<p>“Some of the younger posters here have a lot to learn about life, death, and the grieving process.”</p>
<p>We also learn by looking at examples of what NOT to do … acting like a lunatic or being overly condescending comes to mind.</p>
<p>A republican was wearing a shirt that also said something, like support the troops and she was not arrested.</p>
<p>Why not? Oh, the other woman was a republican</p>
<p>She was asked to leave, but not handcuffed</p>
<p>CGM, the difference is possibly that Cindy Sheehan attended the event as a protestor. The republican was wearing inappropriate attire, but was not there in protest.</p>
<p>I am amazed by how there seems to be so much support for the Iraq war on this post…bet all you parents are encouraging your kids to join up, right, to help free the world? Hmmmm…I see your kids all going off to college instead. Certainly they could go to Iraq and go to college later,with help from Uncle Sam even, ending the conversations about how expensive college is. This is America - you don’t have to like Cindy Sheehan or agree with her - but don’t call someone terrible names until you have walked in their shoes. And I’m serious - if everyone is so pro-war, have you had serious discussions with your kids about joining up -letting them know you think this would be a swell idea - or have you had more discussions about SATs? After all, this righteous, wonderful war might be over when your kids graduate, so NOW is the time to encourage them to fight. Sure, it’s their decision, but how much have you really talked to them about it in your home? Maybe you are afraid that what happpend to Cindy Sheehan might happen to you? But of course if it did, you would just be proud your child died for…well, for what, exactly?</p>
<p>How do you know? And who is to judge? according to all reports she did nothing physical to warrant hand cuffs</p>
<p>What if I wore a no smoking tshirt? Or keep our lakes clean? Or Give a Hoot, Don’t Polute?</p>
<p>Or a smokey the bear shirt</p>
<p>Or a drink bear shirt</p>
<p>She attended the event with a ticket in the balcony and was just proceeding to sit down</p>
<p>Catherine, thank you for your post. It is truly amazing that these parents are willing to let their child die for a war we are fighting on false pretenses</p>
<p>If they are so gung-ho, go sign up</p>
<p>Since they raised the age limit for the national guard, some of these moms and dads probably could make the cut off, so go sign up</p>
<p>This discussion has nothing to do with being pro-war. It’s about Cindy Sheehan’s behavior and how she is disgracing her son’s memory. If Cindy Sheehan was so against the war in Iraq, why did she wait until AFTER her son died to get her anti-war campaign going? She is a grieving mother who is making a fool of herself and needs to get into counseling. Her pre-occupation with ‘getting back at Bush’ is just going to prolong the grieving process for her. Somebody close to her should advise her that right now it’s important to deal with the death of her son – not partake in this nonsense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks Xiggi, </p>
<p>Responding to the ad hominems is tiresome. I usually let it pass and stick to the content of a particular post rather than the perceived style, personality, age, ethnicity of the poster. Obviously, no one here knows anything about the death I have seen. Some know my background and know what a foolish comment that was. Its a rude presumption. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I have received boatloads of interesting advice, from my critics, on how to write persuasive posts and literary reviews. All by the liberal contingent on cc (who I suspect dont really care for the content of my posts though the literary thing is a horse of a different color). It seems none of the stated conservatives want me to write my posts with aplomb, verve and persuasion. Only my liberal critics.</p>
<p>I’ve always found it rather odd…why would they (liberal ccers) want me, Fountainsiren, to be more convincing by freely offering up such good advice and trade secrets?</p>
<p>Seems counter intuitive on the face of it and all the more peculiar when you realize these same liberals never seem to give any of their good advice or trade secrets to any of the other liberals; is it a hierarchical thing. Top-Liberal?</p>
<p>So, it seems, they are either masochists…or disingenuous. </p>
<p>Hmmm, I wonder which one it is?</p>
<p>Why do you use the word liberal like an insult? </p>
<p>As a young Black woman, you should thank your lucky stars that those same liberals who fought for your right to be in the school you are in did…Martin Luther King- Liberal. And don’t think about the liberal women who went on hunger strikes so we could vote. And don’t think about the liberals that opened doors for you.</p>
<p>That shows lack of imagination.</p>
<p>You have no sense of history or what liberals- union workers, suffragets, civil rights workers, women, did for you</p>
<p>Be grateful to liberals for giving you the chance to go to school in an integrated environment </p>
<p>Do you think the people that died in the south were conservative right wing people you seem to admire so?</p>
<p>Be thankful for liberals who opened doors for you and suffered for you, because you don’t seem to understand that. People saraficed their lives so that people have the right to speak up and have choices.</p>
<p>Your choices. If you were born 50 years ago, you would have been spit on going into a certain school, sitting at a lunch counter, voting, getting a better job,by the very conservatives you seem to applaud</p>
<p>I am sick of people not remembering those who worked so hard for the freedoms that those people enjoy and denigrate “liberals” for wanting to hold onto those freedoms.</p>
<p>It makes me very angry and very sad. </p>
<p>Remember, if it weren’t for people willing to die for you, you would not be where you are</p>
<p>Never forget that.</p>
<p>Rosa Parks went to jail for you. Martin Luther King died for you.
