Read this article by the Dark Lord Shea-uman about the coming infringement on human rights which would be made possible by a new bill going through Congress.
We all have our down-market pleasures, I guess. I have a bookshelf filled with history, theology, and zombie apocalypse books, so who am I to complain about a link like this?
It's just: Isn't the refusal to engage an opponent's best argument some sort of moral failing? The sin of strawman-ism, or something?
@Bryan, I do believe that in this case, Fr. Longenecker agrees with Shea. Me, I figure "infringement" is far too weak a term for what's happening here; I think "complete abrogation" better describes the monstrosity in question.
As a general rule, Arkanabar T'verrick Ilarsadin, I discount any analysis that moves from claiming a repeal of the Manga Carta to an Herman Goering quote to an invented, strawman quote from the opposition. Feels too much like the sort of argumentation you might read in "The Watchtower."
Which is not to say Shea and our good Father are incorrect on the merits of the legislation. Perhaps it really is horrible. It's just that Mark Shea has shown that he moves from absurd, hyperbolic argumentation to personal demonization of his opponents with a distressing economy of motion.
I think the problem with Shea's articles as of late is that they involve Shea's making claims which seem to be exaggerated and involve more possible interpretations than his.
Reading the text of the document in question, it seems there are some limitations (not for citizens and lawful resident aliens) which seem to put some restrictions on the rules he claims is unlimited.
So ultimately the question is whether Shea correctly interprets the proposed law. I'm not so sure he does.
I have read the article and the comments; I have not read the proposed legislation or any other discussion about it. May I, nevertheless, be permitted to make some observations?
A law may be drafted with the best of intentions, and a people may have trust in the purpose, integrity and sanity of its leader. However, once a law is passed, two things come into play: one, the law of unforeseen and unintended consequences; and two, the effect upon the leader of the power given to that leader.
So, one, in Athens a law was passed restricting vehicular entry into the city, such that only cars with even-numbered plates could enter one day, and only cars with odd-numbered plates could enter the next day, and so on. The purpose? To cut by half the number of cars entering the city on any given day and thereby reduce pollution. The result? People went out and bought a second car with a different plate.
And, two, Sir Anthony Eden was the epitome of an honourable English gentlemen when he became Prime minister in the 1950s. Coping with the Suez crisis and the threat of a war seriously disturbed his mind. And, let us not forget, the German people believed that Adolf Hitler, when they freely elected him to office, was sane, trustworthy and well-intentioned.
Do the American people believe that their representatives are incapable of passing poor or ambiguous legislation? And do they believe that their current leader and all his successors are and will remain sane, trustworthy and well-intentioned?
We all have our down-market pleasures, I guess. I have a bookshelf filled with history, theology, and zombie apocalypse books, so who am I to complain about a link like this?
ReplyDeleteIt's just: Isn't the refusal to engage an opponent's best argument some sort of moral failing? The sin of strawman-ism, or something?
@Bryan, I do believe that in this case, Fr. Longenecker agrees with Shea. Me, I figure "infringement" is far too weak a term for what's happening here; I think "complete abrogation" better describes the monstrosity in question.
ReplyDeleteAs a general rule, Arkanabar T'verrick Ilarsadin, I discount any analysis that moves from claiming a repeal of the Manga Carta to an Herman Goering quote to an invented, strawman quote from the opposition. Feels too much like the sort of argumentation you might read in "The Watchtower."
ReplyDeleteWhich is not to say Shea and our good Father are incorrect on the merits of the legislation. Perhaps it really is horrible. It's just that Mark Shea has shown that he moves from absurd, hyperbolic argumentation to personal demonization of his opponents with a distressing economy of motion.
I think the problem with Shea's articles as of late is that they involve Shea's making claims which seem to be exaggerated and involve more possible interpretations than his.
ReplyDeleteReading the text of the document in question, it seems there are some limitations (not for citizens and lawful resident aliens) which seem to put some restrictions on the rules he claims is unlimited.
So ultimately the question is whether Shea correctly interprets the proposed law. I'm not so sure he does.
I have read the article and the comments; I have not read the proposed legislation or any other discussion about it. May I, nevertheless, be permitted to make some observations?
ReplyDeleteA law may be drafted with the best of intentions, and a people may have trust in the purpose, integrity and sanity of its leader. However, once a law is passed, two things come into play: one, the law of unforeseen and unintended consequences; and two, the effect upon the leader of the power given to that leader.
So, one, in Athens a law was passed restricting vehicular entry into the city, such that only cars with even-numbered plates could enter one day, and only cars with odd-numbered plates could enter the next day, and so on. The purpose? To cut by half the number of cars entering the city on any given day and thereby reduce pollution. The result? People went out and bought a second car with a different plate.
And, two, Sir Anthony Eden was the epitome of an honourable English gentlemen when he became Prime minister in the 1950s. Coping with the Suez crisis and the threat of a war seriously disturbed his mind. And, let us not forget, the German people believed that Adolf Hitler, when they freely elected him to office, was sane, trustworthy and well-intentioned.
Do the American people believe that their representatives are incapable of passing poor or ambiguous legislation? And do they believe that their current leader and all his successors are and will remain sane, trustworthy and well-intentioned?