[Platt] Substantive challenges? What a joke. It's the Hillary way. [Arlo] Lo and behold, yet another Pee-Wee in lieu of addressing any of the substantive points in the discussion. And what's funny is that this does not even make sense. Are you implying that Hillary tells jokes? I realize you got nothing to offer but these moronic talk-radio responses, but at least try to put some effort into coming up with ones that at the very least make sense.
Of course, since your aim was to try to dismiss how you've used moronic rhetoric and anti-intellectual smear tactics to respond to substantive points, I will repeat them for you. Let's see if the third go-round has you offer anything other than Limbaughism and moronic chicanery. Point One: Defeating Hitler was a moral use of military force. But if our military victory is not coupled with an understanding of the international and social forces and policies that set the stage for Hitler's rise, our victory is incomplete. William Shirer, as well as many WWII historians, has articulated this backdrop, which has its roots in pre-WWI policies and foreign interference in Germany's sovereignty. It includes the anti-semetic and pro-fascist support of those, like Henry Ford, who were not only willing to "turn a blind eye" but provided crucial international support for the rise of the Reich. Your moronic response: What nonsense. Now Hitler's rise was our fault. And I suppose we deserved to get hit by Islamic radicals. Arlo adds: If you are disputing the international and social support provided Hitler, from powers within the American government and evidenced by the American people, then perhaps you would like to begin by articulating exactly why pro-fascist policies and social support for Hitler had nothing whatsovever to do with his rise to power. Using cheap and moronic quips insinuating that I feel we deserved to "get hit by Islamic radicals" only demonstrates a level of stupidity that must be called for what it is. Point Two: As an extension of the above, a people must be ready and willing to accept their parts played in the unfolding of world events. We should not, nor should anyone, be so blinded by our inability to admit any mistakes that we recreate over and over the same problems we rely on our military to fix. Your moronic response: "Nationalistic blindness" or "national defense" are debatable viewpoints. Arlo adds: Besides the moronic association attempted here, your response offers nothing to the point made. Do you agree of disagree that when we make mistakes, when any nation makes mistakes, learning from and correcting those mistakes are an integral part of the solution? Please articulate why. As I responded to your moronic pairing last time, implying that a condemnation of nationalistic blindness is somehow a condemnation of national defense provides yet another example of how anti-intellectual moronic rhetoric is contemptible and evil. Your other moronic response: If you have no national pride, why defend yourself? Arlo adds: Can you articulate where exactly in the dialogue you derive the implication that "national pride" is, to me, a bad thing? Here you have slipped from "nationalistic blindness" to "national defense" to "national pride" in an attempt to imply that because I believe that a people, a nation, must be ready and willing to accept and learn from their mistakes, that I am assaulting having pride in one's nation. This is the same kind of moronic rhetoric used by talk-radio buffoons to vilify any who do not accept the neoconservative dogma as "anti-American", "traitors", "they hate America" and "they want to see dead American soldiers". The tactic is evil, not to mention moronic. Point Three: It is not that we have no valid concerns and problems facing us, but using "doomsday" rhetoric to manipulate a people is immoral. I've articulated some ways to spot "doomsday rhetoric" as opposed to the articulation of valid concerns. These included "distance" between an event and an outcome, "my way or the highway" rhetoric where I and ONLY I can save your from doomsday, and "one solution" stances where unless ONE thing happens the doomsday scenario will occur. While I am sure there are others, these represent a good foundation for weeding doomsday rhetoric apart from intellectually-based articulations of valid concerns. Your moronic response: If you are in Manhattan when an atomic bomb goes off, it's indeed "doomsday" for you and millions of other people. Arlo adds: Find for me in anything I said ANYTHING that would indicate I feel otherwise. Do you feel that my three points for spotting doomsday rhetoric are valid? If not, can you provide counter-examples of when these devices would legitimately be used? (I wont repeat my examples here, you can go back a few emails if you want to see them). To get back to this original point, I had given the example of illegal immigration, and two examples demonstrating what may be the articulation of a valid concern and the use of doomsday rhetoric. You elaborated on this and said, "Adding to the debt may indeed result in the demise of the America as we know it although the timing is unpredictable." This is a good example of the use of "doomsday rhetoric". "The demise of America" says nothing but yet panders to fear. I had asked you what you meant specifically, and you said "Excessive national debt can lead to destructive inflation and the rise of a dictatorship, or defensive weakness encouraging invasion." You are now proposing that "illegal immigration", through the receiving of social welfare by illegals, will lead to either a dictatorship or a foreign invasion. Would this be the outcome of any economic turmoil, or only the turmoil created by illegals? If we deport all our illegals and build a giant, electrified fence along the entire border, would we still face the concern that any economic repression or depression makes us susceptible to dictatorships and foreign invasions? What steps do you propose to ensure that this does not happen? (Consider that the Great Depression occurred before welfare, what steps would you take, apart from abolishing welfare to illegals, to keep us from facing a potential dictatorship or invasion should the market depress once again?) Will we see any substantive reply, or simply more moronic, anti-intellectual talk-radio rhetoric? Another Pee-Wee perhaps? Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