Mary Clarke died so you could vote</p>
<p>These you would call liberals, and try and make it an insult</p>
<p>Pretty scary</p>
<p>I know you will say well, I am smart, I worked hard, I deserved this…and you did, you should be proud</p>
<p>But 50 years ago, not very likely you would have had the chance, no matter how brilliant you were</p>
<p>Remember that…it is our responsibility as Americans to never forget our past, and to make no assumptions about our freedoms for the future</p>
<p>PS-if you love this war so much, go, feel free</p>
<p>“As a young Black woman, you should …”</p>
<p>I’m not sure to whom this is addressed, but one word is unmistakable: you should … following by a litany of “suggestions.”</p>
<p>Shouldn’t the liberals applaud that a young woman seems able to think for herself without having to be reminded of her past at every turn? The glorious contributions of the past should not be dismissed, but neither should they serve as recurring excuses for the current ineptitudes and the total inadequacy for the future that plagues the sclerotic liberal mindset. </p>
<p>There are times I feel the liberals must really regret to have sought to teach the younger generation to read and write. Indoctrination works so much better when applied to the lesser educated.</p>
<p>FS: </p>
<p>Rudeness? Ad hominems? Puh-lease. You are not the only college age poster on this thread; huntsman did not single you out, and nothing he (?) said was “rude” or “foolish.” This is an anonymous forum; nobody would have any way of knowing what your history is. We can only assess the maturity you evince in your words. </p>
<p>This is not the first thread where you’ve made accusations about being attacked, yet no acknowledgement of your own aggressive, negative tone. “You can dish it out but you can’t take it” seems like the appropriate schoolyard chant for this situation… </p>
<p>As I said before: write however you want; my criticism was to your hyperbolic posts on this thread-- though I extrapolated to the general limitations of nail-spitting as compared to thoughtful discourse. Respect is a two way street, and mischaracterizing other people’s posts is IMO condescending and disrespectful.</p>
<p>BTW You may only get writing tips from liberals because you are only coming across to conservatives… which was my point.</p>
<p>Everyone here has the right to be liberal or conservative and to say what they want. But it is scary to hear people outright “bashing” liberals or conservatives. It’s no different than someone bashing jews or catholics - we all have a right to believe what we choose, and we all should be intelligent enough to realize that there have been great Liberals, like Martin Luther King and great conservatives, like, well…think of one…well, my neighbor is a conservative and very nice. Don’t ever wish upon ths country a one party system, so liberals be glad there are conservatives, and vice versa. As a journalist I have traveled to many “one party” countries on the left and on the right. They are called dictatorships and you don’t want to live there.</p>
<p>Xiggi, minutes ago, in another thread:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>BRAVO! That’s the spirit!</p>
<p>SBmom,</p>
<p>Take a breath. I often have what you would call a negative tone, others call it something else. Its common in the caféI have been on both ends of it. I suppose you believe you have not; however, many do and have been. Many also have thoughtful posts. Some of both kinds are written by me fun and biting and warm and thoughtful…maybe you don’t believe you post the former or even that you are doing it now, thus the condescension. </p>
<p>Im fine with it, really; but I will often respond to it. Most do. Perhaps you do not think you do, thus the continuous condescension (on this thread, not normally). </p>
<p>I like your posts, always have. Keep it up! I love all the color here, youre part of it I sometimes think I am.</p>
<p>“Fun and biting” is all well and good, but very hard to pull off. I don’t attempt it very often, but yes, I do remember a few times. </p>
<p>Condescension would be pretending you’re pulling it off when you aren’t, or pussyfooting around you because you are young. I think you’re tougher than that. Maybe in lieu of a writing critique from now on I’ll just say “FS, not fun enough.”</p>
