You know, there’s a certain horrible fascination in the task of cleaning up december’s lapsus logicae. Here goes…
- [Miller] “A: What does John Ashcroft have to do with Stanford football?
B: Cite [for the assertion that Ashcroft’s opponents objected to him on the basis of his religion]?”
Regarding (B), google came up with lots of cites. Here’s one:*
And the “one” that december links to is a transcript of remarks by “one of Ashcroft’s strongest supporters”, Sen. Mike Enzi, when his confirmation was under consideration. Yup folks, according to december, the fact that a conservative Republican pro-Ashcroft politician merely accused Ashcroft opponents of discriminating against his religion counts as a cite supporting that accusation. By that standard of “reasoning”, if I want to support, say, an assertion that Israel has used gratuitous violence against Palestinian civilians, all I have to do is quote Arafat as having said so. There aren’t enough rolleyes in the entire smiley bin to express my reaction to this.
december, when asked for a cite—and I know you’ve heard this before—you are supposed to provide actual factual evidence. Like this:
-If you had found a statement from several Ashcroft opponents saying “yeah, we don’t trust him because he’s a Christian” (and how likely is that? for crepes’ sake, the overwhelming majority of US Senators of both parties are Christian!), then that would be conclusive evidence in favor of your assertion.
-If you had found an analysis by some religious-liberties group, especially a leftist one, saying “yeah, these guys appear to be prejudiced against Ashcroft because he’s a Christian”, that would be strong evidence in favor of your assertion.
- If what you find is an unsupported accusation to that effect by an Ashcroft booster who has a partisan incentive to discredit the opposition, that is worth absolutely jack shit as evidence in favor of your assertion. Do you think you will ever be able to understand this distinction?
*Regarding (A), my point is that today’s campus has preferred groups, who receive the highest level of deference and protection. *
Cite? Go ahead, show us you can really do it right!
A 45 year old job applicant was black-balled because of something he once said as a child? Great tolerance.
Notice how december implies that Stanford’s decision was in fact made on the basis of “something [Brown] once said as a child”. This is classic decemberism, both in its superficial distortion of the actual statements (Brown did not “once say” something derogatory to homosexuals “as a child”; rather, he recently said on his radio show that he used to “hate and sometimes harass homosexuals” as a child), and in its deeper misrepresentation of the underlying point (what Stanford objected to was the open condemnation of homosexuality that Brown feels called upon as a Christian to maintain now, not merely “something he once said as a child”).