AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

and accepting a nuclear-armed sponsor of international terrorism like Iran ...

Look up hypocrisy or cognitive dissonance, Foxy, because you're deeply infected with one or the other.

Care to do a comparison to see just how many have died from Iran's sponsorship of terrorism and then put that up against the record of the USA. Iran would be a minor blip on the graph.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I can hear the press conference a year from now. "This is unacceptable and we are concerned of course. . . .and we will deal with it diplomatically to persuade them not to use those weapons on their neighbors. . . .or us. . . . "

(Note to OE: This is a metaphorical illustration.)

How exactly do you think Iran will use nukes on the US? This is where your and Sowell's fearmongering falls apart.

And if you are so concerned about nukes being sold/given to terrorists, where is your writing about the vast number of Russian nuclear devices - many of which are unsecured and are much more likely to end up in the hands of terrorists than anything Iran MIGHT make in the future?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Dr. Sowell's argument and my argument are in excellent shape.

Iran doesn't have to launch them from Iran. Had you actually been paying attention to even what Obama has said in the past, you would know that the concern is that once armed with viable capability, Iran can sell and export that anywhere it wants. And given Iran's track record, there is zero reason to believe that they won't do that or that diplomacy will have any effect on their behavior whatsoever. I am unaware that Russia is threatening anybody's annililation or intent on forcing anybody to be Russian. When they were, we did respond appropriately.

This was Sowell's message in that little essay in a nutshell. The message is that we have to look at the background, the mindset, the track record, the meanings underneath the rhetoric that is put out there for consumption by the gullible and adoring disciples if we want to defend ourselves and protect our freedoms and way of life. To 'assume' that if we are 'nice', what somebody has done to others won't be done to us is dangerously naive.

Failure to understand or willingness for intellectual honesty to acknowledge that is what he was saying is where your argument falls apart.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I can hear the press conference a year from now. "This is unacceptable and we are concerned of course. . . .and we will deal with it diplomatically to persuade them not to use those weapons on their neighbors. . . .or us. . . . "

(Note to OE: This is a metaphorical illustration.)

All I see is that you don't seem to have a firm grip on what a "metaphor" actually is. See, when I tell you that you're not the brightest bulb on the porch, I'm using a metaphor. When I'm telling you that your intelligence should be considered below average, I'm not using a metaphor.

If you seriously believe that what you just posted was a metaphor, then it shouldn't be a problem for you to tell us what it was a metaphor for, should it?

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Dr. Sowell's argument and my argument are in excellent shape.

Iran doesn't have to launch them from Iran. Had you actually been paying attention to even what Obama has said in the past, you would know that the concern is that once armed with viable capability, Iran can sell and export that anywhere it wants. And given Iran's track record, there is zero reason to believe that they won't do that or that diplomacy will have any effect on their behavior whatsoever. I am unaware that Russia is threatening anybody's annililation or intent on forcing anybody to be Russian. When they were, we did respond appropriately.

This was Sowell's message in that little essay in a nutshell. The message is that we have to look at the background, the mindset, the track record, the meanings underneath the rhetoric that is put out there for consumption by the gullible and adoring disciples if we want to defend ourselves and protect our freedoms and way of life. To 'assume' that if we are 'nice', what somebody has done to others won't be done to us is dangerously naive.

Failure to understand or willingness for intellectual honesty to acknowledge that is what he was saying is where your argument falls apart.

You're making up a completely different argument. What you say here doesn't relate much to what Sowell wrote at all.

Re: Russia, the problem is the sale or giving of unsecured weapons to terrorists. Russia doesn't have to be actively threatening us to do that, and you know quite well that their nation is made up of various factions, so this is possible. However, they are not a weak country we can pick on in the fashion of Iran, so you'd rather ignore that problem in order to focus on what might be a potential one in the future.

This is the worst sort of illogic and fearmongering being displayed by both yourself and Sowell, in my opinion. It counsels offensive action without spending much time judging the wisdom of said actions; instead, Fear of the Possible is used as a justification. That's a bad reason to do things.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I can hear the press conference a year from now. "This is unacceptable and we are concerned of course. . . .and we will deal with it diplomatically to persuade them not to use those weapons on their neighbors. . . .or us. . . . "

(Note to OE: This is a metaphorical illustration.)

Despite your dishonest "interpretation" of Sowell's column and of his alleged follow-up commentary to you alone, you're not fooling any of us. We know what Sowell said and we know what he meant. Sowell is endeavoring to get his insane followers foaming at the mouth by peddling fear.

0 Replies

@old europe,

Quote:

Metaphor: 1: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them (as in drowning in money) ; broadly : figurative language "

A metaphorical illustration takes this one step further to paint an image or illustration of the point to be made. It can be done graphically or it can be done with words. Maureen Dowd and Ann Coulter and others like them are masters of the metaphorical illustration though they take these to the point of intentional absurdity to illustrate the absurdity of that which they are describing.

Sowell does the same thing in a different way, occasionally employing satirical humor, but generally uses historical references as metaphorical illustrations of the point he is making. Paul Harvey was a master at that, but kept his shorter so that they were more easily followed by the ideologially challenged. Smile

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

What I wrote was precisely on point of the topic being discussed and did not deviate one whit from the argument I have been making. The fact that you don't see that only testifies to the ideological blindness of which Sowell is warning us.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

What I wrote was precisely on point of the topic being discussed and did not deviate one whit from the argument I have been making. The fact that you don't see that only testifies to the ideological blindness of which Sowell is warning us.

