Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register. 2024-05-05 13:10:40 CoV Wiki Learn more about the Church of Virus News: Do you want to know where you stand?

Church of Virus BBS   Mailing List   Virus 2003   virus: The Ideohazard 1.1 « previous next » Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5      Author  Topic: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1  (Read 4915 times) Hermit Archon Posts: 4287 Reputation: 8.94 Rate Hermit Prime example of a practically perfect person Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1 « Reply #45 on: 2003-09-26 20:35:52 » Complete disagreement on religion. I'll take it up with you formally sometime if you like. Write a 4 part formal argument and then debate it on-line afterwards? It may be "interesting." Suggested structure: You proposing "Religion has been beneficial to mankind" perhaps. Me opposing. Rhino as Chair, Kharin and I on the one side, you and whoever you nominate on the other? We could do it after we have the RevolutionUSA and Rat websites up and running. Total agreement in the reality for the Islamic and Chinese populations. However you should bear in mind that they disagree (remember, "The tragedy of Africa"). And in that light, I also see how the "West" (recently mainly the US) is perceived (largely validly) as both having been deliberately and  massively screwing both groups - and as the major, not just destabilizing force, but real and present threat to both groups. As you know, I advocate an even more Western system at the end of the day. Which is why I also advocate a very different way of dealing with the issues. Fix the environment and the people will fix themselves with minimal assistance. More later. I'm being dragged out the door. Kind Regards Hermit Report to moderator   Logged With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999 DrSebby Adept Gender: Posts: 456 Reputation: 7.99 Rate DrSebby ...Oh, you smell of lambs!    RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1 « Reply #46 on: 2003-09-27 02:26:08 » ...i have to agree here.  i DO feel islam is a modern negativity even in comparison to the other predominate religions.  core to this issue is it's relative lack of reformation of any kind....the whole thing of violent suppression of sins and forcing nonbelievers to conform by force is reminiscent  of the dark ages.  modern statistics seem to agree...of all major world conflicts going on right now...it seems islam is at the heart of nearly all of them.  nearly universal intolerance on its part is the main crux. DrSebby. "Courage...and shuffle the cards". ----Original Message Follows---- From: "Mermaid" <hidden@lucifer.com> Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com To: virus@lucifer.com Subject: RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1 Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:30:51 -0600 [Jonathan Davis]I am alarmed that how you are so forgiving and even admiring of our deadliest and fastest growing competitor - Islam. Do you really mean to side with this militant religion against our secular, Western model of politics? [Mermaid]practicing UTism again? [Mermaid] 'our deadliest and fastest growing competitor' is stupidity. not islam. among all the religions of the world, i'd say islam comes out as the most fair and the most appealling. for your...err..my amusement.. http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=3489689 Secretary of State Colin Powell called the United States a Judeo-Christian country on Monday but quickly amended that to "a country of many faiths." The first amendment to the U.S. constitution prohibits the establishment of any state religion -- a provision usually interpreted as requiring strict separation of church and state, though Christian activists dispute that. Powell made the remark in an interview with the Charlie Rose Show on public television while talking about Washington's vision of what kind of government Iraq should have. He said he expected it to be "an Islamic country by faith, just as we are a Judeo-Christian..." "Well, it's hard to tell any more, but we are a country of many faiths now," he added quickly. The remark was likely to antagonize millions of American Muslims, most of whom want to be included in the mainstream. Some American Muslims have coined the term Judeo-Christian-Islamic to reflect their ideal of what the United States should be. [Mermaid]I am sure the Iraqi Christians are just as amused as the American Moslems. ---- This message was posted by Mermaid to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29259> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> Report to moderator   Logged "courage and shuffle the cards..." Hermit Archon Posts: 4287 Reputation: 8.94 Rate Hermit Prime example of a practically perfect person Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1 « Reply #47 on: 2003-09-27 02:35:39 » Addendum to suggested debate: We do have a formal debating process established, please refer to FAQ: #debate channel on irc.lucifer.net:6667 Kind Regards Hermit Report to moderator   Logged With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999 JD Adept Gender: Posts: 542 Reputation: 7.39 Rate JD RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1 « Reply #48 on: 2003-09-27 07:59:17 » Dear Hermit, Here you have posted an article criticizing one of Scruton's books (Not the one we are discussing). Is this an invite for me to post full Scruton articles or the some pro-Scruton articles? Let me know soonest, I have plenty. For now let me offer some correctives to the spiteful bunk you have posted, but looking at reviews of more relevant books. Keep in mind that even in the article you posted it is noted in one quote that "Scruton himself is one of Britain's most brilliant philosophers". And we were talking about political philosophy. The West and the Rest The average Amazon review is the full 5 stars! Report to moderator   Logged JD Adept Gender: Posts: 542 Reputation: 7.39 Rate JD RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1 « Reply #49 on: 2003-09-27 08:23:56 » To whom is this addressed? -----Original Message----- From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of Hermit Sent: 27 September 2003 01:36 To: virus@lucifer.com Subject: Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1 Complete disagreement on religion. I'll take it up with you formally sometime if you like. Write a 4 part formal argument and then debate it on-line afterwards? It may be "interesting." Suggested structure: You proposing "Religion has been beneficial to mankind" perhaps. Me opposing. Rhino as Chair, Kharin and I on the one side, you and whoever you nominate on the other? We could do it after we have the RevolutionUSA and Rat websites up and running. Total agreement in the reality for the Islamic and Chinese populations. However you should bear in mind that they disagree (remember, "The tragedy of Africa"). And in that light, I also see how the "West" (recently mainly the US) is perceived (largely validly) as both having been deliberately and massively screwing both groups - and as the major, not just destabilizing force, but real and present threat to both groups. As you know, I advocate an even more Western system at the end of the day. Which is why I also advocate a very different way of dealing with the issues. Fix the environment and the people will fix themselves with minimal assistance. More later. I'm being dragged out the door. Kind Regards Hermit ---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=292 59> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> Report to moderator   Logged Hermit Archon Posts: 4287 Reputation: 8.94 Rate Hermit Prime example of a practically perfect person Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1 « Reply #50 on: 2003-09-27 14:10:12 » [Jonathan Davis] To whom is this addressed? [Hermit] To Keith Henson. Report to moderator   Logged With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999 Hermit Archon Posts: 4287 Reputation: 8.94 Rate Hermit Prime example of a practically perfect person Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1 « Reply #51 on: 2003-09-27 17:55:51 » [Jonathan Davis 1] You, like Kharin,  have stooped to defamation over content. Scruton is a first and foremost an philosopher, and a superb one at that. I can testify to this as I have read the book in question. [Hermit 2] Nope. Scruton isn't a "superb" philosopher. He is a media figure who plays the role of a philosopher on programs appealing to Fux TV viewers. He is probably most famous for accepting money from Japan Tobacco International to write pro-smoking articles in the various newspapers that murder trees on his behalf. And then getting found out. Said newspapers ended up sacking him for his pains. (Kharin's contribution.) [Jonathan 3]  The tobacco thing is completely irrelevant. It was a crude attempt at the same sort of well poisoning I complained about earlier. [Hermit 4] It is not at all irrelevant. Neither was it poisoning the well. The man takes short cuts in all directions and uses his spurious "authority" to make a never ending stream of assertions accepted approvingly only by people infested with a similar political ideology. His work is not regarded as exceptional by any significant academic group and his character is viewed as flawed. The mention of his history suffices to prove that this is neither a stretch nor a new phenomenon. In science at least, but in academia generally in my experience, reputation is jealously guarded, because you have only one. Scrunton has one, but it smells a bit like last week's hake. [Jonathan Davis 1] Why you inserted the irrelevant comments about race consciousness I do not know. Redefining the out-group is easy when I can force you into the in-group at spear point. [Hermit 2] Not when the tip is irrefutably entangled somewhere in your own anatomy. [Jonathan 3] Yes, but why did you put it in? [Hermit 4] If you meant the tip, I think it was a self inflicted injury on your part. [Hermit 4] If about Toynbee, then perhaps you don't realise that Scruton only has one song, and this is of his neverending nostalgia for a supreme Anglican Western world he imagines was superior to every other culture and any other time. This has many serious problems, but the most glaring is that the world he writes about in rounded periods has never existed except in his imagination,  A counter exanple should have served to show that his assertions are invalid. The UK practically invented modern racism, and Christianity was responsible for the preservation of ignorance and bigotry until well into the "enlightenment." As Toynbee indicated the values Scruton wishes to reserve for the west were held by the Muslim much earlier. So much for Scrunton. [Hermit 2] Having told two people whom you regularly characterize as intelligent, fair, experienced and articulate that they are engaging in defamation - which you should recognise is always stupid - something seems to be out of kilter. [Jonathan 3] Not at all. There is no deliberate malice on your or Kharin's part. I see such things as mistakes, rhetorical devices that are unfair. [Hermit 4] No. I (and I am certain Kharin) both are quite capable of looking at a charletan and identifying him as such to the satisfation of anyone prepared to either accept what we illustrate, or doing the necessary research to validate it for themselves. Neither of us delude ourselves that those unprepared to challenge their preconceptions will derive any benefit from what we say. But warning people that Scruton is a loathsome, second rate hack preaching to a clearly identified choir is a long way from "defamation". [Hermit 2] My recommendation was for you to read some Toynbee in order to try to get a better handle on history before you decide that Scruton represents a pinnacle of historical excellence upon which you can base your entire opinion of the field. [Jonathan 3] That is completely fair, but not what you said (or at least what was communicated to me). Firstly, I would have corrected you: I was not basing my my entire opinion of any field on any one person or book. [Hermit 4] Given that the arguments you raised are not new, seem derivitive, and have deceived nobody I have met with actual knowledge of the situations they involve, I concluded you were propagating an opinion based on your acceptance of the authority of Scranton's book you claim to have read. Given your advocacy of Scranton as providing "answers",  I reached the further tentative conclusion that you were singing the same song as Scrunton. If that is not the case I'd appreciate your attempting to explain why you saw fit to mislead us about your motivations? [Jonathan 3] Secondly, I recommend Scruton's book "To understand why these agreements are being undermined". These agreements referred to certain agreements and notions in western politics. Scruton examines what happens to consensus models when pre-political loyalties are dissolved. [Hermit 4] The people turn away from Jesus, the world goes to hell in a handbasket, and it is the end of civilization as he imagines it. We know that. But why did you advocate this perspective and Scrunton's book if you disagree with Scrunton? Conversely, why do you attempt to reject the importance of Scrunton in forming your views if you are indeed singing the same song? [Jonathan Davis 1] As a scientist, sceptic and atheist perhaps you would be better advised expounding on Toynbee's "use of myths and metaphors as being of comparable value to factual data and his reliance on a view of religion as a regenerative force" http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=406334 [Hermit 2] Perhaps you were unaware that Toynbee was an atheist and a skeptic - and probably the first historian to attempt a modern scientific approach to history on a grand scale (i.e. looking at the macro-event level). Perhaps that is why I appreciate him. [Jonathan 1] I will try and get hold of some of his volumes or perhaps an abridged work. [Hermit 2] Look in a mirror. Observing that myth and metaphor is important and plays a huge role in life and history is no more, and certainly no less, than what the CoV is engaged in. What else is "memetics" other than myth, metaphor and their effects on their carriers. [Jonathan 3] Perhaps. That is a different albeit interesting discussion perhaps as a topic for a chat. [Hermit 2] In any case, I suggest that somebody's perspective is flawed and that cognitive dissonance is almost certainly at work. Particularly when it comes to your repeatedly rejected strange idea that I advocate any Theistic religions. The  difference between you and I, it seems, is that I condemn them all equally, rather than reserving a fondness for the Anglicans. This includes recognizing that your (and that of your sources) blanket condemnation of Middle Eastern and Asian culture is rooted in your apparently shallow perspective. Had you been brought up in, e.g. The PRC, your opinion would no doubt be different. Which allows me to condemn your judgements, They are not measured, but are rooted in cultural prejudice. [Jonathan 3] Here you revert to the standard charge that those who disagree with you suffer from a pathology of some sort. I do not blanket condemn anything. Neither does Scruton. It would be useful if you could serve some examples as I do not think they exist. [Hermit 4] What pathology? I have told you repeatedly that I don't support any Theistic systems, but reject all of them equally. You continuously repeat your assertion that I prefer Islam (with the nasty insinuation that I am a traitor to my self). So something must be preventing you from comprehending my simple straightforward words. That something is called cognitive dissonance. And it is morphological rather than pathological. Your brain keeps telling you that what you see must match what you believe - or it should be rejected. The mechanism is well understood. Indeed your accusation that I "charge that those who disagree with you suffer from a pathology of some sort" and that this is standard, is simply your cognitive dissonance getting in the way again. You are misinterpreting reality and I suggest that it is apparent to most of the people reading this. [Hermit 4] If you knew more about the non-Western world, it would seem to me that you should be able to do a better job of perceiving the world as projected through their perspective. [Jonathan 3] You can label me or my perspective whatever you like (shallow etc.) The vehemence of your contempt does not actually help your arguments all. I could, but shall not, make exactly the same plausible claims about you that you are making about me. It is specious and unhelpful. [Hermit 4] When an analysis is based in understanding the motivations of the protagonists, then it has validity. But the perspective that you and Scruton portray is not based on that at all. Rather, at least in Scruton's case, it is based in the fact that they are not nicely behaved democratic Anglican's. In your case, the statements you have made about Islam lead me to think that you don't understand it sufficiently to condemn it effectively. [Jonathan Davis 1] Or is your selective quoting of Toynbee just a case of a quoting another set of scriptures for one's own purposes? [Hermit 2] The man was prodigiously productive, having written upwards of 100 works, many of them seminal. I recall your complaining of a few paragraphs of summary recently - on the grounds you had no time to read them. If you don't want a flood which will make Dees look restrained, I suggest that you be glad that I am selective. [Jonathan 3] You may be incontinent if you choose. I do have delete but after all and a fast internet connection. [Hermit 4] Not everyone here has. Quotation serves no purpose if it is not read (I have a delete key). And it seems to me that you are the person most likely to complain that you don't have the time to read a few paragraphs to be able to argue on a factual basis (see e.g. the discussion on the instantiation of the Universe). [Hermit 2] As for quoting Toynbee, he serves as a counterpoise to Scruton and Co, reminding you of their "western universalist" position. While your knowledge of Islamic history as portrayed here is so flawed as to render discussion meaningless until you obtain a better background, bigotry and prejudicial interpretations abound, and you seem to have soaked up and in consequence appear to be advocating some percentage of it. [Jonathan 3] Instead of calling me names and talking up your boy Toynbee,why don't you do something substantive like support an assertion or craft an argument? [Hermit 3] Toynbee is not anybody's, "boy". Toynbee is regarded as significant. A search on google for "historiography Toynbee" will show you why. Toynbee and Wells founded the twentieth century school of Historiography. Toynbee, Wells, Spengler, Krober, Malinowski and McNeill are regarded as the primary modern historians, and a reference to any citation index will reflect that most academics regard Toynbee as the most significant of them. Your slighting references to Toynbee, like your comments about Islam, point to an almost total lack of knowledge of the field. [Jonathan 3] You make claims about Toynbee, yet I read he is a buffoon. I give you (and Toynbee) the benefit of the doubt, you respond with name calling. I am not allowed to mention your bigotries and prejudices in case you accuse me of risking your life. [Hermit 3] Obviously you didn't read far enough. Aside for a lack of time for people who are ignorant and don't realise it (or won't acknowledge it), and a preference for those able to communicate effectively, I am probably one of the least bigoted and prejudiced people you are likely to meet. Whatever misanthropy I embody, like my philanthropy, is universal. [Jonathan Davis 1] I find it delightfully ironic that you approving quote Toynbee's reference to Islamic universalism -namely the surrendered are all equal before Allah (hence no need for other classifications like race or nation), yet for Toynbee "the West's universalist pretensions" are disgusting. [Hermit 2] Think about what you say - or better, research it. Preferably not in a book written by an ahl al-q'itab with his own problems - and writing out of field. Who defeated the alchemists and Jews of Medieval Europe? Where did they flee? What is the purpose of jizya? Can somebody "conquered" be subjected to "Dhimmitude" and "equal in surrender"? I know the answers. Do you? [Jonathan 3] Yes. The answer is 42.  