"You apparently have knowledge that my arguments are a product of motivated thinking."
I have no such knowledge. I'm admittedly reading "motivated thinking" into statements that seem to have more to do with deflecting criticism than with persuading your correspondent with argument, analysis and evidence. And what about me? Well, I stated my reluctance at the outset to try to explain to you something that was obvious to everyone else but incomprehensible to you. You asked me to "Please do try and explain." I regret deviating from my original, well-founded, decision. I see Michael Smith has answered your question about brilliant jurists. I concur. We would be better off without any of your "shining-like-a-diamond" jurists. On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Shemano, David B. < dshem...@robinskaplan.com> wrote: > You apparently have knowledge that my arguments are a product of motivated > thinking. All power to you for your ability to diagnosis me through our > email exchange. But what about you? Are your arguments a product of > motivated thinking? What is the test? How can we know when an argument > made is a product of motivated thinking and when it is not? > > > > If Scalia does not make the grade as a brilliant jurist, please give me an > example of someone who does. > > > > David Shemano > > > > *From:* pen-l-boun...@lists.csuchico.edu [mailto: > pen-l-boun...@lists.csuchico.edu] *On Behalf Of *Tom Walker > *Sent:* Monday, February 22, 2016 6:45 PM > *To:* Progressive Economics > *Subject:* Re: [Pen-l] "Scalia was an intellectual phony" > > > > That's what the "B." stands for, then? I'm sure I haven't broken Shemano > and doubt that I have even bent him. He keeps coming back with the same > motivated thinking he started out with. > > > > "The fact that so many who disagreed with Scalia felt compelled to engage > with him should give you pause." > > > > What is that supposed to mean? Scalia was a Supreme Court justice. People > *were* compelled to engage with him whether they *felt* like it or not. > Apparently he was not without personal charm, wit and intellect -- at least > in the opinion of those who thought so, such as his colleague, Ruth Bader > Ginsburg. > > > > One can be charming, witty and clever without meriting the accolade of > being a "brilliant jurist." I know people who I would concede are smart who > have stupid ideas and inflated opinions about how exalted their stupid > ideas are. For example, economists... > > > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Carrol Cox <cb...@ilstu.edu> wrote: > > Tom Walker: I study and do textual analysis. There are two things I can > say with confidence: 1. those who presume to know what a text or its author > "really means" are seriously underestimating the complexity of authorship, > intertextuality and reception; 2. those who would assign some transcendent > status to a particular text are deluded in presuming that they know what > that text really means. > > ======= > > Tom, this truly wonderful. I don't know if I've ever seen anything better > in various studies of hermeneutics. > > But to waste it on what's-his-name . . . As I said (quoting Pope) "Who > breaks a butterfly upon a wheel." > > Carrol > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > Tom Walker (Sandwichman) > > ____________________________________________________ > > Information contained in this e-mail transmission may be privileged, > confidential and covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 > U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521. > > If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, distribute, or > reproduce this transmission. > > If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please notify us > immediately of the error by return email and please delete the message from > your system. > > Pursuant to requirements related to practice before the U. S. Internal > Revenue Service, any tax advice contained in this communication (including > any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for > purposes of (i) avoiding penalties imposed under the U. S. Internal Revenue > Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any > tax-related matter. > > Thank you in advance for your cooperation. > > Robins Kaplan LLP > http://www.robinskaplan.com > ____________________________________________________ > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > -- Cheers, Tom Walker (Sandwichman)
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list pen-l@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