<p>SBmom,</p>
<p>Just for fun, let’s call your plan, option #1.</p>
<p>Let’s call the following, Option #2,
make a counter argument, witty jest (though witty jest might include a remark such as FS, not fun enough
within reason–that is, as long as it does not become a gag perpetually pummeled into the pixels in the manner of What about Clinton, or that dog dont hunt [unless in reference to hunting, or dogs and particularly hunting with dogs; or, in your case, if you really are bored and nothing but a cc spruce up will do]), show the logical fallacy of the argument, present counter examples.</p>
<p>In the spirit of communal giving, Emersons Law on Compensation and having received so much charity in this regard in the past, I now feel obliged to offer some writing advice of my own before my indebtedness is irredeemable.</p>
<p>Arguments:
Option #1, ad hominem argument (attack).
Example:
in post #51 Lauras50 wrote: You know Fountain Siren, you pride yourself on your beautifull writing and your intelligience, but you see only from one side. A real intellectual will think outside the box and try to see things from all sides. You can be bright, but still not see anything at all. You also should try not to be so snide. You should use your wonderful writing skills to bring more to the world than viciousness and condescension and you responded to her comment with [post#71] Fountain Siren, Laura’s criticism in post #51 is dead on. [note: FS, moi, has never, ever, prided herself on writing or intelligence
unless being graded by an appropriate tutor or maestro and the award is not in doubt
none of which, obviously, applies here]</p>
<p>Option #2, counter argument.
The preferred option, #1, is in fact an ad hominem argument (as noted above). Now, Im not saying it shouldnt be used–verboten as it were–as Ive been known to tap that dance myself, but we should at least be clear on the form of the argument we employ. Why be coy?
Example:
Cav302 wrote [post#72], Impressive, SBmom. You make an ad hominem attack on FountainSiren because she doesn’t concede the validity of any of your points? And you responded [post #74], CAV, I intended to jerk FS’ chain a bit, but what I said is a far cry from an 'ad hominem attack. Well, not really (re, the marriage of posts #51&71 above)
</p>
<p>
<a href=“http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html[/url]”>http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html</a></p>
<p>As I understand the ad hominem fallacy, finding someones sex, age, occupation, political affiliation, personality, attitude, style, actions or religion to be the basis of your argument is in fact to make an ad hominem argument (attack). All objections to the contrary are palid attempts at obfuscation, too often nestled within a holier-than-though assumption. Most here, on cc, indulge themselves in this guilty pleasure me too, it is a rhetorical treat best served hot and fresh. However, few confess it (tarnishes self-image: disrobed of the holier-than-thou halo some feel rhetorically naked and vulnerable to same argument). </p>
<p>Thus when I respond to Xiggi [post #108], Thanks Xiggi, Responding to the ad hominems is tiresome. I usually let it pass and stick to the content of a particular post rather than the perceived style, personality, age, ethnicity of the poster. I do not specifically claim I was being attacked, or complain it isnt fair (in this case it was simply wrong on the factsand if the facts are not known, for what ever reason, they should not be the basis of a factual argumentthey are ad hominem fallacies) but simply note that responding to ad hominems is tiresome. It is. Most people feel this way and of course they should (isn’t that the point?). Maybe its beyond the pale, or bad form to call an ad hominem what it is (like shouting out, “hey, the emperor has no clothes”) but certainly, in these parts, making use of one is not. </p>
<p>Thankfully…and for all concerned. :)</p>
<p>Okay, I’m lost here. Now someone explain to me why a dog got to attend the State of the Union address (the one Ms. Sheehan got escorted out of?) What is the reasoning behind that? The whole thing seems rather like a circus to me. Are these gimmicks to pump up ratings? To get people to watch?</p>