This display of cut and paste "learning" does not wash. Scruton crafts superb arguments based on real learning. Hint: That is the way you can earn my respect. [Hermit 4] Without understanding that "Dhimmitude" can only occur in people who have surrendered (not been conquered!) and that the alchemists and Jews of Europe fled the persecution of the Christians to the havens of Moorish nations, where they were absorbed into the population, the only difference between them and the moors being that they paid a poll tax, jizya, in order to make up for the fact that the Muslims donated to charities providing social services as a part of the beliefs on a voluntary basis, you wouldn't understand how ignorant of Islam your question made you appear. And I suggest that your comments about Toynbee, and my 'cut and paste "learning"' make it appear that you wouldn't recognise "real learning" even if somebody force fed you on it. Respect is important, but seeking respect from the incapable is the hallmark of a terribly insecure person. So you may keep yours, an you will. [Jonathan Davis 1] I am alarmed that how you are so forgiving and even admiring of our deadliest and fastest growing competitor - Islam. Do you really mean to side with this militant religion against our secular, Western model of politics? [Hermit 2] You shouldn't be alarmed. You certainly shouldn't imagine that Islam is deadly - except in a rather boring sense. Like any other belief system, its adherents adapt it to fit their situation and justify their actions. When living repressed in a brutal environment, it can be used to justify suicide bombing. [Jonathan 3] Yes. The problem is that actions are often unjustified and reasons faulty. Being a pampered fat and rich Saudi can justify attacks on towers. The justifications can be as bizarre and they are numerous. [Hermit 4] The reasons were clearly articulated. The trouble is not that reasons were in short supply, but that the complaints were ignored and the causes exacerbated. Have you noticed that some of the "message" of 911 got through? The last US combat forces were recently withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, and the US has apparently been trying (ineffectively, but trying) to do something about their rogue Israeli friends and the Isreali Palestinian situation. Your sneering dismissal of bin Laden, whose competence is proven, only makes you look silly and is the kind of attitude which tends to lead to the kind of situation the US is in today with all the world arrayed against her. [Hermit 2]  Just as Christianity justified revolution in England and the forcing of China to purchase opium from the English [Jonathan 3] The Opium Wars were part of the larger British Empire strategy of forcing global trade. It has next to nothing to do with Christianity. [Hermit 4] As usual, your pronouncements are utterly wrong. The missionaries were right in the thick of it. Read some Twain or search on google for "missionaries opium". Either might open your eyes. Look particularly for articles mentioning Robert Morrison and Karl Friedrich Gutz both missionaries pushing bibles and opium while employed by the East India company along with appeals from "Chinese Christians" for the British to act against the Q'ing. [Hermit 2] and apartheid lead to the necklacing of teachers by "rational atheistic humanists" [Jonathan 3] Those teachers were necklaced by bloodlust aroused mobs scapegoating. [Hermit 4] Deliberately engineered and instigated by the ANC as part of their "No education before normalization" campaign to make the country ungovernable. The degree of success achieved by this campaign are tragically visible today. But the bloodshed was directly attributable to the ANC leadership (including the Sainted Mandela). [Hermit 2] and  economic crises and belief in racial superiority lead the US to justify nuking Japan. [Jonathan 3] I don't man to object to your examples. I know it is bad manners and distracting, but how can you justify this sort of statement. It strikes me as..well..a joke? An economic crisis in 1945? Racial superiority justified the bomb? Are you for real? [Hermit 4] Economic considerations in the 1920s lead to the isolation of Japan and interdiction of her access to raw materials, particularly oil. This, together with FDRs strategy to get into the war by provoking Japan into attacking America and the Allies lead to the Japanese involvement in WW II. Truman, a fundamentalist Christian, whose prejudii and desire for "Christian leaders" (which accounts for Chiang, the only Christian warlord in China and another fundamentalist Refer e.g. http://www.monarch.net/users/miller/ww2/history/allied.html). arguably contributed massively to the communist take-over of China and the Korean and Vietnamese debacles confided to his diary, "Uncle Harry hates the heathen nips, and so do I". Truman, who overrode his staff and the military in deciding to nuke Japan, undoubtedly agreed with Fleet Admiral William Halsey's regret that the war "ended too soon because there are too many Nips left". This has been discussed at great length on the CoV previously. Consult our archives. As I mentioned to Jubangalord, I reccomend Arthur Goddard's Harry Elmer Barnes Learned Crusader: The New History in Action in order to counter a US-centric education. Review here - http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard27.html - and the review itself is well worth wading through for the gems which it includes (and which are not all in the book). [Hermit 4] I recommend you go to the above review, search for "One of Barnes' most important contributions to Cold War Revisionism" and read that and the following 4 or 5 paragraphs which pertain to the bombing. [Hermit 2] When times are better, the very same beliefs might lead to quiet discussions over tea and cucumber sandwiches with the Imam. [Jonathan 3] Yes. Humans are situational creatures. [Hermit 4] So when the situation is ghastly, people react badly. Condemning the societies which arise from such situations is not appropriate or helpful. Neither is attempting to "defeat" such societies. Only by altering the situation can you expect to see any change in the people involved. [Hermit 2] As a second issue, you need to read the news from time to time. [Jonathan 3] On the contrary, I need to read it less. I have such a range of sources and feeds that I tire from analysing them all. [Hermit 4] Then how do you imagine that the twin debacles, Afghanistan and Iraq are doing well, that the threat of terrorism is reduced, or that current US strategy has improved the global outlook for peace? e.g. Jonathan Davis, "Unilateralism",  Reply #2, 2003-09-27 "Everything is working out beautifully." [Hermit 2] Neither of the two global "B"s (i.e. the smirking chimp and his poodle) hide the fact that they were called by a Middle Eastern god to save the world from itself. So much for a secular Western model of politics. [Jonathan 3] Using puerile labels for Bush and Blair is fine, if a little sad. That they think that their actions are ordained in a guess. [Hermit 4] Not at all. Quote: A month after the World Trade Center attack, World Magazine, a conservative Christian publication, quoted Tim Goeglein, deputy director of White House public liaison, saying, "I think President Bush is God's man at this hour, and I say this with a great sense of humility." Time magazine reported that "Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment." The net effect is a theology that seems to imply that God is intervening in events, is on America's side, and has chosen Bush to be in the White House at this critical moment. Belief.net Even more frightening, Quote: "According to Abbas, Bush said: 'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.'" Ha'aretz 2003-06-26, [Hermit 4] And as for Blair, Quote: Blair, a committed Christian who keeps the Bible by his bed, knows he is taking a risk by revealing the importance he places on religion in informing his politics. He also knows that many of his key officials feel uncomfortable about the central role that God plays in his life. There were furrowed brows of consternation when Blair, asked who he would answer to for the deaths of British soldiers, replied: 'My Maker'. The Guardian [Jonathan Davis 1] Your words remind me of something Orwell wrote: [Jonathan Davis 1] "why is it that the worst extremes of jingoism and racialism have to be tolerated when they come from an Irishman? Why is a statement like "My country right or wrong" reprehensible if applied to England and worthy of respect if applied to Ireland (or for that matter to India)? For there is no doubt that some such convention exists and that "enlightened" opinion in England can swallow even the most blatant nationalism so long as it is not British nationalism. Poems like "Rule, Britannia!" or  "Ye Mariners of England" would be taken seriously if one inserted at the right places the name of some foreign country, as one can see by the respect accorded to various French and Russian war poets to-day." [Hermit 2] Actually that could be another example of bigoted jingoism (and possibly your cognitive dissonance flaring up again). As a half-Scotsman, I reject the idea that England is synonymous with Great Britain! And if you had comprehended anything I have written on politics, you would be aware that I regard all "nationalistic jingoism" as being equally harmful to humans. Indeed, doubly harmful, in that "nationalism" by itself is a curse, and "jingoism" a disease of the intellect. [Jonathan 3] He does not make them synonymous at all so as a half-Scot you let your nationalism cool again.  The paucity of objections suggests you agree with him. [Hermit 4] Not at all. I don't know how you can take "I regard all "nationalistic jingoism" as being equally harmful to humans. Indeed, doubly harmful, in that "nationalism" by itself is a curse, and "jingoism" a disease of the intellect." as agreement. Indeed, it speaks directly to either the aforementioned 'cognitive dissonance', insufficient intellect to comprehend a clear expostulation of my opinion, or a deepseated intellectual dishonesty. Like to make a choice? [Jonathan Davis 1]As for you Hermit, oppugnancy is damaging you. Perhaps "surrender" is what you really need? [Hermit 2] Despite it having become the norm in American politics, your diagnosis appears as flawed as the idea of the inmates running the asylum. All right thinking people recognise that the world is neither black nor white, but a rather attractive shade of grey. Perhaps it is difficult to recognise when you are running around with beams in your eyes. Maybe an optician could assist you? [Jonathan 3] [Side Note: "All right thinking people" - So many kooky conspiracy theories, fallacies and extremist rants have this marker imbedded in them it is a useful shortcut for discarding bunk at the scanning phase. Simply scan for it and if found, hit delete. ] [Jonathan 3] Again, irony creeps into our discussion. No sooner have you reminded me of your being Scottish than you commit the "No True Scotsman Fallacy". Priceless. [Hermit 4] You have to be asserting that the following statement is incorrect whenever you assert a fallacy. In other words, for the "all true scotsman" fallacy to be present, the assertion must fail when it is reexpressed removing the "all true" preamble. So reexpressing the statement as, "Thinking people recognise that the world is neither black nor white, but a rather attractive shade of grey." Unless you aver that this is not the case, your assertion of fallacy here is as faulty as all of your other assertions. [Hermit 4] But you inpire me. Pity you left it so late in the article. Had I seen it 6 hours ago, I could have saved 6 hours. grep 'Jonathan Davis' > /dev/null « Last Edit: 2003-09-27 18:01:47 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999 Walter Watts Archon Gender: Posts: 1571 Reputation: 8.89 Rate Walter Watts Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in Re: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1 « Reply #52 on: 2003-09-27 19:34:37 » Please, let's don't start a county fair blue ribbon contest for the most pleasing smelling shit pie!!!!!!!!! Walter Mermaid wrote: > among all the religions of the world, i'd say islam comes out as the most fair and the most appealling. > -- Walter Watts Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc. "Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual partner spayed or neutered." --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> Report to moderator   Logged Walter Watts Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc. No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how! hkhenson@rogers... Adept Gender: Posts: 130 Reputation: 7.91 Rate hkhenson@rogers... back after a long time Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1 « Reply #53 on: 2003-09-27 19:57:02 » At 06:35 PM 26/09/03 -0600, you wrote: >Complete disagreement on religion. I'll take it up with you formally >sometime if you like. Write a 4 part formal argument and then debate it >on-line afterwards? It may be "interesting." Suggested structure: You >proposing "Religion has been beneficial to mankind" perhaps. Me opposing. >Rhino as Chair, Kharin and I on the one side, you and whoever you nominate >on the other? We could do it after we have the RevolutionUSA and Rat >websites up and running. That's not exactly what I mean.  Clippings from: http://www.operatingthetan.com/cryonics.txt As human brains enlarged they improved in the ability to anticipate changes, making plans to hunt, to move with the seasons, and, later, to plant seeds for a future harvest. These and similar "smart" behaviors have obvious survival advantages, but they may have disadvantages as well. Alas, it seems that it is quite possible to be too smart for "the good of one's genes." snip Being able to anticipate the future may not have been an unmixed blessing for early humans.  Besides worrying about what to eat in the morning, and how to get through the night without being eaten, our ancestors could worry about existential angst, and ponder questions of the "Where Was I Before I Was Me?" and "What Happens After I Die?" kind.  It may sound silly, but such questions, prompted by frequent deaths among those around you may have been a barrier for hundreds of thousands of years to the emergence of smarter people with enhanced ability to anticipate and plan for the future.  It is not good for your genes to be dwelling on such questions while something large, furry, and not in the least concerned about angst, sneaks up and nips off your head! snip         We know that eventually smarter people did emerge, and came to dominate the world.  This started about 200,000 years ago, roughly the same time that DNA studies indicate that one woman was the common ancestor of us all.  Like chipped rock and larger brains emerging together, it is possible that some meme mutated out of more primitive ones, or arose from observations to form a "religious belief" that provided "answers" to such questions and had the effect of compensating for genes that otherwise would made us too smart for our own (genetic) good.  Beliefs that could fit this description are known to go back to the very beginning of written history, and archaeological digs produce physical evidence (flower grave offerings) of such beliefs back at least 70,000 years.  (The actual timing is not important to this argument, but objects believe to be "religious" in nature became common by about 35,000 years ago.)         "Religious" memes compensating for too-smart-for-their-own-good brains is rank speculation, but Marvin Minsky argues that more complex brains are inherently less stable.  It is true that our more remote relatives (such as cows) seem to have fewer mental problems, perhaps just because they have less "mental." His thought****         **** (footnote--- personal communication through Eric Drexler)         is that certain "agents" built with patterns from outside could enhance the stability of a complex mind.  He discussed a variety of mental "agents" in Society of Mind, reviewed in Cryonics some time ago.  One class, censors, would be especially useful if kept someone's mind from spiraling down into a blue funk over unanswerable questions.  Ideas that when a family member died he had gone to "the happy hunting grounds," and that you would see him again might make a big difference in the survival of grief- stricken relatives.  Jane Goodall's report of a case where a chimpanzee seems to have died of grief gives this model some credibility.  (The chimp was believed to have had an abnormally strong attachment to his mother.)         This is very speculative, but "religious" memes could have "functions" such as reducing the effects of grief or answering philosophical questions about which it was (genetically) unprofitable to ponder.  These memes would be favored in a causal loop if they improve the survival of people carrying genes which tend to destabilize a person's mental state, but otherwise improve their survival.         Such genes might (for example) contribute to intelligence, sensitivity, and forming strong emotional attachments.  After a few millennia, religious memes and conditionally advantageous genes would become quite dependent on each other.  