[macintologist]

...but this Schiavo ordeal just makes me cry"

Exhibit A: Bill Tierney

Hat tip to Billmon

NYTimes: Protesters With Hearts on Sleeves and Anger on Signs

The legal battle over the life of Terri Schiavo may have ended, but a thick, fervent crowd remains in the makeshift encampment outside the Woodside Hospice House here . . .

No, we're not going to go home," said Bill Tierney, a young daughter at his side. "Terri is not dead until she's dead" . . .

Mr. Tierney, a former military intelligence officer in Iraq who works as a translator and investigator for private companies, cried as he talked about watching the Schiavo spectacle on television and feeling the utter need to be at the hospice.

Boston Globe: Spy World

Bill Tierney . . . had just returned from eight months working as an interrogator for US forces in Baghdad, and had come to talk, on the record, about torture.

''The Brits came up with an expression – wog,'' Tierney said. ''That stands for Wily Oriental Gentleman. There's a lot of wiliness in that part of the world.''. . .

After explaining his various psychological tactics to the audience, interrogator Bill Tierney (a private contractor working with the Army) said, ''I tried to be nuanced and culturally aware. But the suspects didn't break.''

Suddenly Tierney's temper rose. ''They did not break!'' he shouted. ''I'm here to win. I'm here so our civilization beats theirs! Now what are you willing to do to win?'' he asked, pointing to a woman in the front row. ''You are the interrogators, you are the ones who have to get the information from the Iraqis. What do you do? That word 'torture'. You immediately think, 'That's not me.' But are we litigating this war or fighting it?'' . . .

Asked about Abu Ghraib, Tierney said that for an interrogator, ''sadism is always right over the hill. You have to admit it. Don't fool yourself – there is a part of you that will say, 'This is fun.' '

So we have this guy, and the other protester who is a registered sex offender absconding the authorities. Who are these people?

Now, you're probably gonna say: "well they don't represent the majority."

Baloney! We've seen what these people do! It's on the record!

Aside from the registered sex offender and encourages his son to be arrested by the police, and the guy who thinks torturing A-rabs is fun, we have the crowd of protesters who kept a woman from seeing her dying grandpa in his last moments.

Terri isn't the only one there. There are 70 other people trying to rest in peace at the hospice. The least these protesters can do is protest in silence and not bother other people and not send their kids to get arrested trying to cross police lines. There clearly is nothing moral about these people.

And for the conservatives who oppose my view, just know that the good folks over at the Stormfront White Nationalist Community are on your side.

[Uncle Skeleton]

It's not valid to attack someone's argument through character assassination. Saying the husband is wrong because he has an overdue library book is no better or worse than saying a protester is wrong because he has unpaid parking tickets. Whether the allegations are true or not says nothing about the validity of the person's arguments. You're just making your side of the debate look childish and petty.

[macintologist]

We know what these people stand for, and if given the opportunity, what they wouldn't shy away from doing.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/25/arrest.schiavo/

[Millennium]

I've heard this technique called 'poisoning the well', but usually that name's used when you try to use character assassination before the arguments have been made. This is different. However, it is the same thing; you are trying to destroy an argument through ad hominem attacks. That's not valid argumentative technique.

It doesn't even help you all that much, macintologist. You are correct to say that this man was once a torturer, but you conveniently leave out that he turned his back on that practice. This is a man who knows what it means to torture someone better than you or I ever could, and he seems to have decided -even with the power-trips that he openly admits to have had- that it is not the right way.

Not that any of it matters. Schiavo cannot experience torture at this point. They cannot hurt her, and believe it or not, they know this. You seem to have this idea that the people who are trying to keep her alive are trying to do her harm. You are no better than those who claim that those who fight for pulling the plug simply do so out of some kind of lust for death. Certainly these statements are true for a handful of people on their respective sides, but it is a poor thing to judge a side by its worst representatives.

Yes, there are some true fiends on the side of keeping Schiavo alive. So what? There are fiends on the side of pulling the plug as well. Evil people exist, but it is rare that they are one-dimensionally so. You cannot excape agreeing with some of them on some matters, and that agreement does not necessarily make you as evil as they.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
It's not valid to attack someone's argument through character assassination. Saying the husband is wrong because he has an overdue library book is no better or worse than saying a protester is wrong because he has unpaid parking tickets. Whether the allegations are true or not says nothing about the validity of the person's arguments. You're just making your side of the debate look childish and petty.

