But then in the combox, when Chris Blosser says some people want their opinions accurately represented, Shea goes back into rant mode.
It's not my fault if they describe themselves as "anti-anti-torture" or declare that torture is a "Randian anti-concept", or spend trillions of watts of electricity quibbling over just how much prisoner abuse you can get away with before it's technically, precisely, torture, or waste months complaining that the plain and obvious meaning of the Catechism is not "Don't torture or abuse prisoners. Treat them humanely" but "fundamentalist proof texting" that we can safely ignore if the exigencies of Bush policy demand it.I get more and more the sense that this is completely hopeless. It not simply the ideas, but the fact that this came in the context of a post and combox where he acted like he wanted peace, that he wanted to understand what we have against him, soliciting suggestions on "how can I even start reconciling with them," etc. But the minute someone suggested fault with him, the same old Shavian Straw Men™ came gushing out, as predictably as Old Faithful.
It's not like they haven't got a chance to get their views out. It's just that they don't like it when their views are clearly stated in broad daylight.
There is exactly one statement in there that is accurate without a score of long ago fleshed out qualifications and additional premises, none of which I at least would accept. And others that are simply lies (that we are motivated by "the exigencies of Bush policy").
I did indeed (and would again) describe myself as anti-anti-torture, though if someone were to reflect seriously on what that might mean, it's obviously a way of saying one is NOT "pro-torture" despite appearances. English has plenty of analogous "double negative" terms -- "I don't dislike it" does not mean "I like it."
Here's another deal, Shea. You stop putting words in our mouth (like the fake baptisms, about which we hadn't said word one before you ascribed support of this to us; or Hugh Hewitt's interview with the general, which actually had little with which I disagree) and you stop pretending to understand what we think because I guarandamntee you: You. Don't. And we'll lay off.
The alternative? You can keep ascribing the false views to us that you do. And we will keep calling you a liar.
I'm glad Lent is coming up.
POSTSCRIPT: He will never figure it out. First he misrepresents Mark Adams, pretending that our accusations of lying are circular. Which is not true. I have quite fastidiously documented where Shea has lied. All he has had in rebuttal is sneers and repetition of the original lie. Second he offers Andy Nowicki an apology worthy of John Edwards' bloggers, apparently not remembering that he made great sport of calling him "The ASCII Martyr." Combined with his reaction to Blosser ... well, to engage in classic Shavian tactics, the person who e-mailed me earlier was right -- this thread was a bid for an ego-bath.
Admirer: "Why don't you turn the other cheek?"
Mark: "Yes, I think I might"
Admirer: "All of these people HATE you so . . . "
Mark: "I know. I just can't understand it."
Admirer: "You're so great, Mark"
Mark: "I trust your judgement"
And as for his saying that he has not misrepresented us. Well ... to stick to one example -- the easiest to document and the one where he has the least defense, he has done exactly that when he attributes motive, as in "the Coalition is motivated by the exigencies of Bush policy." (link is above)
Shea ... I am *telling* you that you have engaged in serial misrepresentation of what we think and why we think it. I know what I think and why I think it. My knowledge on those subjects is infallible. You have no knowledge whatever (your four-characters "bunk" is not an argument). Neither you nor any third party has any no right to claim to know my thoughts or motives contrary to my word. Period. Particularly with such pathetic responses as "bunk." Do not think or pretend otherwise.