« it goes on and on my friends | Main | tastes so good.... »

i've been looking forward to bedtime since I got up this morning

Just a thought before I go to bed.

After reading some emails and doing a bit a research, I have to say that I had no idea Charlie Daniels is such a tool.

I wonder how many other people I adored back when I was young and stoned turned out to be asshats.

All of them, probably.

Comments

Hi. I made an idiotic statement here which has since been deleted and replaced with this.

LOL at the above comment!!

So, I thought Charlie was cool? Now he's not? WTF?

you must have evidence that I don't. I did read a statement by him earlier that flamed hollywood idiots. I thought that was pretty cool. Surely that's not what you are disagreeing with?

Yeah. Please 'splain?

I thought Charlie was okay, too. The liberal-celebrity bashing and all. What gives?

As I said on our site:

WE SUPPORT A WAR WITH IRAQ, but while level-headed anti-war people don't need the likes of Babs representing them, we certainly don't need Charlie Daniels opening his ignorant yap either in support of the war.

His "open letter" was an exercise in logical fallacies galores. Oh, and he's an asshat.

Also, I think there's a slight inconsistency when you say "Celibrity X is anti war and should shut up since he/she/it doesn't know dick" and then pony up with Celibrity Y simply because he/she/it is with you.

At least, when you admit that even those who agree with you can be total asshats, your opinions can go a little further.

"His "open letter" was an exercise in logical fallacies galores."

I hafta ask: What logical fallacies, exactly?

Charlie Daniels' letter is not exactly a point-by-point refutation of the anti-war crowd's argument or anything; it's mostly an insult to Hollywood anti-war liberals. There isn't much room for fallacy in there: it's his opinion about celebs who shoot their mouths off, and a warning to them that their movies may be boycotted by people who disagree with them.

So I ask again: What exactly are the logical fallacies in his letter?

Yeah, y'know, most of the criticisms of Daniels' letter that I've found so far do a great job of putting words in his mouth and then refuting those straw men.

Example, from Mykeru.com's "Open Response to Charlie Daniels" :

" CD: "Letís just say for a moment you bunch of pampered, overpaid, unrealistic children had your way and the U.S.A. didnít go into Iraq."

Response: First off, Charlie, who in fuck's name are you talking about? One of the ringleaders of Hollywood Activism is Martin Sheen, originally named Ramon Estevez, who is from Dayton, Ohio and the son of immigrant parents. Are you trying to tell me that because someone is successful that means they were born with a silver spoon in their mouths?"

See, no. That's not what CD said, at all. The writer of the response reflexively imagined that he said it, in order to have a point to refute. A swell job of bullshittery, to be sure, but I find it somewhat lacking in the area of commenting on what Daniels actually said.

I really don't see why all the animostity towards Charlie Daniels. Sure he's being somewhat jingoistic, but not at the expense of logic. At least I have no reason to think so at this point.

OK, let's see:

pampered, overpaid,
unrealistic children

Ad hominem.

we destroy all our nuclear
weapons and stick daisies in our gun barrels and sit around with some
white wine and cheese and pat ourselves on the back

Strawman.

we destroy all our nuclear
weapons and stick daisies in our gun barrels and sit around with some
white wine and cheese and pat ourselves on the back

Strawman.

Letís say that we close down our military bases all over the world and
bring the troops home, increase our foreign aid and drop all the trade
sanctions against everybody.

Strawman.

this would create a utopian world
where everybody would live in peace. After all, the great monster, the
United States of America, the cause of all the worldís trouble

Hmmm, I'd say strawman with subverted support.

you bunch of pitiful, hypocritical, idiotic, spoiled mugwumps.

Ad hominem.

Barbra Streisandís fanatical and hateful rankings about George Bush
makes about as much sense as Michael Jackson hanging a baby over a
railing.

False analogy maybe?

Go down to Baxley, Georgia and hold an anti-war rally and see what the
folks down there think about you.

Argumentum ad populum.

You people are some of the most disgusting examples of a waste of
protoplasm

Ad hominem.

You people protect one of the most evil men on the face of this earth
and wonít lift a finger to save the life of an unborn baby

Non-sequitur. Complex question. Insignificant causality.

America is in imminent danger. Youíre either for her or against her.
There is no middle ground.

Excluded middle.

Prejudicial language and style over substance rounds it out.

One more thing - I'm not saying that I don't engage in a bit of ad hominem on my own site, but CD said absolutely nothing of any substance at all.

He misrepresented the arguments (generous calling them that, I realize) put forth by the celebrities - he slippery-sloped it to indicate that the demise of the US was RIGHT. AROUND. THE. CORNER. IF. WE. DON'T. STOP. IRAQ. - and summed it up with the oversimplistic, completely jingoistic, and utterly inane "America - love it or leave it" attitude that asshats like to hide behind.

I'm sorry, but you've just wasted a considerable amount of time pointing out that his letter was largely comprised of ad-hominems. This was already obvious.

My point is still: So what?

He's Charlie Goddamn Daniels, not the captain of some ivy-league debate team. You can either read what he writes and keep it in a certain context (the "I know this was written by a country musician and not a rhetoric expert with a doctorate in languages" context) or you can tear it to shreds if you're really, really that upset that it's being circulated and read so widely.

I'm not sure why the style of his letters comes as a surprise.

I'll agree 100% that his open letter to Hollywood should not be viewed as a set of guidelines on how to make an argument. What I don't understand is why anyone would get such a large stick up their ass about it.

Pardon the ad hominem.

To put it another, more polite way:

So a country musician got tired of hearing celebrities mouth off about something he disagrees with, and he wrote an open letter to them in which he angrily calls them spoiled children, etc and accuses them of being opposed to that which will possibly end a brutal dictatorship. This, he surmises, is un-American.

So what? Why does it matter that much what Charlie Daniels says, or if he says anything at all?

Geoff - you asked:

So I ask again: What exactly are the logical fallacies in his letter?

Don't ask a question, then complain when you get the answer.

All I said on my site was that the pro-war side needs his idiotic venom about as much as the anti-war side needs Streisand. In other words, we don't. If that constitutes a "large stick up my ass," god forbid you ever see me really annoyed or you'll have to upgrade to "super huge gargantuan stick" or something.

Who's complaining?

I'm making the observation, from my point of view, that it's not worth me getting my undies in a tizzy over what Charlie Daniels has to say about anything. Especially, ESPECIALLY when I agree with what he's saying, in general, about celebrities acting like they have some higher authority to tell us what the deal is. It's important to note that I ALSO agree that the whole "celebrities speaking out against celebrities speaking out" thing is prety absurd.

What I'm speaking out against is people taking the words of CERTAIN celebrities to heart as if they're supposed to be some kind of reasoned argument. Charlie Daniels says "Hey Martin Sheen, why doncha shut your yap?" and I say "Yeah!"

That's all.

I mean it: that's all.