

And one of the commenters in the thread had the perfect comeback by fighting fire with fire:

"But as far as the chicken hawk thing goes, I like to respond by offering a similar question in return. For example, I might ask:"

“Do you support universal access to healthcare for all?”

"If so, then I follow up with:"

“Have you volunteered to be a no-cost medical doctor, or nurse, or nurse’s assistant? Or maybe a crisis counselor, or dental assistant, or vision tester, etc. Surely, there is somewhere in the health care environment where you can contribute. Maybe you’re better with computers. Have you offered your time to help set up a data base at the free clinic? Maybe you don’t have the time or special skills to contribute. Are you at least providing monetary support?”

As Jay Tea first stated, the whole chickenhawk argument is just a vacuous attempt to take the argument from dicussing the issue to attacking the individual.

Update: Oleg Dulin made some comments in Whizbangs thread, and put up his own post where he asks: "What made Iraq unique enough to be attacked"?. I tried to respond in his comments and only got a "I know what your doing, your trying to spam my comments" message. In fairness, it is stated that there would be a confirmation message sent to my e-mail to post a reply, but that has not been forthcoming as of yet. I can see wanting to do anything to keep spam away, but making it so difficult to get through to opine makes it seem to me that Oleg really doesn't want to hear any opposing opinions...maybe he'll come here and try to engage?

Posted by Delftsman3 at June 30, 2005 03:49 PM

The Chickenhawk charge is always stupid, but deranged when it comes from lefties, most of whom would fight for nothing except the right not fight for anything.

I've been called a Chickenhawk on other blogs; when I tell them I was in Vietnam and have three sons in this war, most of them never answer, some of them call me a liar, and the others change the subject.

It's a ridiculous charge anyway. It's easy to weed out the posers and the military nuts who serve only in their fantasies. Recognizing a national danger and supporting the men and women under arms is one piece of patriotism. This is what lefties can't accept, the existence of people better and more muscular, in every way, than they are.

Posted by: Rhod at June 30, 2005 05:14 PM

Better a chickenhawk than a chickenchicken.
It is a strength of civilization that people do what they are best at. When I was 18 I fought a war. At 74, I engineer. At every stage of my life I FOUGHT FOR MY COUNTRY.

Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at June 30, 2005 06:21 PM

Well stated Walter. At 19, I too was fighting a war, albeit not on the front line, and at 51 I'm fighting one with a keyboard.

Posted by: delftsman3 at June 30, 2005 06:35 PM

"That belief stands in stark contrast with the "chickenhawk" argument, which tries to shift the discussion from the message to the messenger. It tries to move the topic from "is this a good idea?" to "who the hell are you to say anything?"

Like your post of June 29 on the Muslim mind (linking the comment of one cleric to the issue overall)?
Or your post of June 28 on people in glass houses (textbook 'who the hell are you to talk' comment)?

Doesn't that kind of put you in the glass house?

You know, I find lots of interesting ideas in your posts, which is why I keep reading, but I am constantly finding that you are so busy slagging off at your imagined enemies that you see everything from a skewed, subjective perspective. I think that's a real shame given how well you collect relevent information.

Posted by: chosha at June 30, 2005 06:52 PM

What are you taling about ? Check your spam filter. My blog backend sends an email immediately with a link to click. Once you click the comment is posted. I just saw your post in the queue and approved it myself.

Jay Tea himself had no trouble posting comments!

Posted by: Oleg at June 30, 2005 08:57 PM

Sorry Oleg, but I never got anything but a "your trying to spam me" message. Thank you for approving my comment. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Posted by: delftsman3 at June 30, 2005 09:12 PM

I take another approach to the Chickenshits of the left--

If this war is so illegal and immoral, and you're so full of Righteous Outrage™, then why aren't you taking up arms against it?

Shuts 'em up every time.

Posted by: LC TripleNeckSteel at July 5, 2005 06:27 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?