<p>I haven’t lost a child. I don’t know what I would do or how I would act while doing it. However, the fact that Cindy Sheehan stirs up so much negative publicity probably hurts her cause more than helps it. I have to say that I thought her shirt was inappropriate given the event and the place to which she chose to wear it.</p>
<p>I wonder if in 10 or 20 years, she will look back and wonder what she was thinking and feel that she did her cause an injustice. Thirty years after posing with NVA artillery, Jane Fonda publicly admitted that it was a mistake and that it hurt her cause and her credibility irrevocably.</p>
<p>Catherine:</p>
<p>This is in response to your earlier post. My son has signed up - he’s at West Point and it’s likely that he’ll serve in a combat area when he graduates. He made the decision, not me. He lived through WATCHING the World Trade Center collapse from a vantage point in our town overlooking Manhattan. He understood what it meant when our NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR who worked in the WTC didn’t come home that night and NEVER came home. He also had some understanding of what it meant as I received three different telephone calls telling me that three of my good friends were murdered that day in the World Trade Center and they never came home. He had a better inkling when he came to their funerals with me. </p>
<p>We live in a dangerous world today and the threats won’t be as simple to identify as they’ve been in the past. The actions we’ll have to take to protect ourselves from people who want to destroy us won’t look like WWII. What threat exactly would you have to see to stand up and do something? The Canadians marching in from Montreal or Ottawa? It won’t be that simple. And if we don’t do what we need to do now, it will be too late for all us to say “I told you so” to those who support Cindy Sheehan and think we can make nice with the people who hate us and always think it’s our own fault. Does Neville Chamberlain come to mind? Have you been following the protests in the Arab world over some cartoons in the Danish press? The Arab papers frequently print anti-Christian and anti-Jewish cartoons and diatribes - no big deal for them. But G-d forbid someone in the West does it. Get with it - this really is a clash of cultures - and maybe we can find some friends in the Muslim world who feel that Islam needs to be reformed - but it sure doesn’t look like they’re winning the battle.</p>
<p>“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence in their behalf” George Orwell</p>
<p>FS, </p>
<p>REPLY-- Method 1, the SBmom way:</p>
<p>Your STYLE OF ARGUMENT was being attacked by Laura50, not you. You were being called to task for your tone, your one-sidedness, and, in my follow-up post explaining my agreement, for your inaccurate parsing of others’ words. Your attempt at “fun and biting” was not fun enough; it looked ‘snide and vicious.’ As a writer, your tone did not come across, and you were called on it. </p>
<p>My gripe, then, was with the STYLE and the CONTENT of your posts, and I offered evidence, citing your false implication that a previous poster had equated Cindy Sheehan with Ghandi. Nothing ad hominem about it. </p>
<p>OTOH, you toss off words like foolish, rude, condescending, with no evidence except your own pique… strange double standard FS. Pot & the kettle…?. </p>
<p>REPLY-- Method 2, the FountainSiren way:</p>
<p>Some of us prefer an actual debate, with feints, thrusts, and parries, and rapier wit to be sure, but without crude, random slashing. We like the gentlemanly nod of the head at the opponent, and prefer an economy of motion, with the goal of touching the heart…</p>
<p>Coming, as you do, from the World Wrestling Federation school of polemics, with its cartoonish heroes and villians howling and throwing eachother to the ground, it must be difficult to practice, or even recognize, such subtlety. It’s much easier to wolf down your steroids, pump some iron, strap on your metallic belt, and careen through a charade matchup with a pre-determined conclusion. After all, it’s lots of fun to stomp on somebody when they’re prohibited (by custom or law) from stomping back.</p>