[f1000]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
You're just making your side of the debate look childish and petty.

Well, what do you expect from a teenager?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by f1000:
Well, what do you expect from a teenager?

I doubt that's it. My wife teaches Latin to high-schoolers; I know teenagers who could argue rings around the original post in this thread. I know teenagers who could argue rings around my own posts here, for that matter.

No, this is just someone who has yet to see that he's guilty of the very same kind of thing he accuses his so-called enemies of doing. He's projecting his own beliefs and desires onto everyone else through the use of stereotypes. He does this because he believes this worldview to be "enlightened", and thus some sort of universal, natural way of thinking. This is not a matter of beliefs or values; it's much more basic than either of these. It's a matter of epistemology.

[macintologist]

Originally posted by Millennium:
I doubt that's it. My wife teaches Latin to high-schoolers; I know teenagers who could argue rings around the original post in this thread. I know teenagers who could argue rings around my own posts here, for that matter.

No, this is just someone who has yet to see that he's guilty of the very same kind of thing he accuses his so-called enemies of doing. He's projecting his own beliefs and desires onto everyone else through the use of stereotypes. He does this because he believes this worldview to be "enlightened", and thus some sort of universal, natural way of thinking. This is not a matter of beliefs or values; it's much more basic than either of these. It's a matter of epistemology.

The thing is, conservatives are accusing me of character assassination, where were the conservatives when the media went ballistic over the Howard Dean scream speech? Character assassination? I guess it's only bad when a liberal does it

[budster101]

Originally posted by macintologist:
The thing is, conservatives are accusing me of character assassination, where were the conservatives when the media went ballistic over the Howard Dean scream speech? Character assassination? I guess it's only bad when a liberal does it

What conservatives are you talking about? Is this some twisted payback?
So you admit that you are guilty of character assassination, by comparing that of what happened to DEAN. He should have been the one nominated, and not Kerry. Why did the liberals nominate that loser? Hmmm?

Howard Dean, screaming aside, is left of Teddy Kennedy for crying out loud, and is now the DNC Chair. Good God, that is going to shred what the Democrats have left of anything... IMHO.

CLUE: It's bad when anyone does it, even you. Just looking at all the threads you have created.

[f1000]

Originally posted by macintologist:
The thing is, conservatives are accusing me of character assassination, where were the conservatives when the media went ballistic over the Howard Dean scream speech? Character assassination? I guess it's only bad when a liberal does it

Howard Dean was running for an office in which character is of the utmost importance. In any case, Howard Dean was knocked out of the running by his OWN political party. If anyone capitalized on his snafu, it was Kerry. Sure, Republicans snickered, but it was the Democratic party that dealt the coup de grâce.

You're so intent on demonizing "conservatives" (which basically sounds like anyone who gets in the way of your doing whatever it is that you want to do) that you're making illogical arguments.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by macintologist:
The thing is, conservatives are accusing me of character assassination, where were the conservatives when the media went ballistic over the Howard Dean scream speech? Character assassination? I guess it's only bad when a liberal does it

The attacks were against Dean himself -the one who actually did the screaming- not his supporters. The actions of a single person were used only to attack that specific person, whereas you project the actions of a single person onto many people. This is the difference.

[macintologist]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The attacks were against Dean himself -the one who actually did the screaming- not his supporters. The actions of a single person were used only to attack that specific person, whereas you project the actions of a single person onto many people. This is the difference.

What about the Faux News Richard Clarke hatchet job reporting? They kept on saying "well he's just trying to sell his book" over and over, as well as "some people say Clarke has been inconsistent", basically just repeating verbatim was Scott McClellan was saying. All of this had nothing to do with what Clarke was testifying to.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by macintologist:
What about the Faux News Richard Clarke hatchet job reporting? They kept on saying "well he's just trying to sell his book" over and over, as well as "some people say Clarke has been inconsistent", basically just repeating verbatim was Scott McClellan was saying. All of this had nothing to do with what Clarke was testifying to.

Forgive me if I'm unfamiliar with the situation you're talking about. I assume you're speaking of the same Richard Clarke who wrote Against All Enemies, but I didn't follow FOX News' reporting of the subject. Could you clarify?