RE: [ZION] Stop kicking the stuffing out of Marc
-Marc- > Stephen, if you contribute something positive, I'll comment > on it. Otherwise, why bother? -Stephen- > Well, that's not very generous of you. After all, I often > comment on your posts. :) -Marc- > You skipped the word "positive." On the contrary, that was my point. I *still* comment on your posts, even though... (but it's never very funny if you have to explain) -Marc- > There's another possibility: that I simply present history > and facts and let them speak for themselves without an > ideological bias. Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh, heh. That's good for a chuckle, Marc, but I doubt any of us believe it, including you. -Marc- > You can read history, or ignore it with smug personal attacks. > Your choice. -Stephen- > Please name a personal attack I've made on you in this thread. -Marc- > You called me anti-American, rather than addressing the actual > points I made. No kidding? How about that. Can you find the citation where I did such a thing in this thread; that is, called you "anti-American" instead of address your actual points? Because I've looked, and I can't find it. Not to say I didn't do it -- I do have notorious swiss-cheese memory at times -- but I can't locate the offending post. And frankly, I don't believe it ever happened. But feel free to prove me wrong. I'm sure you wouldn't want to be making unsubstantiated claims. -Stephen- > History does not record that Castro "saw revolution as the > only way" to control American hegemony. Marc Schindler may > claim it's the case, but it's not history. It's ideology. -Marc- > Don't just say it. Prove it. Okay, how's this: STEPHEN: Hey, History, did Castro see revolution as the only way to control American hegemony in the Caribbean? HISTORY: Huh? What kind of stupid question is that? How the heck should I know what Castro saw or didn't see? STEPHEN: So, your answer is... HISTORY: No! Of course not! There. That should constitute a convincing proof. > By the way, there's another fault in your logic when you > assume that I intended to *define* ideology. It wasn't an assumption. It was an observation. You defined "an ideological approach" when you wrote, "An ideological approach is one where..." > I didn't -- I said ideological readings of history is > oversimplifying history. You said, or more properly, wrote: "An ideological approach is one where one demonizes an opponent by using a label in such a way as to divert one's attention from what actually happened in history." This constitutes a definition (and an incomplete one at that) of "an ideological approach". > Not all summaries or oversimplifications are necessarily > ideological. This was Aristotle's first logical fallacy: "All > Cretans are men does not imply that all men are Cretans." No, that fallacy is not oversimplification. Rather, it's the fallacy of confusing the group and the subgroup. In any case, I'm guilty of neither fallacy, as I have shown above. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Stop kicking the stuffing out of Marc
At 04:54 PM, Monday, 10/21/02, Marc A. Schindler wrote: Straw man argument. There's another possibility: that I simply present history and facts and let them speak for themselves without an ideological bias. That is impossible. The best historians in history or alive today are unable to do it. --JWR / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
Re: [ZION] Stop kicking the stuffing out of Marc
Stephen Beecroft wrote: > -Stephen- > > If you can't see how your psychic analysis, or at least > > psychoanalysis, of Castro does not constitute "history as it > > happened", but rather is an ideological gloss, then I'm > > powerless to help. However, as you take great pleasure > > in "tweaking" Americans, I expect that's what you're doing > > now. > > -Marc- > > Stephen, if you contribute something positive, I'll comment > > on it. Otherwise, why bother? > > Well, that's not very generous of you. After all, I often comment on > your posts. :) > You skipped the word "positive." > > > How do you know what my emotional state is if and when I > > "tweak" "Americans"? > > Good point. I do not know. I assume the best. I suppose you could > instead be filled with malicious glee, or perhaps are in the thrall of > an uncontrollable compulsion. True, I am assuming that you're not > shedding tears of pity or sorrow when you "tweak", though that doesn't > seem too difficult a leap of logic. If I'm wrong, then I'll recant and > honor you for your deep, sympathetic nature, despite your rather unusual > way of demonstrating that sympathy. > Straw man argument. There's another possibility: that I simply present history and facts and let them speak for themselves without an ideological bias. Naturally I'm human and *do* have my biases, but I'm not a cultist or an ideologue. Stay tuned for more on this. > > > You can read history, or ignore it with smug personal attacks. > > Your choice. > > Please name a personal attack I've made on you in this thread. You called me anti-American, rather than addressing the actual points I made. > Just one > will do. You have yourself admitted to enjoying "tweaking" (as you call > it) various groups, including Americans, so that can hardly be > considered an attack. On the other hand, crying "Ad hominem!" is > sometimes an effective way of diverting attention from the fact that > you're wrong... > As above, that wasn't my intended example. > > History does not record that Castro "saw revolution as the only way" to > control American hegemony. Marc Schindler may claim it's the case, but > it's not history. It's ideology. And when you make an ideological claim > while simultaneously telling someone that ideological analysis is an > oversimplification, then say you didn't make any ideological claims -- > well, I don't think it's terribly unusual that an observer might point > out the inconsistency. > Don't just say it. Prove it. I'm going from orthodox history, not Bircher tracts or some kind of liberal misprising. By the way, there's another fault in your logic when you assume that I intended to *define* ideology. I didn't -- I said ideological readings of history is oversimplifying history. Not all summaries or oversimplifications are necessarily ideological. This was Aristotle's first logical fallacy: "All Cretans are men does not imply that all men are Cretans." > > Stephen > -- Marc A. Schindler Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland We do not think that there is an incompatibility between words and deeds; the worst thing is to rush into action before the consequences have been properly debated To think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise ones unmanly character; ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action. Pericles about his fellow-Athenians, as quoted by Thucydides in The Peloponessian Wars Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authors employer, nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated. / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^^=== This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^^===
RE: [ZION] Stop kicking the stuffing out of Marc
-Stephen- > If you can't see how your psychic analysis, or at least > psychoanalysis, of Castro does not constitute "history as it > happened", but rather is an ideological gloss, then I'm > powerless to help. However, as you take great pleasure > in "tweaking" Americans, I expect that's what you're doing > now. -Marc- > Stephen, if you contribute something positive, I'll comment > on it. Otherwise, why bother? Well, that's not very generous of you. After all, I often comment on your posts. :) > How do you know what my emotional state is if and when I > "tweak" "Americans"? Good point. I do not know. I assume the best. I suppose you could instead be filled with malicious glee, or perhaps are in the thrall of an uncontrollable compulsion. True, I am assuming that you're not shedding tears of pity or sorrow when you "tweak", though that doesn't seem too difficult a leap of logic. If I'm wrong, then I'll recant and honor you for your deep, sympathetic nature, despite your rather unusual way of demonstrating that sympathy. > You can read history, or ignore it with smug personal attacks. > Your choice. Please name a personal attack I've made on you in this thread. Just one will do. You have yourself admitted to enjoying "tweaking" (as you call it) various groups, including Americans, so that can hardly be considered an attack. On the other hand, crying "Ad hominem!" is sometimes an effective way of diverting attention from the fact that you're wrong... History does not record that Castro "saw revolution as the only way" to control American hegemony. Marc Schindler may claim it's the case, but it's not history. It's ideology. And when you make an ideological claim while simultaneously telling someone that ideological analysis is an oversimplification, then say you didn't make any ideological claims -- well, I don't think it's terribly unusual that an observer might point out the inconsistency. Stephen / /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / ==^ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^
