From: Jonathan Davis (jonathan.davis@lineone.net)
Date: Mon Sep 29 2003 - 07:55:50 MDT
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=incontinents
[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 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.
[Jonathan 6] Society is a the interaction of individuals in an environment.
Challenging people can have many effects, some positive, some negative,
Beliefs can be changed. If individuals use the word as an unfair epithet or
mislabel things as UTism that are not, then that needs to be discouraged and
corrected.
[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.
[Jonathan 6] Your suggestion about defending my perspective is all well and
good except I have no need to defend my perspective where it is not under
attack. That is why I am correcting you here, now, where your attacks are
being answered.
We differ on how we interpret events. I fully understand your perspective,
but I just see its faults. You on the other hand cannot even begin to see my
position so you write it off as delusional. I know that one day, if you
self-actualize, your anti-American grub will turn into the butterfly of
benign Occidentalism.
[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?
[Jonathan 6] What part of "anecdotal evidence" don't you 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 6] You are presuming too much Hermit. His mind rightly ordered the
deploying of the troops. His tangential religious beliefs are not part of
it. I see you are crayoning in links where they do not exists. Hermit moans
about his inner state being judged (it was not) then proceeds to mind-read
Blair.
[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.
[Jonathan 6] That joke got you. I can tell. C'mon, have a laugh about it. Be
a sport. It was funny.
[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.
[Jonathan 6] I am an expert on how to win arguments, and I know that one of
the best ways not to lose is to be right in the first place.
[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 6] I will not fall for your obvious complex question gambit
(mocked below).
[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 6] Caustic soda huh. Must be bad.
[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).
[Jonathan 6] Yes I can.
[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 6] But I did so *with support*. I just pointed out the near
obvious.
[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.
[Jonathan 6] Were you ever a bookmakers clerk?
[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.
[Jonathan 6] So in summary: Hermit launched a baseless attack on a book he
had not read and ended up having to argue for hours to justify himself. The
book remains unscathed and is still highly recommended as a superb read [
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1882926811/ ] .
Oh yes, Hermit, the man's name is Scruton, not Scrunton. Could that account
for your misunderstandings?
Kind regards
Jonathan
P.S Any news on my sanctions? They make me feel homesick you see...
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Sep 29 2003 - 07:58:42 MDT