In an environment saturated with religious memes, there would be little pressure for minds to evolve that could get by without stabilizing memes.         In turn, the religious memes that originated long ago have had plenty of time to split into varieties, compete for hosts, and themselves evolve in response to a changing environment.  (An occasional variation may kill its hosts, a la Jim Jones.)  A lay observer looking for similarities over such a period might not recognize much common ritual.  (Joseph Campbell devoted his life to discovering common threads in ritual.)  Both modern and ancient religions seem to "fit" into similar places in the mind, and have the similar functions of providing "answers" to the unanswerable, and comfort to the grief stricken.         The environment in those minds (mostly the result of other memes) has greatly changed as people accumulated more observations about the world around them and got better at manipulating it.  There are known changes in the history of religion, such as the tendency for monotheistic religions (in the western cultural tradition) to replace polytheistic ones, and the well known tendency for religions (and similar belief patterns) to mutate into new and competing varieties.  We can see some (the written part) of the accumulated variation.  For example, the religion of the Old Testament is recognizably the ancestor of the more recent New Testament.         Because humans learn from other adults as well as parents, religious beliefs that are "better suited" to infect human minds could spread, even (if it survived translation) across language boundaries.  (Islam simply imposed Arabic on its converts.)  In Europe during early historical times, we can see the displacement of older religions with Christianity.  Within Christianity we can see in recent historical times competing varieties mutate from earlier versions (a classic example would be the Mormons) and within the US in the last decades we have seen the arrival of both new "religions" such as Scientology, and the repeated importation of eastern religions.  (Almost all new and transplanted religions fail--we only see the ones which grow large enough to notice.)         Because human minds usually hold only one religion at a time, religious memes are in "competition" for a limited number of human minds.  This sets up the conditions for a powerful "evolutionary struggle" between religious memes.  You should expect the memes which survive this process to resist being displaced, and to induce their hosts to propagate them." ************end clippings My view of this subject has changed some due to reading Pascal Boyer's _Religion Explained_ but I have not digested that book well enough to articulate the changes in detail. > >Total agreement in the reality for the Islamic and Chinese populations. >However you should bear in mind that they disagree (remember, "The tragedy >of Africa"). And in that light, I also see how the "West" (recently mainly >the US) is perceived (largely validly) as both having been deliberately >and  massively screwing both groups - and as the major, not just >destabilizing force, but real and present threat to both groups. Until the US was provoked into going into Afghanistan by 9/11, the destabilizing force of western culture was casual and even now there is no "department of western cultural imperialists."  In fact, the aspects of culture most likely to invade, music and computers, are not supported by the western governments at all.  In any case, the Chinese seem to have embraced western culture.  The same is true of a substantial fraction of the Islamic populations. >As you know, I advocate an even more Western system at the end of the day. >Which is why I also advocate a very different way of dealing with the >issues. Fix the environment and the people will fix themselves with >minimal assistance. Maybe.  Sometimes fixing the environment is a very hard problem. I have been thinking about Easter Island a lot as an example of a closed system.  Even importing the whole knowledge of today into their culture a few generations before the collapse might not have been enough to avoid disaster. Keith Henson >More later. I'm being dragged out the door. > >Kind Regards > >Hermit > >---- >This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of >Virus BBS. ><http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=29259> >--- >To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to ><http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> Report to moderator   Logged Walter Watts Archon Gender: Posts: 1571 Reputation: 8.89 Rate Walter Watts Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in Re: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1 « Reply #54 on: 2003-09-27 20:03:00 » Hear hear! Walter Keith Henson wrote: > I have come to appreciate religions in the same way that I appreciate > redwood trees.  Both are highly evolved "living" systems, worthy of respect > on that aspect alone.  My appreciation is partly because religions are > symbiotic to human minds.  As such the combination of a human with a > religion is/was more likely to survive and reproduce than one > without.  Religions of course *evolve* to the symbiotic state, typically > taking 300 years to move from dangerous cult to a more or less mutualistic > state. > > Unfortunately in my case knowing/appreciating the nature of religions > precludes me from religious memes from being part of my active set.  I.e., > I can't take any of them more seriously than the Easter Bunny. -- Walter Watts Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc. "Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual partner spayed or neutered." --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> Report to moderator   Logged Walter Watts Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc. No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how! JD Adept Gender: Posts: 542 Reputation: 7.39 Rate JD RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1 « Reply #55 on: 2003-09-28 11:12:11 »   "[Roger Scruton] has a reputation as a first class professional philosopher among other academics of all political persuasions" guardian profile quoted in your earlier hatchet job post [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4082791,00.html ]. -----Original Message----- From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of Hermit Sent: 27 September 2003 22:56 To: virus@lucifer.com Subject: Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1 [Jonathan Davis 1] You, like Kharin,  have stooped to defamation over content. Scruton is a first and foremost an philosopher, and a superb one at that. I can testify to this as I have read the book in question. [Hermit 2] Nope. Scruton isn't a "superb" philosopher. He is a media figure who plays the role of a philosopher on programs appealing to Fux TV viewers. He is probably most famous for accepting money from Japan Tobacco International to write pro-smoking articles in the various newspapers that murder trees on his behalf. And then getting found out. Said newspapers ended up sacking him for his pains. (Kharin's contribution.) [Jonathan 3]  The tobacco thing is completely irrelevant. It was a crude attempt at the same sort of well poisoning I complained about earlier. [Hermit 4] It is not at all irrelevant. Neither was it poisoning the well. The man takes short cuts in all directions and uses his spurious "authority" to make a never ending stream of assertions accepted approvingly only by people infested with a similar political ideology. His work is not regarded as exceptional by any significant academic group and his character is viewed as flawed. The mention of his history suffices to prove that this is neither a stretch nor a new phenomenon. In science at least, but in academia generally in my experience, reputation is jealously guarded, because you have only one. Scrunton has one, but it smells a bit like last week's hake. [Jonathan 4] You claim the man takes short cuts yet you offer no support for the ad hominem. It was you who took the shortcut by prejudging the book by its title. Here you do nothing but make desperate and false claims about Scruton: Claim: Scruton's work is not regarded as exceptional by any significant academic group. Comment: Scruton's work is acknowledged highly exceptional and downright brilliant by scholars across the world. I can prove this, but I would prefer to do so AFTER you have defined "academic group" and demonstrated how one can show a scholar to be considered exception by such a group. How do you respond to the claim in the Guardian profile posted above? Claim: The man takes short cuts in all directions and uses his spurious "authority" assertions accepted approvingly only by people *infested* with a similar political ideology. Comment: I invite you to support this claim of yours. It is you who is making a stream of claims about Scruton which are completely false (bordering on the hilarious). In the book in question, touted by some as a modern classic, Scruton is acknowledged by writers on the left and right as having delivered a superb, highly argued analysis. You however are GUESSING because you have not even read the book. Claim: Scruton's reputation stinks Comment: I have already posted some comments by reviewers on Scruton and his work that show this to be a bald lie. He is a widely acknowledged master of his craft and one of Britain greatest living philosophers. He is a contrarian, iconoclast and heterodox. One day he will be a Virian saint, or at least should be. [Jonathan Davis 1] Why you inserted the irrelevant comments about race consciousness I do not know. Redefining the out-group is easy when I can force you into the in-group at spear point. [Hermit 2] Not when the tip is irrefutably entangled somewhere in your own anatomy. [Jonathan 3] Yes, but why did you put it in? [Hermit 4] If you meant the tip, I think it was a self inflicted injury on your part. [Jonathan 4] I use firearms, I am not a savage after all. Now, why did you insert that material on race consciousness? Please answer the question. [Hermit 4] If about Toynbee, then perhaps you don't realise that Scruton only has one song, and this is of his neverending nostalgia for a supreme Anglican Western world he imagines was superior to every other culture and any other time. This has many serious problems, but the most glaring is that the world he writes about in rounded periods has never existed except in his imagination,  A counter exanple should have served to show that his assertions are invalid. The UK practically invented modern racism, and Christianity was responsible for the preservation of ignorance and bigotry until well into the "enlightenment." As Toynbee indicated the values Scruton wishes to reserve for the west were held by the Muslim much earlier. So much for Scrunton. [Hermit 2] Having told two people whom you regularly characterize as intelligent, fair, experienced and articulate that they are engaging in defamation - which you should recognise is always stupid - something seems to be out of kilter. [Jonathan 3] Not at all. There is no deliberate malice on your or Kharin's part. I see such things as mistakes, rhetorical devices that are unfair. [Hermit 4] No. I (and I am certain Kharin) both are quite capable of looking at a charletan and identifying him as such to the satisfation of anyone prepared to either accept what we illustrate, or doing the necessary research to validate it for themselves. Neither of us delude ourselves that those unprepared to challenge their preconceptions will derive any benefit from what we say. But warning people that Scruton is a loathsome, second rate hack preaching to a clearly identified choir is a long way from "defamation". [Jonathan 4] I suspect you and Karin both attacked the book because you prejudged it based on its title and the previous defamation of the author by left-wing politicos. It was a mistake on your part and you have been fighting a retreat ever since. You have not read the book, but instead fly in the face of your supposed sceptical credentials and judge it by its cover. What is even more telling is that you utterly dismissed my recommendation. My authority counts for naught with you. It is useful to know where I stand and how radical you are.  You chose to attacked reflexively and in bad faith. I am making you part for it now. Karin was sensibly left this in alone. [Hermit 2] My recommendation was for you to read some Toynbee in order to try to get a better handle on history before you decide that Scruton represents a pinnacle of historical excellence upon which you can base your entire opinion of the field. [Jonathan 3] That is completely fair, but not what you said (or at least what was communicated to me). Firstly, I would have corrected you: I was not basing my my entire opinion of any field on any one person or book. [Hermit 4] Given that the arguments you raised are not new, seem derivitive, and have deceived nobody I have met with actual knowledge of the situations they involve, I concluded you were propagating an opinion based on your acceptance of the authority of Scranton's book you claim to have read. [Jonathan 4] Here you make yet another dries of mistakes, escorted by fallacies and gelled together by ad hominem. I recommended a book to Karin. You and he attacked the book and its author (in fact worse, you attacked other books by the same author!). You did not be anything on argument because you have not read the book, neither is Kharin. Instead you chose your customary mode of attack - ad hominem. I am patiently exposing your methods and being cheered for it off list. Scruton's arguments are utterly compelling, but you would not know would you? You have not read them. You are acting in by *faith*. Shame on you, and you a putative sceptic who mikes up his own mind huh. [Hermit 4] Given your advocacy of Scranton as providing "answers",  I reached the further tentative conclusion that you were singing the same song as Scrunton. If that is not the case I'd appreciate your attempting to explain why you saw fit to mislead us about your motivations? [Jonathan 4] I agree strongly with Scruton on some matters. Read the book and find out why. [Jonathan 3] Secondly, I recommend Scruton's book "To understand why these agreements are being undermined". These agreements referred to certain agreements and notions in western politics. Scruton examines what happens to consensus models when pre-political loyalties are dissolved. [Hermit 4] The people turn away from Jesus, the world goes to hell in a handbasket, and it is the end of civilization as he imagines it. We know that. But why did you advocate this perspective and Scrunton's book if you disagree with Scrunton? Conversely, why do you attempt to reject the importance of Scrunton in forming your views if you are indeed singing the same song? [Jonathan 4] Hermit, this is pure straw man. He says nothing of the sort. I invite you to support these claims (like so many of these challenges, I expect silence or evasion from you). I have not rejected Scruton in forming my views. He an I do indeed sing the same song at times (on other matters I do not agree with him at all. You should understand that, you know black/white/grey and all). The problem is that you in your profound ignorance and prejudice have no idea of what that song is because you have not read the work we are discussing, and even if you do now you will never be able to admit I am right because of this confrontation. [Jonathan Davis 1] As a scientist, sceptic and atheist perhaps you would be better advised expounding on Toynbee's "use of myths and metaphors as being of comparable value to factual data and his reliance on a view of religion as a regenerative force" http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=406334 [Hermit 2] Perhaps you were unaware that Toynbee was an atheist and a skeptic - and probably the first historian to attempt a modern scientific approach to history on a grand scale (i.e. looking at the macro-event level). Perhaps that is why I appreciate him. [Jonathan 1] I will try and get hold of some of his volumes or perhaps an abridged work. [Hermit 2] Look in a mirror. Observing that myth and metaphor is important and plays a huge role in life and history is no more, and certainly no less, than what the CoV is engaged in. What else is "memetics" other than myth, metaphor and their effects on their carriers. [Jonathan 3] Perhaps. That is a different albeit interesting discussion perhaps as a topic for a chat. [Hermit 2] In any case, I suggest that somebody's perspective is flawed and that cognitive dissonance is almost certainly at work. Particularly when it comes to your repeatedly rejected strange idea that I advocate any Theistic religions. The  difference between you and I, it seems, is that I condemn them all equally, rather than reserving a fondness for the Anglicans. This includes recognizing that your (and that of your sources) blanket condemnation of Middle Eastern and Asian culture is rooted in your apparently shallow perspective. Had you been brought up in, e.g. The PRC, your opinion would no doubt be different. Which allows me to condemn your judgements, They are not measured, but are rooted in cultural prejudice. [Jonathan 3] Here you revert to the standard charge that those who disagree with you suffer from a pathology of some sort. I do not blanket condemn anything. Neither does Scruton. It would be useful if you could serve some examples as I do not think they exist. [Hermit 4] What pathology? I have told you repeatedly that I don't support any Theistic systems, but reject all of them equally. You continuously repeat your assertion that I prefer Islam (with the nasty insinuation that I am a traitor to my self). [Jonathan 4] Here you are projecting (to use that awful psychology term). You make a series of claims about me. I reject them and you come straight beck at me saying it is me making claims about you. This is the mirror method. Re-read the three paragraphs above. They tell their own story. As for you and Islam, I think it is a simple use of my enemies enemy is my friend. [Hermit 4] So something must be preventing you from comprehending my simple straightforward words. That something is called cognitive dissonance. [Jonathan 4] Round and around. Same old charge. "You disagree, you must be dilly!" [Hermit 4] And it is morphological rather than pathological. Your brain keeps telling you that what you see must match what you believe - or it should be rejected. The mechanism is well understood. Indeed your accusation that I "charge that those who disagree with you suffer from a pathology of some sort" and that this is standard, is simply your cognitive dissonance getting in the way again. You are misinterpreting reality and I suggest that it is apparent to most of the people reading this. [Jonathan 4] Here you keep up chant that I am somehow insane or suffering cognitive dissonance. It is a convenient ad hominem, but you have spent yourself with this tactic. What you do not know and (or maybe cognitive dissonance gets you) is that your reputation for using bullying ad homimens is the single biggest complaint about you. This thuggery blights your otherwise great work. You can choose to believe me or not. I don't care because I know it to be true. You would do well to believe it. [Hermit 4] If you knew more about the non-Western world, it would seem to me that you should be able to do a better job of perceiving the world as projected through their perspective. [Jonathan 3] You can label me or my perspective whatever you like (shallow etc.) The vehemence of your contempt does not actually help your arguments all. I could, but shall not, make exactly the same plausible claims about you that you are making about me. It is specious and unhelpful. [Hermit 4] When an analysis is based in understanding the motivations of the protagonists, then it has validity. But the perspective that you and Scruton portray is not based on that at all. Rather, at least in Scruton's case, it is based in the fact that they are not nicely behaved democratic Anglican's. In your case, the statements you have made about Islam lead me to think that you don't understand it sufficiently to condemn it effectively. [Jonathan 4] Here you are exposing yourself again as buffoon. Your prejudices about Scruton (and me?) Are driving you into a cognitive trap. You seem unable to free yourself from mad notions about what Scruton is said. You are in no position to judge me on anything, least of all Islam or politics. Your biases are the butt of jokes. Read Scruton and take a pop at your own armoured prejudices. You and Scruton agree on much. It is only your prejudices that prevent you from discovering an ally. [Jonathan Davis 1] Or is your selective quoting of Toynbee just a case of a quoting another set of scriptures for one's own purposes? [Hermit 2] The man was prodigiously productive, having written upwards of 100 works, many of them seminal. I recall your complaining of a few paragraphs of summary recently - on the grounds you had no time to read them. If you don't want a flood which will make Dees look restrained, I suggest that you be glad that I am selective. [Jonathan 3] You may be incontinent if you choose. I do have delete but after all and a fast internet connection. [Hermit 4] Not everyone here has. Quotation serves no purpose if it is not read (I have a delete key). And it seems to me that you are the person most likely to complain that you don't have the time to read a few paragraphs to be able to argue on a factual basis (see e.g. the discussion on the instantiation of the Universe). [Jonathan 4] I need to be careful about what I choose to discuss. A sense of duty will drive me to fight the good fight on any matter, so I prefer to keep it on topics I am interested in. As for the discussion on the instantiation of the Universe, my points were made and accepted. That you chose to build and then bash a straw man was nothing to do with me. [Hermit 2] As for quoting Toynbee, he serves as a counterpoise to Scruton and Co, reminding you of their "western universalist" position. While your knowledge of Islamic history as portrayed here is so flawed as to render discussion meaningless until you obtain a better background, bigotry and prejudicial interpretations abound, and you seem to have soaked up and in consequence appear to be advocating some percentage of it. [Jonathan 3] Instead of calling me names and talking up your boy Toynbee,why don't you do something substantive like support an assertion or craft an argument? [Hermit 3] Toynbee is not anybody's, "boy". Toynbee is regarded as significant. A search on google for "historiography Toynbee" will show you why. Toynbee and Wells founded the twentieth century school of Historiography. Toynbee, Wells, Spengler, Krober, Malinowski and McNeill are regarded as the primary modern historians, and a reference to any citation index will reflect that most academics regard Toynbee as the most significant of them. Your slighting references to Toynbee, like your comments about Islam, point to an almost total lack of knowledge of the field. [Jonathan 4] Your boy Toynbee is yesterdays man. A titan in the world of myth making and narrative historiography, a crypto-theist, and Gibbon clone. Free up bandwidth for something useful. Ditch this discredited dinosaur. No serious historians can even cite him, so low has his reputation sunk. Toynbeeism has degraded into World Systems Theory and is a laughing stock. You whiter on about Toynbee as though he is a Messiah and his ten volumes holy books. It is like Goggling Jesus loves and asking me to believe that Jesus exists and two that he loved. In honour of Jewish new year, Toynbee Schmoynbee* [Jonathan 3] You make claims about Toynbee, yet I read he is a buffoon. I give you (and Toynbee) the benefit of the doubt, you respond with name calling. I am not allowed to mention your bigotries and prejudices in case you accuse me of risking your life. [Hermit 3] I am probably one of the least bigoted and prejudiced people you are likely to meet. [Jonathan 4] ROFL!!!! Yeah yeah yeah [Jonathan Davis 1] I find it delightfully ironic that you approving quote Toynbee's reference to Islamic universalism -namely the surrendered are all equal before Allah (hence no need for other classifications like race or nation), yet for Toynbee "the West's universalist pretensions" are disgusting. [Hermit 2] Think about what you say - or better, research it. Preferably not in a book written by an ahl al-q'itab with his own problems - and writing out of field. Who defeated the alchemists and Jews of Medieval Europe? Where did they flee? What is the purpose of jizya? Can somebody "conquered" be subjected to "Dhimmitude" and "equal in surrender"? I know the answers. Do you? [Jonathan 3] Yes. The answer is 42.  This display of cut and paste "learning" does not wash. Scruton crafts superb arguments based on real learning. Hint: That is the way you can earn my respect. [Hermit 4] Without understanding that "Dhimmitude" can only occur in people who have surrendered (not been conquered!) and that the alchemists and Jews of Europe fled the persecution of the Christians to the havens of Moorish nations, where they were absorbed into the population, the only difference between them and the moors being that they paid a poll tax, jizya, in order to make up for the fact that the Muslims donated to charities providing social services as a part of the beliefs on a voluntary basis, you wouldn't understand how ignorant of Islam your question made you appear. [Jonathan 4] You forget your own masters, O' pupil. It was I who gave you your most thorough introduction to Dhimmis an Dhimmitude by back in 2001 when we were debating Afghanistan ["Look up Dhimmitude." I instructed in the thread "Civilized behaviour? was  On the "bright wisdom" of our mainstream politician"]. Given that one of my all time favourite writers is sir John Glubb, one of the greatest Arabist, a man on whom the honoraries like "Pascha" were bestowed by the Arabs, I am a great believer in the Babylon model, protected minorities and over-arcing moral/political order in multicultural states. But it is useful to post now what I posted two years ago when you true the same tack: The much vaunted Muslim tolerance of Dhimmis. http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/dhimma.html http://www.dhimmi.org/ "His words tellingly describe the fate of non-Muslims living under Islamic rule -- "dhimmitude". His assassination in itself is an example of the fact that the condition of dhimmitude was one of abasement and humiliation, and was maintained by severe punishment of all those challenged it. Islamic law divides mankind into three groups:   a.. the believers;   b.. the dhimmis, the followers of other monotheistic faiths (like Judaism, Christianity, and sometimes Zoroastrianism)   c.. and the infidels (polytheists, Hindus). While kafirs merit immediate death, dhimmis can live under Islam, provided they agree to abide by a humiliating pact called the dhimma, which involves several of the disabilities Gemayel has referred to in his speech, and many others. The people of India should technically have been kafirs (and thus despatched long ago), but were too powerful - so powerful that the school of Islamic law current in India (the Hanbalite law) decided to grant dhimmitude to the kafirs of India. Some of the humiliating conditions that the dhimmis were subject to involved:   a.. A poll tax - the jeziya   b.. Vestimentary discriminations (dhimmis have to wear distinctive clothing, so that they could be distinguished from the Muslims   c.. Prohibition of the right to bear arms   d.. Prohibition of the right to repair houses of worship   e.. Discrimination in matters of testimony - dhimmi testimony would not be acceptable as equal to that of the believers   f.. Dhimmis had to convert to Islam upon marrying a Muslim, for the marriage to be valid   g.. A convert to Islam would automatically inherit all the family wealth, to the detriment of family members who remained dhimmis But perhaps the most significant problem was the psychological effect of dhimmitude on the dhimmis. Dhimmis who learned to endure these disabilities had to learn to see things from the point of view of their Muslim overlords. Their lands were turned by jihad into fayy - a trust which the Muslim Umma held for posterity. The dhimmis were reduced to the position of subalterns in their own ancient homelands, notwithstanding their long and glorious history, which may have involved far greater things than camel herding. They grew to hate themselves, and pretend to the world that all is well. They mocked at the world, which was a perennial reminder of the reality, and the world in turn mocked at them by ignoring their plight. This has been the fate of the Hindus of Kashmir. This has been the fate of the Hindus of all India. The way out is the way suggested by President Gemayel to his people. Ref: The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam, Bat Ye'Or, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1985 " From http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/byauthor/sohailbanglori/d. html I posted this on the 3rd October 2001. My how cyclical things are. Maybe Toynbee got one thing right? [Hermit 4] And I suggest that your comments about Toynbee, and my 'cut and paste "learning"' make it appear that you wouldn't recognise "real learning" even if somebody force fed you on it. Respect is important, but seeking respect from the incapable is the hallmark of a terribly insecure person. So you may keep yours, an you will. [Jonathan 4] I do not seek your respect, neither do I seek reflected respect according to who I champion. You cut an paste verbiage to overwhelm and tire. It is a tactic that works on some, fools others.  I am immune, and I have noticed you have nearly stopped doing it with me. Looks like that of training manual works! [Jonathan Davis 1] I am alarmed that how you are so forgiving and even admiring of our deadliest and fastest growing competitor - Islam. Do you really mean to side with this militant religion against our secular, Western model of politics? [Hermit 2] You shouldn't be alarmed. You certainly shouldn't imagine that Islam is deadly - except in a rather boring sense. Like any other belief system, its adherents adapt it to fit their situation and justify their actions. When living repressed in a brutal environment, it can be used to justify suicide bombing. [Jonathan 3] Yes. The problem is that actions are often unjustified and reasons faulty. Being a pampered fat and rich Saudi can justify attacks on towers. The justifications can be as bizarre and they are numerous. [Hermit 4] The reasons were clearly articulated. The trouble is not that reasons were in short supply, but that the complaints were ignored and the causes exacerbated. Have you noticed that some of the "message" of 911 got through? The last US combat forces were recently withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, and the US has apparently been trying (ineffectively, but trying) to do something about their rogue Israeli friends and the Isreali Palestinian situation. Your sneering dismissal of bin Laden, whose competence is proven, only makes you look silly and is the kind of attitude which tends to lead to the kind of situation the US is in today with all the world arrayed against her. [Jonathan 4] As I noted elsewhere, things are going very well for us (that is people like me). Islamic terror is disrupted, hundreds of terrorist caught or dead. Whole countries liberated. So  much achieved in such a short time! As for everyone arranged against the USA, what new? The big guy is always the villain (see British Empire). Enmity is not new, only the US finally pushing back after 50 years of having to careful because of the Soviets. Time to even the score a bit. Who know the real objectives of the WTC attackers? We can only guess. They wanted an isolationist cowered America licking he wounds. Instead they and their brethren are getting their arses kicked across the globe. Long may it continue. [Hermit 2]  Just as Christianity justified revolution in England and the forcing of China to purchase opium from the English [Jonathan 3] The Opium Wars were part of the larger British Empire strategy of forcing global trade. It has next to nothing to do with Christianity. [Hermit 4] As usual, your pronouncements are utterly wrong. [Jonathan 4] As usual, you start with an insulting and false claim. Then you fail to follow through with fact or argument. [Hermit 4] The missionaries were right in the thick of it. Read some Twain or search on google for "missionaries opium". Either might open your eyes. Look particularly for articles mentioning Robert Morrison and Karl Friedrich Gutz both missionaries pushing bibles and opium while employed by the East India company along with appeals from "Chinese Christians" for the British to act against the Q'ing. [Jonathan 4] That Christians were present and profiting as a side effect of the action is the "next to nothing" bit. The historical forces driving the war was global commerce, not Christianity. I might say the Crusades were about commerce because merchants used the secured trade routes ply trade. [Hermit 2] and apartheid lead to the necklacing of teachers by "rational atheistic humanists" [Jonathan 3] Those teachers were necklaced by bloodlust aroused mobs scapegoating. [Hermit 4] Deliberately engineered and instigated by the ANC as part of their "No education before normalization" campaign to make the country ungovernable. The degree of success achieved by this campaign are tragically visible today. But the bloodshed was directly attributable to the ANC leadership (including the Sainted Mandela). [Jonathan 3] Indeed. Point? [Hermit 2] and  economic crises and belief in racial superiority lead the US to justify nuking Japan. [Jonathan 3] I don't man to object to your examples. I know it is bad manners and distracting, but how can you justify this sort of statement. It strikes me as..well..a joke? An economic crisis in 1945? Racial superiority justified the bomb? Are you for real? [Hermit 4] Economic considerations in the 1920s lead to the isolation of Japan and interdiction of her access to raw materials, particularly oil. This, together with FDRs strategy to get into the war by provoking Japan into attacking America and the Allies lead to the Japanese involvement in WW II. Truman, a fundamentalist Christian, whose prejudii and desire for "Christian leaders" (which accounts for Chiang, the only Christian warlord in China and another fundamentalist Refer e.g. http://www.monarch.net/users/miller/ww2/history/allied.html). arguably contributed massively to the communist take-over of China and the Korean and Vietnamese debacles confided to his diary, "Uncle Harry hates the heathen nips, and so do I". Truman, who overrode his staff and the military in deciding to nuke Japan, undoubtedly agreed with Fleet Admiral William Halsey's regret that the war "ended too soon because there are too many Nips left". This has been discussed at great length on the CoV previously. Consult our archives. As I mentioned to Jubangalord, I reccomend Arthur Goddard's Harry Elmer Barnes Learned Crusader: The New History in Action (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0879260025/thechurchofvirusA) in order to counter a US-centric education. Review here - http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard27.html - and the review itself is well worth wading through for the gems which it includes (and which are not all in the book). [Jonathan 4] This is another tactic of yours. Throw a book at someone and say "My argument is in there". This does not wash. Your chain of facts is too far far too tenuous and the arguments specious. Please, succinctly, justify your claim:  "Economic crises and belief in racial superiority lead the US to justify nuking Japan" Go on then, in your own words. [Hermit 4] I recommend you go to the above review, search for "One of Barnes' most important contributions to Cold War Revisionism" and read that and the following 4 or 5 paragraphs which pertain to the bombing. [Hermit 2] When times are better, the very same beliefs might lead to quiet discussions over tea and cucumber sandwiches with the Imam. [Jonathan 3] Yes. Humans are situational creatures. [Hermit 4] So when the situation is ghastly, people react badly. Condemning the societies which arise from such situations is not appropriate or helpful. Neither is attempting to "defeat" such societies. Only by altering the situation can you expect to see any change in the people involved. [Jonathan 4] Obviously those people create their own societies. If I challenge the cultural assumptions, ignorance or stupidity that underlies what makes their society ghastly, it might be seen as defeating their society but it is actually defeating their oppressor within. [Hermit 2] As a second issue, you need to read the news from time to time. [Jonathan 3] On the contrary, I need to read it less. I have such a range of sources and feeds that I tire from analysing them all. [Hermit 4] Then how do you imagine that the twin debacles, Afghanistan and Iraq are doing well, that the threat of terrorism is reduced, or that current US strategy has improved the global outlook for peace? e.g. Jonathan Davis, "Unilateralism",  Reply #2, 2003-09-27 (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=293 36) "Everything is working out beautifully." [Jonathan 4] Afghanistan and Iraq have been liberated. They are both transforming quickly (benchmark this against German in 1946). Terrorism is greatly reduced with no major attacks in the west since 9/11. Israel is more secure. We are more secure. Teething problems in Iraq and Afghanistan are to be expected. I read reports of great work on the ground. Both sets of people have a chance now. If they blow it ,it is their own fault - in Afghanistan, back to the primitive horror they have he for 2000 years. In Iraq, back to despotism - but Western friendly. As good a deal as any. It is up to them. [Hermit 2] Neither of the two global "B"s (i.e. the smirking chimp and his poodle) hide the fact that they were called by a Middle Eastern god to save the world from itself. So much for a secular Western model of politics. [Jonathan 3] Using puerile labels for Bush and Blair is fine, if a little sad. That they think that their actions are ordained in a guess. [Hermit 4] Not at all.A month after the World Trade Center attack, World Magazine, a conservative Christian publication, quoted Tim Goeglein, deputy director of White House public liaison, saying, "I think President Bush is God's man at this hour, and I say this with a great sense of humility." Time magazine reported that "Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment." The net effect is a theology that seems to imply that God is intervening in events, is on America's side, and has chosen Bush to be in the White House at this critical moment. Belief.net (http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/121/story_12112_1.html &storyID=12112&boardID=51717) Even more frightening, In the 2003-06-26 Ha'aretz reported, "According to Abbas, Bush said: 'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help! me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.'" [Jonathan 4]  Because a flunky kisses constituent arse, it dos not translate into Bush or Blair believing they are messiahs. [Hermit 4] And as for Blair, Quote: Blair, a committed Christian who keeps the Bible by his bed, knows he is taking a risk by revealing the importance he places on religion in informing his politics. He also knows that many of his key officials feel uncomfortable about the central role that God plays in his life. There were furrowed brows of consternation when Blair, asked who he would answer to for the deaths of British soldiers, replied: 'My Maker'.[/quote The Guardian (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1011460,00.html) Jonathan 4] Again, where does it say Blair believes he is on a mission from god? [Jonathan Davis 1] Your words remind me of something Orwell wrote: [Jonathan Davis 1] "why is it that the worst extremes of jingoism and racialism have to be tolerated when they come from an Irishman? Why is a statement like "My country right or wrong" reprehensible if applied to England and worthy of respect if applied to Ireland (or for that matter to India)? For there is no doubt that some such convention exists and that "enlightened" opinion in England can swallow even the most blatant nationalism so long as it is not British nationalism. Poems like "Rule, Britannia!" or  "Ye Mariners of England" would be taken seriously if one inserted at the right places the name of some foreign country, as one can see by the respect accorded to various French and Russian war poets to-day." [Hermit 2] Actually that could be another example of bigoted jingoism (and possibly your cognitive dissonance flaring up again). As a half-Scotsman, I reject the idea that England is synonymous with Great Britain! And if you had comprehended anything I have written on politics, you would be aware that I regard all "nationalistic jingoism" as being equally harmful to humans. Indeed, doubly harmful, in that "nationalism" by itself is a curse, and "jingoism" a disease of the intellect. [Jonathan 3] He does not make them synonymous at all so as a half-Scot you let your nationalism cool again.  The paucity of objections suggests you agree with him. [Hermit 4] Not at all. I don't know how you can take "I regard all "nationalistic jingoism" as being equally harmful to humans. Indeed, doubly harmful, in that "nationalism" by itself is a curse, and "jingoism" a disease of the intellect." as agreement. [Jonathan 4] You agree because 1. Orwell shares your views, but importantly 2. The point was about hypocrisy and double standards. You got that right? You chose to misinterpret me here didn't you? <Jonathan smiles indulgently> [Hermit 4] speaks directly to either the aforementioned 'cognitive dissonance', insufficient intellect to comprehend a clear expostulation of my opinion, or a deepseated intellectual dishonesty. Like to make a choice? [Jonathan 4] I am not one of you claque, libel to fall for this old trick. Incidentally, do you still scratch your piles with sandpaper or has your anal fissure driven you to apply caustic soda? <wink> [Jonathan Davis 1]As for you Hermit, oppugnancy is damaging you. Perhaps "surrender" is what you really need? [Hermit 2] Despite it having become the norm in American politics, your diagnosis appears as flawed as the idea of the inmates running the asylum. All right thinking people recognise that the world is neither black nor white, but a rather attractive shade of grey. Perhaps it is difficult to recognise when you are running around with beams in your eyes. Maybe an optician could assist you? [Jonathan 3] [Side Note: "All right thinking people" - So many kooky conspiracy theories, fallacies and extremist rants have this marker imbedded in them it is a useful shortcut for discarding bunk at the scanning phase. Simply scan for it and if found, hit delete. ] [Jonathan 3] Again, irony creeps into our discussion. No sooner have you reminded me of your being Scottish than you commit the "No True Scotsman Fallacy". Priceless. [Hermit 4] You have to be asserting a presumption that that the following statement is incorrect whenever you assert a fallacy. In other words, for the "all true scotsman" fallacy to be present, the assertion must fail when it is reexpressed removing "all true" preamble. So reexpressing the statement as, "Thinking people recognise that the world is neither black nor white, but a rather attractive shade of grey." Unless you aver that this is not the case, your assertion of fallacy here is as faulty as all of your other assertions. [Jonathan 4]  Thinking people may well find that there are certainly contraposed and axiomatic absolutes through relation (black and white). You have presumed all along that Scruton's book set the world in terms of black and white. That it is based on the authors view of the world in absolute terms. You are utterly wrong and your unthinking attack based on prejudice and spite has cost you plenty of time and effort. It is a fitting punishment. [Hermit 4] But you inpire me. Pity you left it so late in the article. Had I seen it 6 hours ago, I could have saved 6 hours. grep 'Jonathan Davis' > /dev/nullrus-l> [Jonathan 4] Surrender accepted. * This was written entirely in jest to mock your style and methods. You may have detected an irreverent tone in this response. It is the mirth that accompanies insight. --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> Report to moderator   Logged Hermit Archon Posts: 4287 Reputation: 8.94 Rate Hermit Prime example of a practically perfect person Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1 « Reply #56 on: 2003-09-28 19:08:33 » [Hermit 4] <moved from end> But you inspire me. Pity you left it so late in the article. Had I seen it 6 hours ago, I could have saved 6 hours. grep 'Jonathan Davis'  > /dev/null [Jonathan 5] Surrender accepted. [Hermit 6] No surrender given or implied. You received a (full response). Something you seem incapable of doing. Your statement was not ad hominem, but is a statement that you have deliberately projected a meaning which could not be construed from what I said onto my words. [Jonathan 5] <moved from end> This was written entirely in jest to mock your style and methods. You may have detected an irreverent tone in this response. It is the mirth that accompanies insight. [Hermit 6] I'm not convinced that you have seen a thing. It would excuse me from replying, only from your past behaviour, I know that you will then make further invalid assertions about what that meant. [Hermit 6] As a point of order, ad hominem is short for "argumentum ad hominem", to "argue against the person." This can be through insult, through inference, or even through false, or at least unsubstantiated accusations of debating flaws. I can only engage in ad hominem against the person I am debating/arguing with. I can say anything about anyone else I wish, and if it is not true and is malicious, that might be slander, but it cannot be ad hominem. I try to avoid ad hominem, even when the person I am arguing with does it repeatedly, until it becomes apparant that they will not learn not to. Then I respond in kind (if the forum provides no rules against it) or call for sanctions if it does. The CoV is a forum where we have recently instituted such rules. You are verging on the point where I will call for sanctions against you. As you appear incapable of identifying ad hominem correctly, the response to you has been made on the BBS and ad hominem identified in color. To reiterate, please notice that ad hominem can only occur when I talk about you. The complete response is located at [ Hermit, "Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1", Reply #56, 2003-09-28 ] [Jonathan Davis 1] You, like Kharin, have stooped to defamation over content. Scruton is a first and foremost an philosopher, and a superb one at that. I can testify to this as I have read the book in question. [Hermit 2] Nope. Scruton isn't a "superb" philosopher. He is a media figure who plays the role of a philosopher on programs appealing to Fux TV viewers. He is probably most famous for accepting money from Japan Tobacco International to write pro-smoking articles in the various newspapers that murder trees on his behalf. And then getting found out. Said newspapers ended up sacking him for his pains. (Kharin's contribution.) [Jonathan 3]  The tobacco thing is completely irrelevant. It was a crude attempt at the same sort of well poisoning I complained about earlier. [Hermit 6] Unsupported assertion of irrelevancy. Unsupported assertion of "well poisoning." [Hermit 4] It is not at all irrelevant. Neither was it poisoning the well. The man takes short cuts in all directions and uses his spurious "authority" to make a never ending stream of assertions accepted approvingly only by people infested with a similar political ideology. His work is not regarded as exceptional by any significant academic group and his character is viewed as flawed. The mention of his history suffices to prove that this is neither a stretch nor a new phenomenon. In science at least, but in academia generally in my experience, reputation is jealously guarded, because you have only one. Scrunton has one, but it smells a bit like last week's hake. [Jonathan 5] You claim the man takes short cuts yet you offer no support for the ad hominem. It was you who took the shortcut by prejudging the book by its title. Here you do nothing but make desperate and false claims about Scruton: [Hermit 6] Invalid and unsupported assertion of ad hominem. Invalid and unsupported assertion that I take "short cuts". Invalid and unsupported assertion that I make "desperate and false claims" [Hermit 6] No, I prejudge the book by its author's reputation. I prejudge the author on his self identification as a proponent of a "conservative" perspective. I prejudge the author on the fact that the majority of his "works" seem to me to be apologetics, pop-Phi and novels. This is not a short cut, not "prejudging a book on its title" and certainly not a "desperate and false claim". [Jonathan 5] Claim: Scruton's work is not regarded as exceptional by any significant academic group. [Jonathan 5] Comment: Scruton's work is acknowledged highly exceptional and downright brilliant by scholars across the world. I can prove this, but I would prefer to do so AFTER you have defined "academic group" and demonstrated how one can show a scholar to be considered exception by such a group. [Hermit 6] Count citations in in the Humanities index. Discover, "His vilification and rejection by the academic establishment is disgraceful." [Bryan Appleyard, The Sunday Times, before they fired him]. You might disagree with this, but the fact of it is clear. Notice that his Doctorates are honorary - and his Professorships have been as a visitor, not tenured (even from institutions which agree with his position), in otherwords, he does not meet the requirements to establish tenure. [Jonathan 3] <moved down> "[Roger Scruton] has a reputation as a first class professional philosopher among other academics of all political persuasions" guardian profile quoted in your earlier hatchet job post http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4082791,00.html. [Jonathan 5] How do you respond to the claim in the Guardian profile posted above? [Hermit 6] Puffing him up in order to more easily knock him down. [Jonathan 5] Claim: The man takes short cuts in all directions and uses his spurious "authority" assertions accepted approvingly only by people *infested* with a similar political ideology. [Jonathan 5] Comment: I invite you to support this claim of yours. It is you who is making a stream of claims about Scruton which are completely false (bordering on the hilarious). In the book in question, touted by some as a modern classic, [Hermit 6] Invalid and unsupported assertion of my making false claims. [Hermit 6] "Some" claimed that Enid Blyton wrote "modern classics" too. Only she was more published and much more widely read than Scruton. Who has not heard of "Noddy, Bigears and Mr Plod the policeman"? And didn't need to found her own publishing house to get her books into print (Vide ownership of Claridge Press). The point being that Scrunton doesn't need to make arguments," as ex-editor of the Salisbury Review, "a journal of conservative thought", he preaches to the "conservative" (most "right", some "left*" ) choir - and indeed this appeals quite strongly to the "neo-conservatives" (some "right", some "left*") too.  (*aka frightened liberals.) [Jonathan 5] Scruton is acknowledged by writers on the left and right as having delivered a superb, highly argued analysis. You however are GUESSING because you have not even read the book. [Hermit 6] Invalid and unsupported assertion that I am "guessing". [Hermit 6] Not guessing. Projecting that if his other works are terrible that this one follows the pattern. And I notice that the labels "left" and "right" are dead artifacts. If you want to talk labels, you need a new set. How about "The West is best" (including everyone from Attilla to Trotsky) and "The rest" (Not a group as this includes everyone from the classic liberal to extreme fundamentalists). I'm guessing that many of the former will love it, and most of the latter will hate it. Not being in the former group, I am sure that I needn't bother reading it. (*Or even, America (in the sense of a neo-colonial power), first, last and always.) [Jonathan 5] Claim: Scruton's reputation stinks [Jonathan 5]Comment: I have already posted some comments by reviewers on Scruton and his work that show this to be a bald lie. He is a widely acknowledged master of his craft and one of Britain greatest living philosophers. He is a contrarian, iconoclast and heterodox. One day he will be a Virian saint, or at least should be. [Hermit 6] Invalid and unsupported assertion that I tell bald lies. [Hermit 6] In memory of his puffing the tobacco companies, while forgetting to mention he was being paid to do this? Or for some other reason. It can't be for his articles or reports. Last time I looked, bigotry, hypocricy and dishonesty were not Virian Virtues, so I doubt that we will hagify him. [Jonathan Davis 1] Why you inserted the irrelevant comments about race consciousness I do not know. Redefining the out-group is easy when I can force you into the in-group at spear point. [Hermit 6] As hominem as you asset (without justification) that I am engaging in irrelevancy - exacerbated by argumentam ad baculam. [Hermit 2] Not when the tip is irrefutably entangled somewhere in your own anatomy. [Jonathan 3] Yes, but why did you put it in? [Hermit 4] If you meant the tip, I think it was a self inflicted injury on your part. [Jonathan 5] I use firearms, I am not a savage after all. Now, why did you insert that material on race consciousness? [Hermit 6] Why did you "threaten" me with a "spear" if you are not a savage? [Jonathan 5] Please answer the question. [Hermit 6] Ad hominem as you assert that I did respond, where in fact I did. See next. Presumably you didn't notice as you didn't comment either. [Hermit 4] If about Toynbee, then perhaps you don't realise that Scruton only has one song, and this is of his neverending nostalgia for a supreme Anglican Western world he imagines was superior to every other culture and any other time. This has many serious problems, but the most glaring is that the world he writes about in rounded periods has never existed except in his imagination,  A counter exanple should have served to show that his assertions are invalid. The UK practically invented modern racism, and Christianity was responsible for the preservation of ignorance and bigotry until well into the "enlightenment." As Toynbee indicated the values Scruton wishes to reserve for the west were held by the Muslim much earlier. So much for Scrunton. [Hermit 2] Having told two people whom you regularly characterize as intelligent, fair, experienced and articulate that they are engaging in defamation - which you should recognise is always stupid - something seems to be out of kilter. [Hermit 6] Invalid and unsupported assertion I engage in defamation - which by definition has to be untrue. Yet the truth of what I said is not refutable and my motive is not malicious. Thus, be definition, what I have said is not defamation. [Jonathan 3] Not at all. There is no deliberate malice on your or Kharin's part. I see such things as mistakes, rhetorical devices that are unfair. [Hermit 4] No. I (and I am certain Kharin) both are quite capable of looking at a charletan and identifying him as such to the satisfation of anyone prepared to either accept what we illustrate, or doing the necessary research to validate it for themselves. Neither of us delude ourselves that those unprepared to challenge their preconceptions will derive any benefit from what we say. But warning people that Scruton is a loathsome, second rate hack preaching to a clearly identified choir is a long way from "defamation". [Jonathan 5] I suspect you and Karin both attacked the book because you prejudged it based on its title and the previous defamation of the author by left-wing politicos. It was a mistake on your part and you have been fighting a retreat ever since. You have not read the book, but instead fly in the face of your supposed sceptical credentials and judge it by its cover. [Hermit 6] You cannot make unfounded assertions about my motives. [Jonathan 5] What is even more telling is that you utterly dismissed my recommendation. My authority counts for naught with you. It is useful to know where I stand and how radical you are.  You chose to attacked reflexively and in bad faith. I am making you part for it now. Karin was sensibly left this in alone. [Hermit 6] I don't think that you have any authority - which suggest that this may be a false claim. You assert (without justification as you cannot know my internal state) that I am "radical". You assert that I am acting in "reflex" and in "bad faith. That is ud hominem. [Hermit 6] Say rather I judged him on his history, his "conservativism", the topics he chooses to write on, the style he chooses to use, the reception given to his previous works and his character. Here are his books to date. Which ones do you claim are significant and demonstrate his brilliance? On Hunting Xanthippic Dialogues Perictione in Colophon Untimely Tracts Modern Philosophy: An Introduction and Survey A Short History of Modern Philosophy An Intelligent Persons Guide to Philosophy Kant Spinoza (twice?) Animals Rights and Wrongs Sexual Desire: A Philosophical Investigation The Politics of Culture The Philosopher on Dover Beach Town and Country The Intelligent Person's Guide to Modern Culture Fortnight's Anger Francesca Be Attitudes (Poems) A Dove Descending and other stories A Dictionary of Political Thought The Meaning of Conservatism A Land Held Hostage: Lebanon and the West Thinkers of the New Left Czechoslovakia The Unofficial Culture Conservative texts An Anthology (ed.) Art and Imagination The Aesthetic Understanding The Aesthetics of Architecture Classical Vernacula Aesthetics Music [Hermit 2] My recommendation was for you to read some Toynbee in order to try to get a better handle on history before you decide that Scruton represents a pinnacle of historical excellence upon which you can base your entire opinion of the field. [Jonathan 3] That is completely fair, but not what you said (or at least what was communicated to me). Firstly, I would have corrected you: I was not basing my my entire opinion of any field on any one person or book. [Hermit 4] Given that the arguments you raised are not new, seem derivitive, and have deceived nobody I have met with actual knowledge of the situations they involve, I concluded you were propagating an opinion based on your acceptance of the authority of Scranton's book you claim to have read. [Jonathan 4] Here you make yet another dries of mistakes, escorted by fallacies and gelled together by ad hominem. I recommended a book to Karin. You and he attacked the book and its author (in fact worse, you attacked other books by the same author!). You did not be anything on argument because you have not read the book, neither is Kharin. Instead you chose your customary mode of attack - ad hominem. I am patiently exposing your methods and being cheered for it off list. Scruton's arguments are utterly compelling, but you would not know would you? You have not read them. You are acting in by *faith*. Shame on you, and you a putative sceptic who mikes up his own mind huh. [Hermit 6] A slew of fallacies, from ad populam (claiming support of the crowd) to ad hominem. You cannot comment on me. Look at how I commented above. I spoke to what I had concluded, not to what your internal state was. You comment - nastily, on me. Unsupported assertions of ad hominem. Gratuitous assertion that this is my "method". Unsupported assertion I am acting by "faith". Direct insult. [Hermit 6] I'm so glad to hear that you have admirers who grant you respect. It must make you feel wonderful. Are they all conservatives? I've noticed that conservatives like to fly in flocks, and seldom are sufficiently articulate to speak for themselves. But what exactly do you imagine that you are "exposing"? And where is the "ad hominem"? Your "dries of mistakes" (whatever that means)? Your claims do not make the things you say true - no matter how many times you assert them. And you have asserted these things many, many times. [Hermit 4] Given your advocacy of Scranton as providing "answers",  I reached the further tentative conclusion that you were singing the same song as Scrunton. If that is not the case I'd appreciate your attempting to explain why you saw fit to mislead us about your motivations? [Jonathan 4] I agree strongly with Scruton on some matters. Read the book and find out why. [Hermit 6] I don't need to. You are, after all, a self-avowed conservative, and thus a member of his target audience. Is it the case that when he presses the keys, you sing his song. If so, it is very human. [Jonathan 3] Secondly, I recommend Scruton's book "To understand why these agreements are being undermined". These agreements referred to certain agreements and notions in western politics. Scruton examines what happens to consensus models when pre-political loyalties are dissolved. [Hermit 6] As you keep whining that I shouldn't refer you to books ("Throw a book at someone and say "My argument is in there"'), rather than writing a summary, and appear to resent being presented with nice URLs you can just click on, I wonder why you don't provide a summary here instead of an assertion? [Hermit 4] The people turn away from Jesus, the world goes to hell in a handbasket, and it is the end of civilization as he imagines it. We know that. But why did you advocate this perspective and Scrunton's book if you disagree with Scrunton? Conversely, why do you attempt to reject the importance of Scrunton in forming your views if you are indeed singing the same song? [Jonathan 5] Hermit, this is pure straw man. He says nothing of the sort. I invite you to support these claims (like so many of these challenges, I expect silence or evasion from you). [Hermit 6 ] A strawman must be untrue or irrelevant. Why not read the review you quoted from. It says that is exactly what he said. Which is why I posted it. So it is true. And we are discussing the author. So it is relevant. So no strawman and your assertion fails. [Hermit 6] Projecting what you "expect" from me is always invalid. And unsupported assertions of evasion are direct ad hominem. [Jonathan 5] I have not rejected Scruton in forming my views. [Hermit 6] I know that. I wondered if you did. [Jonathan 5] He an I do indeed sing the same song at times (on other matters I do not agree with him at all. You should understand that, you know black/white/grey and all). The problem is that you in your profound ignorance and prejudice have no idea of what that song is because you have not read the work we are discussing, and even if you do now you will never be able to admit I am right because of this confrontation. [Hermit 6] Whose "profound ignorance and prejudice." Whose inability to "admit" that somebody else is right. [Jonathan Davis 1] As a scientist, sceptic and atheist perhaps you would be better advised expounding on Toynbee's "use of myths and metaphors as being of comparable value to factual data and his reliance on a view of religion as a regenerative force" http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=406334 [Hermit 2] Perhaps you were unaware that Toynbee was an atheist and a skeptic - and probably the first historian to attempt a modern scientific approach to history on a grand scale (i.e. looking at the macro-event level). Perhaps that is why I appreciate him. [Jonathan 1] I will try and get hold of some of his volumes or perhaps an abridged work. [Hermit 2] Look in a mirror. Observing that myth and metaphor is important and plays a huge role in life and history is no more, and certainly no less, than what the CoV is engaged in. What else is "memetics" other than myth, metaphor and their effects on their carriers. [Jonathan 3] Perhaps. That is a different albeit interesting discussion perhaps as a topic for a chat. [Hermit 2] In any case, I suggest that somebody's perspective is flawed and that cognitive dissonance is almost certainly at work. Particularly when it comes to your repeatedly rejected strange idea that I advocate any Theistic religions. The  difference between you and I, it seems, is that I condemn them all equally, rather than reserving a fondness for the Anglicans. This includes recognizing that your (and that of your sources) blanket condemnation of Middle Eastern and Asian culture is rooted in your apparently shallow perspective. Had you been brought up in, e.g. The PRC, your opinion would no doubt be different. Which allows me to condemn your judgements, they are not measured, but are rooted in cultural prejudice. [Jonathan 3] Here you revert to the standard charge that those who disagree with you suffer from a pathology of some sort. I do not blanket condemn anything. Neither does Scruton. It would be useful if you could serve some examples as I do not think they exist. [Hermit 6] As previously noted (infra) there was no assertion of pathology here, and no support for the claim that this is a "standard charge." [Hermit 4] What pathology? I have told you repeatedly that I don't support any Theistic systems, but reject all of them equally. You continuously repeat your assertion that I prefer Islam (with the nasty insinuation that I am a traitor to my self). [Jonathan 5] Here you are projecting (to use that awful psychology term). You make a series of claims about me. I reject them and you come straight beck at me saying it is me making claims about you. This is the mirror method. Re-read the three paragraphs above. They tell their own story. [Hermit 6.1] You reject what I say. There is no argument about that. I make a series of observations about people (which I don't think any one could deny) and say that I see the reason for your attitude (unopposed) is because of what I perceive as being a shallow perspective and justify my condemnation by saying that from another perspective you would see things differently. Are you suggesting that we are not the product of our environments? Then you come back with a bunch of "clinical" assertions and assert (unsubstantiated) that you have rejected a strawman of your own making. [Jonathan 5] As for you and Islam, I think it is a simple use of my enemies enemy is my friend. [Hermit 6] Who is "my enemy" according to your unsupported assertion? And what grounds do you have for your further unsupported assertion that I appear shortsighted and hypocritical enough not to consider the nature of those with whom I ally myself. When you say, "I think, blah, blah, blah" about the person with whom you are arguing, you have to provide justification for your thinking or it is ad hominem. [Hermit 4] So something must be preventing you from comprehending my simple straightforward words. That something is called cognitive dissonance. [Jonathan 5] [color]Round and around. Same old charge. "You disagree, you must be dilly!"[/color] [Hermit 6] As previously noted (infra) Cognitive dissonance is natural. It is not "dilly" although it may (sometimes) be silly. So this claim is a strawman. And the assertion that this is the "same old charge" is unsupported. [Hermit 4] And it is morphological rather than pathological. Your brain keeps telling you that what you see must match what you believe - or it should be rejected. The mechanism is well understood. Indeed your accusation that I "charge that those who disagree with you suffer from a pathology of some sort" and that this is standard, is simply your cognitive dissonance getting in the way again. You are misinterpreting reality and I suggest that it is apparent to most of the people reading this. [Jonathan 4] Here you keep up chant that I am somehow insane or suffering cognitive dissonance. It is a convenient ad hominem, but you have spent yourself with this tactic. [Hermit 6] I do not call you insane. To assert that the reason for what appears to be the unjustified rejection appears to be cognitive dissonance is not to engage in ad hominem. Particularly when the original assertion was ad hominem in the purest sense of the word. Speaking to the man. Remember? You indicated that I should reject Toynbee on the grounds of what you think I am and what you imagined him to be. [Jonathan 4] What you do not know and (or maybe cognitive dissonance gets you) is that your reputation for using bullying ad homimens is the single biggest complaint about you. This thuggery blights your otherwise great work. You can choose to believe me or not. I don't care because I know it to be true. You would do well to believe it. [Hermit 6] You make unsubstantiated assertions here that the crowd thinks that I engage in thuggery and bullying ad hominem. That is ad hominem (and ad populam and a straw man and ad misercordiam). Hopefully, the illuminated version of this work will convince you that the shoe is on the other foot. I invite you to respond in kind. [Hermit 4] If you knew more about the non-Western world, it would seem to me that you should be able to do a better job of perceiving the world as projected through their perspective. [Jonathan 3] You can label me or my perspective whatever you like (shallow etc.) The vehemence of your contempt does not actually help your arguments all. I could, but shall not, make exactly the same plausible claims about you that you are making about me. It is specious and unhelpful. [Hermit 6] I didn't label you shallow (See [Hermit 6.1] supra). You presume contempt for the person (as opposed to the tactics). I do not call you a liar (specious). Your unfounded charges against  me fail. [Hermit 4] When an analysis is based in understanding the motivations of the protagonists, then it has validity. But the perspective that you and Scruton portray is not based on that at all. Rather, at least in Scruton's case, it is based in the fact that they are not nicely behaved democratic Anglican's. In your case, the statements you have made about Islam lead me to think that you don't understand it sufficiently to condemn it effectively. [Jonathan 5] Here you are exposing yourself again as buffoon. [Hermit 6] How do you imagine that calling your opponent a "buffoon" is not an argumentum ad hominem? [Jonathan 5] Your prejudices about Scruton (and me?) Are driving you into a cognitive trap. You seem unable to free yourself from mad notions about what Scruton is said. [Hermit 6] You assert, but do not substantiate, prejudice. You, without substantiation, assert cognitive traps and insanity. This is not an argumentum ad hominem? [Jonathan 5] You are in no position to judge me on anything, least of all Islam or politics. [Hermit 6] I don't. I judge your words and your own assertions about yourself. Your unsubstantiated assertion that I am judging you is ad hominem. [Jonathan 5] Your biases are the butt of jokes. [Hermit 6] While this is in line with your earlier accusations that I, your opponent here, am a buffoon, it also remains ad hominem (and ad populam). [Jonathan 5] Read Scruton and take a pop at your own armoured prejudices. You and Scruton agree on much. It is only your prejudices that prevent you from discovering an ally. [Hermit 6] You can't validly make assertions that I am prejudiced or that I would agree with your argument if I were not prejudiced. [Jonathan Davis 1] [color]Or is your selective quoting of Toynbee just a case of a quoting another set of scriptures for one's own purposes?[/color] [Hermit 6] While I chose not to bother with this before you elected to attack me for using, "ad hominem", and so interpreted this in the most positive light I could, "selective quoting" is in fact a serious charge, always implying that the arguments of the person quoted are not representative of their work and that the person doing the quoting is engaging in dishonesty. I notice that, as usual, you did not even attempt to substantiate your accusation. [Hermit 2] The man was prodigiously productive, having written upwards of 100 works, many of them seminal. I recall your complaining of a few paragraphs of summary recently - on the grounds you had no time to read them. If you don't want a flood which will make Dees look restrained, I suggest that you be glad that I am selective. [Jonathan 3] You may be incontinent if you choose. I do have delete but after all and a fast internet connection. [Hermit 6] I suggest that accusing your opponent of having a leaky bladder (incontinent) would, in most forums, be construed as ad hominem. [Hermit 4] Not everyone here has. Quotation serves no purpose if it is not read ("I have a delete key"). And it seems to me that you are the person most likely to complain that you don't have the time to read a few paragraphs to be able to argue on a factual basis (see e.g. the discussion on the instantiation of the Universe). [Jonathan 4] I need to be careful about what I choose to discuss. A sense of duty will drive me to fight the good fight on any matter, so I prefer to keep it on topics I am interested in. As for the discussion on the instantiation of the Universe, my points were made and accepted. That you chose to build and then bash a straw man was nothing to do with me. [Hermit 6] You'd need to substantiate this. For now it is just another unsubstantiated assertion. [Hermit 2] As for quoting Toynbee, he serves as a counterpoise to Scruton and Co, reminding you of their "western universalist" position. While your knowledge of Islamic history as portrayed here is so flawed as to render discussion meaningless until you obtain a better background, bigotry and prejudicial interpretations abound, and you seem to have soaked up and in consequence appear to be advocating some percentage of it. [Jonathan 3] Instead of calling me names and talking up your boy Toynbee,why don't you do something substantive like support an assertion or craft an argument? [Hermit 6] I didn't call you names. I refered to what appeared to be your position and noted that it appeared to be based on not uncommon flawed assertions. Asserting, without grounds, that I do not support my assertions whan challenged must fail if I do it. As everyone here - including you - knows that I do so. this appears to be not so much wrong as a deliberate lie on your part - and I would have been quite justified in terminating all dialog at this point. [Hermit 3] Toynbee is not anybody's "boy". Toynbee is regarded as significant. A search on google for "historiography Toynbee" will show you why. Toynbee and Wells founded the twentieth century school of Historiography. Toynbee, Wells, Spengler, Krober, Malinowski and McNeill are regarded as the primary modern historians, and a reference to any citation index will reflect that most academics regard Toynbee as the most significant of them. Your slighting references to Toynbee, like your comments about Islam, point to an almost total lack of knowledge of the field. [Jonathan 5] Your boy Toynbee is yesterdays man. [Hermit 6] Repetition of a slur with racialist overtones without support. Calling Toynbee names is just silly. Attempting to associate them with me is ad hominem. [Jonathan 5] A titan in the world of myth making and narrative historiography, a crypto-theist, and Gibbon clone. Free up bandwidth for something useful. Ditch this discredited dinosaur. No serious historians can even cite him, so low has his reputation sunk. Toynbeeism has degraded into World Systems Theory and is a laughing stock. You whiter on about Toynbee as though he is a Messiah and his ten volumes holy books. It is like Goggling Jesus loves and asking me to believe that Jesus exists and two that he loved. [Hermit 6] Substantiate your assertions. I'd suggest you provide a citation list to substantiate your assertions about "serious istorians." Or is this a true example of a "no true scotsman" fallacy? Let's see? Rephrase:"No historians can even cite him, so low has his reputation sunk." The Library of Congress online catalog shows 70 hits for him with current printings and translations as recently as 1995. A 2001 citation from Professor John Freccero at Stanford in 2001 is available at  http://www.wisdomportal.com/Dante/Dante-Pythagoras.html. Which falsifies the rephrased assertion, in that "At least one historian" cites him, leaving your "No serious historians" evident for the falsity - and fallacy - it is. [Jonathan 5] In honour of Jewish new year, Toynbee Schmoynbee* [Hermit 6] And the point you are trying to make is? [Jonathan 3] You make claims about Toynbee, yet I read he is a buffoon. I give you (and Toynbee) the benefit of the doubt, you respond with name calling. I am not allowed to mention your bigotries and prejudices in case you accuse me of risking your life. [Hermit 6] More unfounded assetions about "name calling, bigotries and prejudices." [Hermit 3] I am probably one of the least bigoted and prejudiced people you are likely to meet. [Jonathan 5] ROFL!!!! Yeah yeah yeah [Hermit 6] Laugh an you would. I haven't even attacked you. [Jonathan Davis 1] I find it delightfully ironic that you approving quote Toynbee's reference to Islamic universalism -namely the surrendered are all equal before Allah (hence no need for other classifications like race or nation), yet for Toynbee "the West's universalist pretensions" are disgusting. [Hermit 6] If I could parse the above, I probably would label it as ad hominem, as it appears to attempt to make negative statements about my frame of mind. Would you mind repairing the broken grammar so that we can determine whether I was correct or not. [Hermit 2] Think about what you say - or better, research it. Preferably not in a book written by an ahl al-q'itab with his own problems - and writing out of field. Who defeated the alchemists and Jews of Medieval Europe? Where did they flee? What is the purpose of jizya? Can somebody "conquered" be subjected to "Dhimmitude" and "equal in surrender"? I know the answers. Do you? [Jonathan 3] Yes. The answer is 42.  This display of cut and paste "learning" does not wash. Scruton crafts superb arguments based on real learning. Hint: That is the way you can earn my respect. [Hermit 6] More unsubstantiated disparagement. "Scruton crafts superb arguments based on real learning." implication, Hermit does not. Reinforced by "Hint: That is the way you can earn my respect." [Hermit 6] Did you respond meaningfully? Did you substantiate your earlier assertions? [Hermit 4] Without understanding that "Dhimmitude" can only occur in people who have surrendered (not been conquered!) and that the alchemists and Jews of Europe fled the persecution of the Christians to the havens of Moorish nations, where they were absorbed into the population, the only difference between them and the moors being that they paid a poll tax, jizya, in order to make up for the fact that the Muslims donated to charities providing social services as a part of the beliefs on a voluntary basis, you wouldn't understand how ignorant of Islam your question made you appear. [Jonathan 5] You forget your own masters, O' pupil. [Hermit 6] Actually, I remember Joe Dees introducing me to the (modern) expression "dhimmitude". The concepts behind it were very familiar. And unlike Dees, I have read many of the works of Jewish and Moorish authors writing in Cairo, in Babylon and in Spain under the Muslims and so know that the portrayal you attempt to establish is at best incomplete, at worst dishonest. When Samuel ibn Nagdela (i.e. Samuel the Prince, Grand Vizier of Granada and Rabinical author) and Rabbi Moses ben Maimon (aka Maimonides) court physician and respected as the greatest of the medieval Jewish rabbis both wrote of the era as a "Golden Age of Judaism" then your picture is distorted. <snip screed> [Jonathan 5] I posted this on the 3rd October 2001. My how cyclical things are. Maybe Toynbee got one thing right? [Hermit 6] Maybe. [Hermit 4] And I suggest that your comments about Toynbee, and my 'cut and paste "learning"' make it appear that you wouldn't recognise "real learning" even if somebody force fed you on it. Respect is important, but seeking respect from the incapable is the hallmark of a terribly insecure person. So you may keep yours, an you will. [Jonathan 5] I do not seek your respect, neither do I seek reflected respect according to who I champion. You cut an paste verbiage to overwhelm and tire. It is a tactic that works on some, fools others.  I am immune, and I have noticed you have nearly stopped doing it with me. Looks like that of training manual works! [Hermit 6] And so you continue engaging in "interpreting" what I say, and making unsupported assertions of dishonesty and claims to superiority. I further notice that my one paragraph, has, courtesy of your assertions and the need to attempt to respond, multiplied into pages. And as I usually do research what I say, dozens of hours attempting to keep up with your barrages of assertion and preventing me from doing many other things. This paragraph also provides me the right to ignore you. But I'll finish this last rebuttal first. [Jonathan Davis 1] I am alarmed that how you are so forgiving and even admiring of our deadliest and fastest growing competitor - Islam. Do you really mean to side with this militant religion against our secular, Western model of politics? [Hermit 6] Here, you speak to my state of mind, make assertions about Islam which you cannot substantiate, and imply that I am an "enemy of the people." [Hermit 2] You shouldn't be alarmed. You certainly shouldn't imagine that Islam is deadly - except in a rather boring sense. Like any other belief system, its adherents adapt it to fit their situation and justify their actions. When living repressed in a brutal environment, it can be used to justify suicide bombing. [Jonathan 3] Yes. The problem is that actions are often unjustified and reasons faulty. Being a pampered fat and rich Saudi can justify attacks on towers. The justifications can be as bizarre and they are numerous. [Hermit 4] The reasons were clearly articulated. The trouble is not that reasons were in short supply, but that the complaints were ignored and the causes exacerbated. Have you noticed that some of the "message" of 911 got through? The last US combat forces were recently withdrawn from Saudi Arabia, and the US has apparently been trying (ineffectively, but trying) to do something about their rogue Israeli friends and the Isreali Palestinian situation. Your sneering dismissal of bin Laden, whose competence is proven, only makes you look silly and is the kind of attitude which tends to lead to the kind of situation the US is in today with all the world arrayed against her. [Jonathan 5] As I noted elsewhere, things are going very well for us (that is people like me). Islamic terror is disrupted, hundreds of terrorist caught or dead. Whole countries liberated. So  much achieved in such a short time! As for everyone arranged against the USA, what new? The big guy is always the villain (see British Empire). Enmity is not new, only the US finally pushing back after 50 years of having to careful because of the Soviets. Time to even the score a bit. [Hermit 6] I see a great deal of assertion on your part, most of it trivial to rebut through reference to any reliable news source. However, as you have failed to support a single of your assertions here, they can be dismissed as they do not support your arguments. [Jonathan 5] Who know the real objectives of the WTC attackers? [Hermit 6] If it was al Q'aeda, headed by bin Laden that planned and executed the attacks on 911 then we have their previous repeated statements that their issues revolved around the US declining their offers to move against Iraq before the first Gulf War (Hussein being an apostate and his secular rule an anathema to al Q'aida) to prevent US troops "desecrating" Saudi Arabia, the US declaring al Q'aeda a terrorist organization, the US positioning soldiers in Saudi Arabia including after the war, US support for Israeli genocide, the US having used and then abandoned the Fedhayin of Afghanistan. [Jonathan 5] We can only guess. They wanted an isolationist cowered America licking he wounds. Instead they and their brethren are getting their arses kicked across the globe. Long may it continue. [Hermit 6] We don't need to guess. We can read their statements. And contrary to your assertion, the CIA, DIA, NSA, MI6 and other authoritive bodies have repeatedly warned that anti-American terrorist recruitment is surging, and that it is "only a matter of time" before the UK and US are attacked again. The UN is warning us that Afghanistan is coming apart at the seams, and that Iraqi women "were better off under Hussein." The above can be confirmed in "Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice, and Peace to Rid the World of Evil" James Bovard, ISBN 1403963681 and "Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq" by Sheldon Rampton, John C. Stauber, ISBN 1585422762, or more conveniently, at www.antiwar.com (which is of course more up-to-date). [Hermit 2]  Just as Christianity justified revolution in England and the forcing of China to purchase opium from the English [Jonathan 3] The Opium Wars were part of the larger British Empire strategy of forcing global trade. It has next to nothing to do with Christianity. [Hermit 6] I note that you did not disagree that "Christianity justified revolution in England." [Hermit 4] As usual, your pronouncements are utterly wrong. [Jonathan 4] As usual, you start with an insulting and false claim. Then you fail to follow through with fact or argument. [Hermit 6] I have repeatedly provided evidence that demolishes your arguments and supports my assertions - including here where I speak to your pronouncements and not to you. This is a statement of fact on my part. You respond with an accusation of ad hominem, a plethora of assertion and a paucity of evidence which is only outstripped by the Whitehouse and Whitehall. [Hermit 4] The missionaries were right in the thick of it. Read some Twain or search on google for "missionaries opium". Either might open your eyes. Look particularly for articles mentioning Robert Morrison and Karl Friedrich Gutz both missionaries pushing bibles and opium while employed by the East India company along with appeals from "Chinese Christians" for the British to act against the Q'ing. [Jonathan 4] That Christians were present and profiting as a side effect of the action is the "next to nothing" bit. The historical forces driving the war was global commerce, not Christianity. I might say the Crusades were about commerce because merchants used the secured trade routes ply trade. [Hermit 6] Notice my claim here was that "Christianity justified the forcing of China to purchase opium from the English." Not that this was the real reason. And substantiated my assertion. In the same way as "Destroying (non-existent) WMDs (alleged)" and "The war on terror" (which had no relation to Hussein) was used to justify a decade long war against Iraq. Not that this was the real reason. [Hermit 6] Please split this to a seperate thread and argue the case that "Christianity was not used to justify the forcing of China to purchase opium from the English", not a strawman of your own devise. [Hermit 2] and apartheid lead to the necklacing of teachers by "rational atheistic humanists" [Jonathan 3] Those teachers were necklaced by bloodlust aroused mobs scapegoating. [Hermit 4] Deliberately engineered and instigated by the ANC as part of their "No education before normalization" campaign to make the country ungovernable. The degree of success achieved by this campaign are tragically visible today. But the bloodshed was directly attributable to the ANC leadership (including the Sainted Mandela). [Jonathan 3] Indeed. Point? [Hermit 6] That the ANC portrayed itself as "rational atheistic humanists" and had the support of others who considered themselves to be "rational atheistic humanists." Q.E.D. [Hermit 2] and  economic crises and belief in racial superiority lead the US to justify nuking Japan. [Jonathan 3] I don't man to object to your examples. I know it is bad manners and distracting, but how can you justify this sort of statement. It strikes me as..well..a joke? An economic crisis in 1945? Racial superiority justified the bomb? Are you for real? [Hermit 4] Economic considerations in the 1920s lead to the isolation of Japan and interdiction of her access to raw materials, particularly oil. This, together with FDRs strategy to get into the war by provoking Japan into attacking America and the Allies lead to the Japanese involvement in WW II. Truman, a fundamentalist Christian, whose prejudii and desire for "Christian leaders" (which accounts for Chiang, the only Christian warlord in China and another fundamentalist Refer e.g. http://www.monarch.net/users/miller/ww2/history/allied.html). arguably contributed massively to the communist take-over of China and the Korean and Vietnamese debacles confided to his diary, "Uncle Harry hates the heathen nips, and so do I". Truman, who overrode his staff and the military in deciding to nuke Japan, undoubtedly agreed with Fleet Admiral William Halsey's regret that the war "ended too soon because there are too many Nips left". This has been discussed at great length on the CoV previously. Consult our archives. As I mentioned to Jubangalord, I recommend Arthur Goddard's "Harry Elmer Barnes Learned Crusader: The New History in Action" in order to counter a US-centric education. Review here - http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard27.html - and the review itself is well worth wading through for the gems which it includes (and which are not all in the book). [Jonathan 5] This is another tactic of yours. Throw a book at someone and say "My argument is in there". This does not wash. Your chain of facts is too far far too tenuous and the arguments specious. Please, succinctly, justify your claim: [Hermit 6] "Another tactic" "Throw a book at someone"  "the arguments specious". What fun. If you cannot see that I attempted to make the argument clearly and succinctly above, with supporting references, then no amount of rephrasing will be useful within this context - which you yourself described as "bad manners and distracting." Instead, if you wish to condense a topic which has consumed acres worth of trees, I recommend you start a thread in the "Serious Business" forum as not everybody is interested in taking it further here. [Jonathan 5] "Economic crises and belief in racial superiority lead the US to justify nuking Japan" Go on then, in your own words. [Hermit 6] Having asserted that I should not support my case with references, you now demand me to prove it. Do you imagine that this is rational? [Hermit 4] I recommend you go to the above review, search for "One of Barnes' most important contributions to Cold War Revisionism" and read that and the following 4 or 5 paragraphs which pertain to the bombing. [Hermit 6] I append the few paragraphs I referenced to the end of this reply. Ask yourself why the peace offer, seven months prior to the US nuking Japan was not accepted. [Hermit 2] When times are better, the very same beliefs might lead to quiet discussions over tea and cucumber sandwiches with the Imam. [Jonathan 3] Yes. Humans are situational creatures. [Hermit 4] So when the situation is ghastly, people react badly. Condemning the societies which arise from such situations is not appropriate or helpful. Neither is attempting to "defeat" such societies. Only by altering the situation can you expect to see any change in the people involved. [Jonathan 4] Obviously those people create their own societies. If I challenge the cultural assumptions, ignorance or stupidity that underlies what makes their society ghastly, it might be seen as defeating their society but it is actually defeating their oppressor within. [Hermit 6] I think you missed my point. Society is a response to the environment, not a primary cause of it (although there is interaction). Challenging people leads directly to cognitive dissonance, misunderstanding, fear and often hatred. "They" usually don't see an "oppressor within" - that is "US" speaking. The CoV does not generally endorse aggressive UTism, as it lacks empathy, rationality and vision. So advocating it as a modus is not something I would support. [Hermit 2] As a second issue, you need to read the news from time to time. [Jonathan 3] On the contrary, I need to read it less. I have such a range of sources and feeds that I tire from analysing them all. [Hermit 4] Then how do you imagine that the twin debacles, Afghanistan and Iraq are doing well, that the threat of terrorism is reduced, or that current US strategy has improved the global outlook for peace? e.g. Jonathan Davis, "Unilateralism",  Reply #2, 2003-09-27 "Everything is working out beautifully."