That's rich; you cannot identify your own ideological blindness, Fox, yet feel free to point out others'.

Fortunately for the rest of us, neither Sowell, nor yourself, nor others who shape your views, are in any sort of position whatsoever to spread your fearmongering into our actual foreign policy. That's comforting to me.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Oh, and I forgot to add that my satirical expression of a future press conference was a metaphorical illustration for the one I suspect we will be hearing then and I draw that conclusion, as Sowell did, on lessons from history.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Prove me wrong. Until you do, I win, because you've abandoned the argument and now are focused on me. I love being right. Smile

1 Reply

@old europe,

Sowell is alive and well; he doesn't need to use metaphors to make any point; without his clarification that his was a metaphor, we must take it at face value. He has not explained what the metaphor is, so how does the reader determine it's a metaphor? (Unless it's a joke, but we can't even assume that!)

Foxie gets lost in her own confusion.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Prove me wrong. Until you do, I win, because you've abandoned the argument and now are focused on me. I love being right.

It's easy to win when you declare you've won and consider that valid, I suppose.

What is it you want me to prove wrong, exactly?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Your fear tactics just doesn't make any sense; the Iranian people do not want the current government who continues to make enemies with their nuclear program of their neighbors and the west.

Your imagination goes beyond the realities of today's politics and who all those enemies are by using generalities that only conservatives are good at believing.

How many terrorist organizations in the world today have the money or the means to deliver nuclear weapons to any of our allies by missiles or any other way your imagination can dream up?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

A metaphorical illustration takes this one step further to paint an image or illustration of the point to be made.

So you're essentially saying that a "metaphorical illustration" is not a metaphor at all, but just a hypothetical description of future events.

Rolling Eyes

In which case parados was right, and Sowell's statement about how the US would surrender to Iran if they dropped two atomic bombs on America is really just a hypothetical description for how the US would surrender to Iran if they dropped 2 atomic bombs on America.

2 Replies

@old europe,

No I was essentially saying what I said. If you had ever had an American class in education methods, you would likely have had extensive training in the concept as an effective teaching tool. So, you're wrong. Parados is wrong. Cyclop is wrong. Wandel is wrong in your analysis of what Sowell is saying.

But you are all liberals and therefore could be cognitively challenged in such things as intellectual honesty in evaluating conservative thought, and we make allowances.

Do have a good day.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

No I was essentially saying what I said. If you had ever had an American class in education methods, you would likely have had extensive training in the concept as an effective teaching tool. So, you're wrong. Parados is wrong. Cyclop is wrong. Wandel is wrong in your analysis of what Sowell is saying.

But you are all liberals and therefore most likely cognitively challenged in such things, and we make allowances.

Do have a good day.

Fox, you really ought to desist with the insults if you are going to continue to ride your high horse and pretend you are above such things.

Your argument has been successfully deconstructed by several here, and you have retreated into assertion rather than effectively respond to the charges against it. If this were a debate, you surely would have lost. Would you like for me to begin to refer to you as 'cognitively challenged' due to your inability to recognize this?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

You were insulted? Does that mean that you admit you are cognitively challenged? I wouldn't have guessed that you would include yourself in that group, but if you say so. You could prove yourself wrong by articulating a solid argument to make your case instead of insulting Dr. Sowell and/or me. You haven't done that, however. If we were in a formal debate, I could use the arguments you guys have been using as defense for my thesis that liberals are likely to be cognitively challenged when evaluating conervative thought, however.

1 Reply

@old europe,

That's very funny! They drop two bombs in the US - but how? The US has nukes stationed all around the world, and we have bombers to deliver them wherever we wish to drop ours - and we have enough to wipe Iran off the map.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

You were insulted?

No, but it's obvious you were attempting to do so.

Quote:

Does that mean that you admit you are cognitively challenged?

Obviously, it does not.

Quote:

I wouldn't have guessed that you would include yourself in that group, but if you say so.

You specifically mentioned me by name as being in that group. How you would have thought I wouldn't think that meant you included me, I dunno. Perhaps you are cognitively challenged.

Quote:

You could prove yourself wrong by articulating a solid argument to make your case instead of insulting Dr. Sowell and/or me. You haven't done that, however.

Yes, I did do that several pages back, when I showed that the metaphor being used by Sowell was a false one and an example of fearmongering instead of actual logic.

Quote:

If we were in a formal debate, I could use the arguments you guys have been using as defense for my thesis that liberals are likely to be cognitively challenged when evaluating conservative thought, however.

You could attempt to do so, but I do not believe you would be successful, for you don't seem to be able to realize the failings of a bad metaphor when they are staring you in the face. It is a flaw in your entire argument.

I really think that what has happened here, is that you rec'd a response from one of your personal heroes through email, and are stung that others are attacking him and you for forwarding his ideas. Your responses make a lot more sense if they are based on emotion, than if you pretend there is some sort of logic behind using terrible metaphors to describe situations completely unlike the ones we see today.

You ought to realize that there are countless examples which could be used to make the point Sowell wished to make, which do not revolve around the specter of nuclear bombs being dropped on our country; better examples. He chose to use that one specifically as a fear-mongering tactic. And that's a charitable statement on my part; the alternative is to believe that Sowell really thinks the US would surrender to some sort of Muslim terrorism and impose Sharia law (and it's reasonable to believe that, as that's exactly what he wrote). This is an idiotic and unsupportable conclusion, and not one that an intelligent person would associate themselves with. There are no answers provided to the questions of how this would happen, just assertions on your part. Not a strong or convincing argument.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know