May 25, 2006
You Are Getting Sleepy, Sleeeeeeeepy....
I reckon we have to add a new category: argumentum per repetitio, or the Snark Syllogism, from the famous Lewis Carroll poem (which Carroll subtitled "an Agony in Eight Fits"):
"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."
Or, in some cases, five times in a single paragraph:
The problem is not just the bill's amnesty provision, though the amnesty provision is profoundly unjust and misguided. Thomas Sowell, for example, has explored the amnesty issue in what is now a series of three devastating columns: "Bordering on fraud (1)," "Bordering on fraud (2)" and "Bordering on fraud (3)." Moreover, as the Meese column demonstrates, the current amnesty proposal repeats the framework of the 1986 amnesty that helped bring us to our present pass.
Toss in a bracketing pair of amnesties on top and bottom, and that makes seven times. Whew!
Let's have a show of hands... can anybody here guess what one word Scott would use to describe legalization of illegal immigrants? Take your time....
As the doddering former Sen. Foghorn Leghorn -- sorry, I meant Fritz Hollings -- might have said, "they's too much, Ah say, they's too much amnestyin' goin' on roun' heah!"
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, May 25, 2006, at the time of 4:57 PM
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/786
The following hissed in response by: Terrye
I can see where this is going.
This is why so few people vote. Boredom.
The above hissed in response by: Terrye at May 25, 2006 5:36 PM
The following hissed in response by: Bill Faith
I linked from House of Lords passes No Illegal Left Behind bill. I'll leave a longer comment on your previous post in a few minutes.
The above hissed in response by: Bill Faith at May 25, 2006 8:11 PM
The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael
Deacon Paul posted back that you don't defend the program itself in your email...
should've sent him a link you your posts. ;)
Me? I think it's an atrocious program, one that the Republicans passed in part because they have lost touch with the base. Now, that particular conversation is a two way street... it's not just the fault of the legislator that he isn't hearing the Republican Base; the Republican Base must stand up and be heard.
They cannot do this by boycotting the Republican Party or its leadership.
...and this is the crux of our problem: Whenever the Party does something we don't like, we are prone to look at fixing it ourselves instead of looking to our Government to fix it for us.
This is an understandable impulse, even a predictable one for a 'Small Government Conservative', but it means that as a political party, the Republicans are going to have a tough time keeping the pulse of the base. Instead of running off in a Huff, we Republicans need to turn to our Party to fix the problems.
Only if they hear from us can they even KNOW what we want, much less have a chance to do it.
The following hissed in response by: Big D
That's what this site needs - more of the greatly under appreciated phiilosopher Foghorn Leghorn.
"If he don't stop talkin' so much he'll get his tongue sunburned!"
The following hissed in response by: Mastermind2much
Normally I'm against boredom, but when you opponent is refusing to use a particular word that accurately describes what they're doing you have to throw that word in their face over and over again.
"We're not crashing the car, we're driving the car directly toward that brick wall. That's not 'crashing', that's 'driving'".
The following hissed in response by: Nightsapper
We can cacklesnort all we want to about "Foghorn Leghorn" (I still think Sen Byrd should have that title), but calling a spade a spade, repeatedly, is sometimes needed to get the point across, especially when the the other side has tried to obfuscate the terms of the argument by altering the meaning of the words. Is not what is being proposed an amnesty? By most common usage and diction, it is. Then why the issue with that word? We need to be careful when we do not respond to the content but instead we respond to the presentation.
Since folks here appear to be fond of Lewis Carroll, here are some of his words that seem to apply to those who will not call this what it is, an amnesty program:
'When *I* use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
(Why does Humpty as portrayed above bring to my mind Sen McCain, or is that just me?)
And that is where I have problems with this sort of thing. "Master" is what some folks seem to be after; not "who is right", not "what is best for the nation". Just "Which is to be master".
Usually we see a lot of analysis and thoughtful argumentation on many libertarian, center-right and conservative blogs (here, the corner, powerline, hugh hewitt, etc even Rush Limmbaugh in a few lucid non-self-promotional moments). If, in place of that, we instead to resort to personal invective and emotional pandering, then we may as well just rename this "Dafyyd Kos", and go completely over to the dark side.
Based on what I have read as a lurker, I believe the center-right, libertarian and conservative blogs are far better than that.
I think we would do well to remember Reagan's old 11th commandment in some circumstances.
And in the spirit of the literary mentions, here is a very bad "poem" that came to my mind. I promise to try not to let it happen again.
My Apologies to Lewis Carrol:
We can be Humpty playing with words,
- each-other backstabing.
While the Republican Congress continues
- their mimsy outgrabing.
Until vorpal voters take their heads --
Then the liberals and the Democrats
- will come galumphing back.
(shrug) Our choice.
The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh
Is not what is being proposed an amnesty? By most common usage and diction, it is.
I have repeatedly cited dictionaries and Black's Law Dictionary. You are simply misinformed.
Words are my business; not just on the blog, but for many years. You cannot change the meaning of a word by fiat.
"Amnesty" means (and always has meant) a general pardon with no punishment. It cannot be twisted to mean admission of guilt and acceptance of punishment.
The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at May 26, 2006 3:10 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved