JD
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 542 Reputation: 7.39 Rate JD
|
|
RE: virus: The Ideohazard 1.1
« Reply #60 on: 2003-09-29 09:55:50 » |
|
The story so far, Hermit and Jonathan are brawling over a book, The West and The Rest [ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1882926811/ ], a modern classic...
[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 6] You were stung into a response. Cassandra's whip.
[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.
[Jonathan 6] I am not convinced by what
[SNIP POINT OF ORDER REPLIED TO PREVIOUSLY]
[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."
[Jonathan 6] The matter of Scruton and the Tobacco company are completely irrelevant to the merits of the book we are discussing. You are attempting to poison Scruton's well. You prejudged the book based on its title and I suspect are sorry for it 13 hours of writing later.
[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. Scruton 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"
[Jonathan 6] Err, I see you have decided to simply opt for denial. Might I remind you that it was *you* who made the claims about Scruton and never supported them. You made the claims about Scruton, you failed to support them, I characterised (correctly) your efforts as desperate.
[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 6] I simply do not believe you. You have failed to convince me that your rejection of Scruton was based on anything but Kharin's outburst. You and he both erred, he in rejecting a work based on the reputation of its author (despite my testimony) and you in unthinkingly attacking the book (and obliquely me) in ignorance. The cardinal fact is that you have not even read the book, so you cannot even begin to validate your claims against the book.
[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 6] To be insulted by Brian Appleyard is a compliment. Scruton is a curmudgeon, he excites passions and angers the pious and the idiotic. Do you really support defamation as a legitimate tactic? Is it really reasonable for me to judge a work on the basis of what detractors say about the author? I will remember this in future. Next time you write a piece I will simply list what Joe Dees has written about you, or Metahuman.
[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 6] LOL! It directly contradicts you Hermit. You claimed that "Scruton's work is not regarded as exceptional by any significant academic group", yet here we have the Guardian, in an article you posted, saying "[Roger Scruton] has a reputation as a first class professional philosopher among other academics of all political persuasions" [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4082791,00.html ]. You were rumbled!
[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.
[Jonathan 6] Round and round the denial bush. I invite you to support this claim of yours, you say...nothing. Let me try this another way: You make a claim, I ask you to support it (I do this because I know they are false and say so), you assert that my invitation is another claim, and so on. No, back to the original: back up your claim that Scruton 1. takes short cuts and 2. has spurious "authority" 3. has his claims accepted only by people "infested" with a similar political ideology.
Waiting, waiting......
[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 6] This is simply rubbish. Regardless of the fact that he has broad appeal, the man is brilliant and his book superb. You say he does not need to make arguments, yet he does, superbly. Virtually every writer of note has a following, Scruton is rare in that not only is he respected across political divides, but is hailed as having written on of the
[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".
[Jonathan 6] As you have chosen not to challenge my statement here, I take it you now agree that Scruton is acknowledged by writers on the left and right as having delivered a superb, highly argued analysis. As for your..err..objection, you are wrong. Not having read the material we are discussing, you are making guesses about it.
[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 6] You have not read anything by him have you Hermit? There is an implied premise here that "his other works are terrible" yet you have not read him and I have posted a sample of the near hysterical praise for his works. Despite these testimonials, and despite the fact you have not read the man - you persist with your negative assessment based on little more than a Guardian article criticising one of his books on England. I think, and I can never prove this of course, that you that it was a simple case of stimulus response. You saw the title, factored in Kharin's bias and took the shortcut to negative prejudgement. It was a mistake to do so.
Your projection was wrong and it is a good illustration of the dangers of prejudice and stereotype.
Regarding the left/right taxonomy, I used it as a turn of phrase to indicate cross political support. As for best wests. I am with Jim Morrison on that one.
[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.
[Jonathan 6] I agree. This is to strong by far. I withdraw it and replace bald lie with "bold and erroneous guess".
[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 6] Actually he did not puff the tobacco companies, he simply got caught offering to work for them. He did nothing wrong at all and was the victim of a Guardian arranged borking. You imply here Scruton is a bigot, a hypocrite and dishonest. He is none of these things.
I might remind you Hermit that you have been labelled as such in this very forum (unfairly mostly). Did you think it fair? Do you think it is an acceptable way to conduct discourse? A fair tactic for debate?
[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.
[Jonathan 6] I see your argument ad baculum and raise you a tu quoque and an Anecdotal evidence.
[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?
[Hermit 6] I did not threaten you with a spear. I am not a savage after all. What I did do is make a point that if I force you into my in-group (at spear point), then out-group related problems cease.
[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.
[Jonathan 6] You have not yet answered why you put in the passage on race consciousness. It remains *unanswered*.
[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.
[Jonathan 6] I do not accept your guesses about Scruton because 1. You have not read him, and 2. I have and I know that what you are saying is rubbish. This entire passage is based on what you believe is true of Scruton. It is an act of faith better suited to happy clappy testimonial festival.
[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 6] You have attempted to defame Scruton. Defamation is the "destruction or attempted destruction of the reputation, status, character or standing in the community of a person or group of persons by unfair, wrongful, or malicious speech or publication." This fairly capture your efforts in this thread.
[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 6] Your characterisation of Scruton as being a "loathsome, second rate hack preaching to a clearly identified choir" is clearly defamatory and flies in the face of fact. Scruton is an enormously highly respected intellectual, philosopher and writer. But this is neither here nor there. We are discussing a work:
The West and the Rest, which I recommended to Kharin. You have chosen to attack the book and the author on the basis of prejudices and "projections", possibly justified after. Not only are you wrong about Scruton, shooting yourself in the foot in your attempts to defame him, but even if he were a werewolf, it would not really have any bearing on the merits of his book, merits to which I can attest because I have read it. You however have not. I do not need to drive home this point as it is clear: You basing your arguments on guesses, I am basing mine on knowledge.
[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 6] I can, just like you do, speculate. Of course I cannot mind read, but you and I both know I am right.
[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 ad hominem.
[Jonathan 6] My label for you is not based on your internal state, but your behaviour. My comments about you are descriptions of your behaviours, not claims about your character. I have often prefaced my responses with to you with high praise to offset any perceived ad hominems. Shall I post the examples? Will you post your kind descriptions of me? Oh, they don't exist do they.
[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?
[Jonathan 6] You are now justifying yourself after the fact. You long ago used up any good faith I had reserved for you, so I simply do not give you the benefit of the doubt here. I do not believe that you made your judgements on the basis you now claim. Scruton is labelled a conservative, but I would describe you as such too in some respects. He writes mostly on philosophical matters, as this is his primary profession. Most of his works are excellent, some are downright brilliant.
Where are you deriving your authority to make the judgements you do? You have not read the book in question and I do not think you have read a single book by the man, so your opinion is near worthless. All we are getting here is a statement of your prejudices, but nothing of value.
[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 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.
[Jonathan 6] Tis you who thinks the crowd backs him, hence your threats about sanctioning me. I am not commenting on your internal state, I am commenting on the nature of your actions. I expose your method, yes. Does this tell us something about you? Perhaps. Is this a cry for help?
[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.
[Jonathan 6] I have more than admirers, I have fans! Are they conservatives? Some are, yes. Most are not. They mostly defy categorization. Do you have supporters? What is with these old labels? Labels like "conservative" and "liberal" are as dated as "left" and "right". As for your comments about conservatives, your observations must be based on too small a sample. I find brilliant people on both sides of the false divide.
[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 6] This is pure ad hominem circumstantial. See http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/adhomine.html
[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?
[Jonathan 6] The book is too tightly argued. It defies summary because it is so beautifully crafted as to be super-condescended.
[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.
[Jonathan 6] The statement is untrue AND irrelevant. We are discussing a book, you are attacking the author as a substitute for attacking the book which you have not read and clearly know next to nothing about.
[Hermit 6] Projecting what you "expect" from me is always invalid. And unsupported assertions of evasion are direct ad hominem.
[Jonathan 6] I can state my expectations without prejudice. It is entirely valid and necessarily true "This is what I expect". Prove me wrong. I invite you to support the claim, I predicted you would not (expect). You did not, so my prediction was true AND your claim remains unsupported.
[Jonathan 5] I have not rejected Scruton in forming my views.
[Hermit 6] I know that. I wondered if you did.
[Jonathan 6] Now you know.
[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 6] He who attacks a book before reading and spend 14 hours attempting to justify his rash actions.
[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 sceptic - 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."
[Jonathan 6] Very good, I take this as a withdrawal. Very big of you.
[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 6.1] I do not believe in the blank slate, no. Your other claims and statements here are too vague to be intelligible in this context.
[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.
[Jonathan 6] My enemies enemy is my friend. I dare not elaborate or according to some of your previous protests, the secret service or similar will kick down your door. That your worries are in my opinion paranoia is neither here nor there. I will respect your fears.
[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]
[Jonathan 6] Look, pretty colours added to some of my incidental statements. Shall I reciprocate Hermit? Green? Yellow?
[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.
[Jonathan 6] You make frequent use of the false consciousness tactic. You have used it several times in this thread and repeat it above. Maybe all those years fighting Soviet propaganda (or was it listening to it) has rubs off . Was it you who fought Soviet propaganda? It is hard to keep track of all of your (or others) adventures...
[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 6] Insert: Here to fall victim to the argumentum ad populum, albeit it wishfully.
[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 6] You say I "misinterpreting reality" and this is the basis of insanity. Also, please stop this embarrassing yourself with your misunderstanding of what an ad hominem is. It can be used by proxy and refers to the object or source of any argument, not necessarily the speaker. Sometimes I get wonderful insights into what you are about by your slippages. They call them "tells" in stage magic and cold readings. Here you essentially summarise what you have been up to:
You indicated that you reject Scruton's book on the grounds of what you think his audience is (conservative etc) 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.
[Jonathan 6] I have said that your reputation for using bullying ad homimens is the single biggest complaint about you. It is. It is the truth. If it were not a betrayal of those who have communicated in private, I would prove it to you. The congregation can judge for themselves who is a bully and who is not, who engages in Thuggery or not, who uses insults and personal attacks instead of arguments.
[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 6] I do a better job than you. What does that tell you about yourself?
[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.
[Jonathan 6] I pointed out that you can label me or my perspective whatever you like. It makes no real odds and is irrelevant. Note also I said "The vehemence of your contempt" NOT "The vehemence of your contempt for me". I know you secret love me :-)
My charge stands, unaltered and supported by preceding paragraphs.
[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 6] I said you are exposing yourself as a buffoon ( i.e a person who amuses others by ridiculous behaviour ). It was a caution to you.
[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 6] As with all of these latest counter-claims of yours, they are fatally flawed. It is you who made assertions, I have called you on them, you refuse to answer, choosing instead to deploy red herrings to distract form your first slew of claims/assertions/boasts/opinion none of which were supported.
[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 6] I did not say you are judging me, I said you are in NO POSITION to judge me on anything.
[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 6] This is a statement of fact ( I have mocked your biases myself) that does not refer to any argument or claim of yours. It is a biographical insert and as such is not an ad hominem.
[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 6] I can do what I did, which is recommend that you read Scruton. I can also recommend that you "take a pop" at your own prejudices. You can derive an association from that if you wish, that is, reading Scruton will alleviate your own prejudices.
[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 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.
[Jonathan 6] You selected quotes to present to us, quotes which support your position. I simply noted this was what priests have done with their holy books for millennia...
[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.
[Jonathan 6] I am now going to suggest that my opponent broaden his vocabulary and discover what incontinent can (and does) mean in this context:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=incontinent
[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.
[Jonathan 6] No I don't.
[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.
[Jonathan 6] I have thought that several times, but I like these discussions. You are now calling me liar, but it is no worse than the other baseless claims you have made (and received I hope with the same measure of incredulity).
[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 6] LOL!!!!!! Oh how you must have been pissed off when you realised I was baiting you. Beautiful.
[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 6] Bwahahahahaha!!!
[Jonathan 5] In honour of Jewish new year, Toynbee Schmoynbee*
[Hermit 6] And the point you are trying to make is?
[Jonathan 6] Oy Vey!
[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."
[Jonathan 6] Self-evident from your texts.
[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 6] Nor me you, old pal. I *know* this is just for fun. Practice for bigger, real enemies who will come after both of us late r on.
[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.
[Jonathan 6] It is a form of shorthand. Intelligible to the intelligent (or at least most of them).
[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."
[Jonathan 6] The I do not need to substantiate jokes. They tend to be self-supporting [cue laughter].
[Hermit 6] Did you respond meaningfully? Did you substantiate your earlier assertions?
[Jonathan 6] They are waiting in the queue behind the enormous backlog of yours waiting to be hooked up to facts, arguments or even possibility.
[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.
[Jonathan 6] Oh look, a glycerine tear for Joe Dees! The rest of your claims are filed under "Unsubstantiated" or "Likely Confabulation".
[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 6] Oh look, spade work for an excuse to bail out of the discussion. I am pointing out your methods and labelling your tactics. You ought to be thanking me damnit!
[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."
[Jonathan 6] I speak of your actions (you are so "forgiving" and even "admiring"), I can substantiate what I say about Islam (and have done so already) and asked you a question you have not answered. Learning about adverbs ought to help you avoid making obvious errors like this.
[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 6] You provided an interpretation, I countered with one of my own. Your conclusions above were groundless. I do not mean to embarrass you, but I think you ought to be reminded of your own statements in this regard. According to you, the terrorists had three objectives:
1. Remove the US from Saudi Arabia, 2. Remove US protection for Israel, 3. Prevent the US from "interfering with" Muslim interests.
1. Now the US has withdrawn troops from Saudi, but continues to be a staunch ally. [assessment: Partial success] 2. The US is more committed than ever to the protection and support of Israel. [Assessment: Utter failure] 3. The US has "interfered" to the tune of two massive invasions and myriad other smaller interventions, manipulations and engagements [Assessment: Utter failure . Blowback for Bin laden. Achieved the opposite of what he intended]
So there you have it. Bin Laden is probably dead, his objectives failed, his people hunted like dogs.
[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 6] Good guesses, but in true Hermit tradition, let me demand that you support your assertions.
[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).
[Jonathan 6] There is a threat, much diminished thanks to recent efforts to disrupt the terrorist. There have been multiple foiled attacks. Afghanistan is challenging and hopefully it will work out. If not it will be the Afghan's fault. Ditto Iraq.
Incidentally, you amused me by posting an article from the Serbian antiwar.com . Talk about established bias! One day I will tell you a little secret I heard from a man in Belgrade about it. I will have a look at the articles some time. But then again, I have read terrible things about this Hermit guy. Why would I trust anything from him or recommended by him?
[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."
[Jonathan 6] I am not in a position to judge, so I remain neutral. You are required to convince me of your claim, so go ahead if you like.
[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.
[Jonathan 6] You have repeatedly repeated your own repetitious repetitions. You are even trying to borrow my words (paucity) and tactics. It does not work on itself. A chimp aping chattering tourists, is not talking no matter how much he is convinced he is.
[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.
[Jonathan 6] Oh but they did not Hermit. That does not follow from your statements.
[Hermit 6] Please split this to a separate 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.
[Jonathan 6] Why (or how) would I argue for a negative? Make the case and I will answer it if there are flaws.
[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.
[Jonathan 6] "Rational atheistic humanists" like you? Like the CoV, like me? What are you saying here!
[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 6] In the event I wish to explore conspiracy theories, I will seek out competent theorists, but thanks for the offer.
[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?
[Jonathan 6] Your sources are often worse than you for absence of citation and open speculation coyly presented as fact.
[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.
[Jonathan 6] I will have a close look and see if there is any merit to what you have said here. Given what I know of your biases (we all have them) forgive me if I am sceptical of everything you have to say about America.
[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 mis
|