? [Jonathan 4] Afghanistan and Iraq have been liberated. They are both transforming quickly (benchmark this against German in 1946). Terrorism is greatly reduced with no major attacks in the west since 9/11. Israel is more secure. We are more secure. Teething problems in Iraq and Afghanistan are to be expected. I read reports of great work on the ground. Both sets of people have a chance now. If they blow it ,it is their own fault - in Afghanistan, back to the primitive horror they have he for 2000 years. In Iraq, back to despotism - but Western friendly. As good a deal as any. It is up to them. [Hermit 6] I see no support here for your assertions, and would suggest that this picture is so far from reality as to be delusional, but that would lead to further acrimonious exchanges and not further this discussion one whit. So again, if you wish to attempt to defend your perspective, I recommend that you attempt to do so on its own thread on the Serious Business" forum. [Hermit 2] Neither of the two global "B"s (i.e. the smirking chimp and his poodle) hide the fact that they were called by a Middle Eastern god to save the world from itself. So much for a secular Western model of politics. [Jonathan 3] Using puerile labels for Bush and Blair is fine, if a little sad. That they think that their actions are ordained in a guess. [Hermit 4] Not at all. A month after the World Trade Center attack, World Magazine, a conservative Christian publication, quoted Tim Goeglein, deputy director of White House public liaison, saying, "I think President Bush is God's man at this hour, and I say this with a great sense of humility." Time magazine reported that "Privately, Bush even talked of being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment." The net effect is a theology that seems to imply that God is intervening in events, is on America's side, and has chosen Bush to be in the White House at this critical moment. Belief.net. Even more frightening, "According to Abbas, Bush said: 'God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.'" Ha'aretz, 2003-06-26 [Jonathan 5]  Because a flunky kisses constituent arse, it dos not translate into Bush or Blair believing they are messiahs. [Hermit 6] Which part of "Bush said" do you not understand? [Hermit 4] And as for Blair, "Blair, a committed Christian who keeps the Bible by his bed, knows he is taking a risk by revealing the importance he places on religion in informing his politics. He also knows that many of his key officials feel uncomfortable about the central role that God plays in his life. There were furrowed brows of consternation when Blair, asked who he would answer to for the deaths of British soldiers, replied: 'My Maker'." The Guardian [Jonathan 5] Again, where does it say Blair believes he is on a mission from god? [Hermit 6] If his "Maker" is responsible for "the deaths of British soldiers", then presumably his "Maker" is also responsible for 'forcing' Blair to deploy them in that situation? [Jonathan Davis 1] Your words remind me of something Orwell wrote: [Jonathan Davis 1] "why is it that the worst extremes of jingoism and racialism have to be tolerated when they come from an Irishman? Why is a statement like "My country right or wrong" reprehensible if applied to England and worthy of respect if applied to Ireland (or for that matter to India)? For there is no doubt that some such convention exists and that "enlightened" opinion in England can swallow even the most blatant nationalism so long as it is not British nationalism. Poems like "Rule, Britannia!" or  "Ye Mariners of England" would be taken seriously if one inserted at the right places the name of some foreign country, as one can see by the respect accorded to various French and Russian war poets to-day." [Hermit 2] Actually that could be another example of bigoted jingoism (and possibly your cognitive dissonance flaring up again). As a half-Scotsman, I reject the idea that England is synonymous with Great Britain! And if you had comprehended anything I have written on politics, you would be aware that I regard all "nationalistic jingoism" as being equally harmful to humans. Indeed, doubly harmful, in that "nationalism" by itself is a curse, and "jingoism" a disease of the intellect. [Jonathan 3] He does not make them synonymous at all so as a half-Scot you let your nationalism cool again.  The paucity of objections suggests you agree with him. [Hermit 6] "Your nationalism" when I reject it is an ad hominem. The assertion "The paucity of objections suggests you agree with him" is a distortion on your part. I suggest, particularly in the light of, "This was written entirely in jest to mock your style and methods. You may have detected an irreverent tone in this response.", that you knew both these were false when you penned them, and you included them for "annoyance value". That does not stop them from being ad hominem. [Hermit 4] Not at all. I don't know how you can take "I regard all "nationalistic jingoism" as being equally harmful to humans. Indeed, doubly harmful, in that "nationalism" by itself is a curse, and "jingoism" a disease of the intellect." as agreement. [Jonathan 5] You agree because 1. Orwell shares your views, but importantly 2. The point was about hypocrisy and double standards. You got that right? You chose to misinterpret me here didn't you? <Jonathan smiles indulgently> [Hermit 6] Repeatedly calling your opponent a liar is as good a way to lose an argument as any. [Hermit 4] Indeed, it speaks directly to either the aforementioned 'cognitive dissonance', insufficient intellect to comprehend a clear expostulation of my opinion, or a deepseated intellectual dishonesty. Like to make a choice? [Jonathan 5] I am not one of you claque, libel to fall for this old trick. [Hermit 6] Was this supposed to mean something? [Jonathan 5] Incidentally, do you still scratch your piles with sandpaper or has your anal fissure driven you to apply caustic soda? <wink> [Hermit 6] "Winks" don't generally exclude ad hominem. And this one was typical. [Jonathan Davis 1] As for you Hermit, oppugnancy is damaging you. Perhaps "surrender" is what you really need? [Hermit 7] You can't validly tell your opponent what is, and is not good for him (you can only comment on his arguments). [Hermit 2] Despite it having become the norm in American politics, your diagnosis appears as flawed as the idea of the inmates running the asylum. All right thinking people recognise that the world is neither black nor white, but a rather attractive shade of grey. Perhaps it is difficult to recognise when you are running around with beams in your eyes. Maybe an optician could assist you? [Jonathan 3] [Side Note: "All right thinking people" - So many kooky conspiracy theories, fallacies and extremist rants have this marker imbedded in them it is a useful shortcut for discarding bunk at the scanning phase. Simply scan for it and if found, hit delete. ] [Hermit 6] You cannot validly imply that your opponent is a kooky conspiracy theorist, engaging in fallacies and extremist rants without support. [Jonathan 3] Again, irony creeps into our discussion. No sooner have you reminded me of your being Scottish than you commit the "No True Scotsman Fallacy". Priceless. [Hermit 6] As above, you can't make unsubstantiated assertions. Responded to below. [Hermit 4] You have to be asserting a presumption that that the following statement is incorrect whenever you assert a fallacy. In other words, for the "all true scotsman" fallacy to be present, the assertion must fail when it is reexpressed removing "all true" preamble. So reexpressing the statement as, "Thinking people recognise that the world is neither black nor white, but a rather attractive shade of grey." Unless you aver that this is not the case, your assertion of fallacy here is as faulty as all of your other assertions. [Jonathan 5]  Thinking people may well find that there are certainly contraposed and axiomatic absolutes through relation (black and white). You have presumed all along that Scruton's book set the world in terms of black and white. That it is based on the authors view of the world in absolute terms. You are utterly wrong and your unthinking attack based on prejudice and spite has cost you plenty of time and effort. It is a fitting punishment. [Hermit 6] You may comment on my argument, "utterly wrong" and others will make their own decisions of the validity of your assertion. You cannot assert that it is based on "prejudice and spite" because you cannot know my motivation, [Hermit 6] Did you just steal another seven hours from me. Maybe you are correct and I am some kind of a fool. Nevertheless, while you may have, as you claimed, attempted to ape "my methods", you have, if you will pardon the observation, apparently not comprehending them, done so very, very badly. PS http://www.dhimmitude.org/ is a less strident source of information than those you referenced. Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard27.html One of Barnes' most important contributions to Cold War Revisionism came in the spring of 1958, when he published what is still the best single article on what might be called "Hiroshima Revisionism" – the real reasons for dropping the A-bombs on Japan. Barnes was here the only writer – and, remarkably, remains the only writer to this day – to make use of the highly significant MacArthur memorandum to F.D.R. of January 20, 1945. This forty-page memorandum explicitly set forth the terms of an authentic Japanese peace offer which were virtually identical with the final surrender terms that we accepted from the Japanese seven months later – at the cost of countless needlessly expended lives, Japanese and American alike. The proffered terms included: complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms; occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction; Japanese relinquishment of all territory gained during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea, and Formosa; regulation of Japanese industry to prohibit any production of war implements; release of all prisoners of war and surrender of any war criminals so designated by the United States. This MacArthur memorandum, the details of which were later fully confirmed by the general, was leaked in strict confidence to Walter Trohan of the Chicago Tribune by Admiral William D. Leahy, chief of staff to the President, who was alarmed lest Roosevelt might fail to follow through on the Japanese proposal, which proved to be the case. As soon as the war with Japan was ended, Trohan was free to publish these revelations, which completely established the American knowledge of what were later to be fully acceptable Japanese peace terms. And yet, apart from Harry Barnes, no Hiroshima Revisionist to date has made use of them.11  They are equally indispensable to those who have presumed to write on the last year of the war between the United States and Japan and on Roosevelt's conduct at the Yalta Conference, but they have been ignored by all such writers to the present time. Nothing has annoyed Barnes more than the timidity or dull-wittedness of those historians who call themselves Revisionists but have consistently and deliberately refused to make use of the MacArthur memorandum after Barnes had not only repeatedly called their attention to it but had also furnished several of them with copies and all the related documentation required fully to authenticate it. Barnes also disclosed, for the first time, the personal testimony of Herbert Hoover that President Truman, by early May, 1945, informed him that he knew of the extensive Japanese peace offers and admitted then that further fighting with the Japanese was really unnecessary. But, Truman also disclosed to Hoover, he did not feel strong enough to challenge Secretary Stimson and the Pentagon. Yet neither of these confirmatory revelations have been picked up by Alperovitz and the other recent expositors of Hiroshima Revisionism. In his article, Barnes also supported the P. M. S. Blackett thesis, since adopted by Alperovitz, that the major reason for dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a sabre-rattling gesture to the Russians against whom we were already preparing the Cold War. Indeed, Barnes concludes that "many date the origins of the Cold War from the time he [Stalin] received news of the [atom] bombing shortly after the Potsdam Conference." « Last Edit: 2003-09-29 01:18:27 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999 Hermit Archon Posts: 4287 Reputation: 8.94 Rate Hermit Prime example of a practically perfect person Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1 « Reply #57 on: 2003-09-28 19:21:01 » [Hermit 4] <moved from end> But you inspire me. Pity you left it so late in the article. Had I seen it 6 hours ago, I could have saved 6 hours. grep 'Jonathan Davis'  > /dev/null [Jonathan 5] Surrender accepted. [Hermit 6] No surrender given or implied. You received a (full response). Something you seem incapable of doing. Your statement was not ad hominem, but is a statement that you have deliberately projected a meaning which could not be construed from what I said onto my words. [Jonathan 5] <moved from end> This was written entirely in jest to mock your style and methods. You may have detected an irreverent tone in this response. It is the mirth that accompanies insight. [Hermit 6] I'm not convinced that you have seen a thing. It would excuse me from replying, only from your past behaviour, I know that you will then make further invalid assertions about what that meant. [Hermit 6] As a point of order, ad hominem is short for "argumentum ad hominem", to "argue against the person." This can be through insult, through inference, or even through false, or at least unsubstantiated accusations of debating flaws. I can only engage in ad hominem against the person I am debating/arguing with. I can say anything about anyone else I wish, and if it is not true and is malicious, that might be slander, but it cannot be ad hominem. I try to avoid ad hominem, even when the person I am arguing with does it repeatedly, until it becomes apparant that they will not learn not to. Then I respond in kind (if the forum provides no rules against it) or call for sanctions if it does. The CoV is a forum where we have recently instituted such rules. You are verging on the point where I will call for sanctions against you. As you appear incapable of identifying ad hominem correctly, the response to you has been made on the BBS and ad hominem identified in color. To reiterate, please notice that ad hominem can only occur when I talk about you. The complete response is located at [ Hermit, "Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1", Reply #56, 2003-09-28 ] « Last Edit: 2003-09-28 21:39:17 by Hermit » Report to moderator   Logged With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999 JD Adept Gender: Posts: 542 Reputation: 7.39 Rate JD RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1 « Reply #58 on: 2003-09-28 19:26:05 » "I think the problem with most anti-Americans is their realization of the difference between the amount of time they spend thinking about how much they hate us...and the amount of time we spend not thinking about them at all." http://www.asmallvictory.net/archives/004372.html Better luck next time Hermit.  Regards Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of Hermit Sent: 29 September 2003 00:09 To: virus@lucifer.com Subject: Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1 . ---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=292 59> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> Report to moderator   Logged JD Adept Gender: Posts: 542 Reputation: 7.39 Rate JD RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1 « Reply #59 on: 2003-09-28 20:13:20 » "The CoV is a forum where we have recently instituted such rules. You are verging on the point where I will call for sanctions against you." I challenge you to do so. You can huff and puff Hermit, but ultimately you are near powerless to do anything about my habit of taking you on directly in this forum. If you are going argue with me, it will have to be the hard way: slugging it out like this, 7 long hours at a time. The congregation will not rescue you via unfair and unjust sanctions. You ought to be ashamed of yourself even threatening such a thing. Implied threats do not work on those who are immune to bullies. Put up or shut up,  as they say. Your point of order below is misplaced. I know what an ad hominem is and clearly you can still copy and paste. As for the rest of your post, I do not intend to waste 7 hours of my time pointing out your insults, personal attacks and ad hominems. Your last post was a 10,000 word whopper, nearly a novella! The good bits were written by me. The rest is mostly rubbish. I may see if there is anything worth answering in the morning. But then again, I have work to go to, so we'll see. Looking forward to getting your best shot in the "sanction" department tough guy  :-) Regards Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com] On Behalf Of Hermit Sent: 29 September 2003 00:21 To: virus@lucifer.com Subject: Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1 [Hermit 4] <moved from end> But you inspire me. Pity you left it so late in the article. Had I seen it 6 hours ago, I could have saved 6 hours. grep 'Jonathan Davis'  > /dev/null [Jonathan 5] Surrender accepted. [Hermit 6] No surrender given or implied. You received a (full response). Something you seem incapable of doing. Your statement was not ad hominem, but is a statement that you have deliberately projected a meaning which could not be construed from what I said onto my words. [Jonathan 5] <moved from end> This was written entirely in jest to mock your style and methods. You may have detected an irreverent tone in this response. It is the mirth that accompanies insight. [Hermit 6] I'm not convinced that you have seen a thing. It would excuse me from replying, only from your past behaviour, I know that you will then make further invalid assertions about what that meant. [Hermit 6] As a point of order, ad hominem is short for "argumentum ad hominem", to "argue against the person." This can be through insult, through inference, or even through false, or at least unsubstantiated accusations of debating flaws. I can only engage in ad hominem against the person I am debating/arguing with. I can say anything about anyone else I wish, and if it is not true and is malicious, that might be slander, but it cannot be ad hominem. I try to avoid ad hominem, even when the person I am arguing with does it repeatedly, until it becomes apparant that they will not learn not to. Then I respond in kind (if the forum provides no rules against it) or call for sanctions if it does not.  As you appear incapable of identifying ad hominem correctly, the response to you has been made on the BBS and ad hominem identified in color. To reiterate, please notice that ad hominem can only occur when I talk about you. The complete response is located at  [ Hermit, "Re:virus: The Ideohazard 1.1", Reply #56, 2003-09-28 ] (http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=292 59;start=45) ---- This message was posted by Hermit to the Virus 2003 board on Church of Virus BBS. <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=292 59> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l> Report to moderator   Logged Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Jump to:Please select a destination: ----------------------------- General ----------------------------- =>Announcements =>Evolution and Memetics =>FAQ =>Church Doctrine =>Science & Technology =>Society & Culture =>Arts & Entertainment =>Philosophy & Religion =>Humor & Satire =>Creative Endeavors =>Serious Business =>Virian Book Club =>Second Life =>Free For All =>Infections =>Suggestion Box =>Test Area ----------------------------- Mailing List ----------------------------- =>Virus 2006 =>Virus 2005 =>Virus 2004 =>Virus 2003 Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE © 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved. Please support the CoV. RSS feed