[lit-ideas] Re: Hitchens on Moore's flick
- From: Scribe1865@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 23:31:26 EDT
In a message dated 6/29/2004 4:00:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
straker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
"IF you insist that such-and-so is the case, THEN why are you so ineptly
doing x, y, and z which are so utterly contrary to your stated purposes
and, indeed, destructive of real American interests? If you were
serious about dealing with such-and-so, you'd be actively doing a, b,
and c."
I don't see this at all. Hitchens is simply requiring that people say what
they mean without hiding behind spurious reasoning. This is advice all of us,
including Hitchens, could use.
For example, Moore hates Bush. Bush invades Afghanistan, so it must be wrong.
Okay, Moore later learns, it wasn't that wrong. But since Moore hates Bush,
the invasion must have been done ineptly. Since this last point is easier to
validate, Moore sticks with it.
Makes sense to me. If you hate someone or hate their views, you can always
find something to criticize, even if a few of the hated person's actions turn
out to be justified. Because, before the criticism, there was the hate.
The important point is that the motive to criticize precedes the criticism,
and therefore adapts itself to changing circumstance.
Just as Rush Limbaugh could always find something to criticize about Clinton,
regardless of the issue, Moore can find something to criticize about Bush.
Motive precedes judgment. Hitchens points it out
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
