On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:15 PM, mark cooley <flawed...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> unless you consider Rob's comment about "truth" seriously If you have actually read (I hesitate to say "understood") what I have written you'll know that I have made more than one comment regarding truth. Which ones do you believe to be false and why? Or, to phrase it in terms that won't offend the delicate sensibilities of the relativists, what criteria are you using to evaluate which utterances are worth "considering" "seriously" in this discussion and in what way do you feel my utterances are failing to fulfil those criteria? > (i don't That's just your opinion (and it really is, it's an assertion without argument or evidence). > - and by the way Rob your giving us a false choice between absolute > truth and relativism Do you know what a "straw man" argument is? It's where someone argues against a caricature of someone else's argument rather than against that argument itself. You are doing that here. > - maybe get caught up on you postmod theory huh). Please explain the basis for this assertion like an honest debater. Or at least appeal to authorities by name. > anyway, my interpretation was that the boycott was not focussed on > Bloombergs jewishness. Well no, it's a boycott that is focused on his media ownership, support for Israel, New Yorkerishness, wealth, international business holdings, and participation in the arts. I'm reminded of Rik being kicked by Vyvyan: "Ha ha! Missed both my legs!". > There's many reasons why Bloomberg is a good choice > of target. There are indeed. > So the question to me is - should we NOT boycott him BECAUSE his name is > Bloomberg and not John Smith? To me the question is - have you any understanding of the history within the ideology of anti-semitism of each of the terms you are presenting as neutral criteria for choosing a target and a means of acting against them? > So if this protest were against Rupert Murdoch - who is not nearly as good > of a target because to my knowledge has no investment in the art world and > therefore would make little sense as institutional critique - then it would > be fine because he's not jewish. Rupert Murdoch would not be chosen. A profile that matches him would not be constructed. There is a reason for that. Maybe catch up on the history of anti-semitic imagery and discourse, huh? Protest against Operation Cast Lead. Critique corporate domination of the arts (for the next three months until the economy renders that irrelevant). Analyze media bias and distortions. Just don't be useful idiots for anti-semitism. Please. - Rob. _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
