Unwilling or Incapable?

A bit more context would be helpful.

Unwilling.

I was browsing through the logical error directory on Wikipedia, and I stubbled on this. Sound familiar?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

clip...


T
K
O

Thank you, Merry Andrew and Diest TKO. Your opinions have been noted.

You've set yourself a monumental task. I wish you good luck.

to what purpose this ?

Thank you, joefromchicago and farmerman. Your opinions have been noted.

I'm really tired of all the ad hominem attacks of foxfyre. It seems like she can't post anything without someone questioning her. I'm thinking we should collectively (as a united forum) consistently applaud her for sharing her vast knowledge and expertise with us less educated/knowledgeable pagans who don't have a close relative from every ethnic strata known on the planet earth. I for one, humbly acknowledge her extensive university education in the field of journalism.

Well, that's the first time that's happened.

So I got that going for me.

Which is nice.

Foxy is one helluva poet. I don't get into politics, except on occasion, but I was amazed at how well she writes.

I agree with you, Letty. Foxfyre is a good writer and is fun to talk with as long as the subject is not political.

I've never read her poetry. Does it contain metaphorical illustrations demonstrative of complex intellectualism? I'm just wondering about that with my uncritical thinking mind....

Foxy is a gutsy broad.

It takes guts* to accuse others of one's own sins, but you're right: Foxy is a gutsy broad.

*unmitigated gall; overly-inflated sense of self; relentless displays of hypocrisy

What was it Yossarian said about if everybody does it he would be a fool not to himself?

I will leave aside the subject of what Fox might or might not be capable of, in the interest of charity. Very early in her career her, she stated that we should listen to her because she knows what she is talking about. When i enquired why that were so, she stated that she is well-educated and well-informed (i.e., well read in contemporary periodicals). I pointed out the inference to the effect that the rest of us were not well-educated and well-informed, to which she made no reply, other than to repeat that she is well-educated and well-informed.

It has been my experience since that time that she is neither well-educated nor well-informed. Either her education is flawed, or her recollection of the detail of is flawed--for example, she seems to recall that there once was a Roman Empire, but doesn't seem to have hung on to any reliable detail about it.

So, it is my experience that she is unwilling to see anything which contradicts the religious and political prejudices which she cherishes. In fact, this could describe just about any one of us, but therein lies a big difference. The rest of us, if shown that we contradict the evidence, will usually acknowledge it, or attempt to produce reliable evidence for what we say. Fox is very thin on the ground in providing evidence in the first place, nevermind in rebuttal. The rest of us, if shown that we contradict ourselves, will usually at least have the grace to shut up and get scarce, if not the actual courage and honesty to admit it.

But none of that occurs with Fox. She is cognitive dissonance incarnate. If challenged to prove that she has provided some evidence or stated a position in the past which she how espouses, she will simply demand that she be proven wrong. If proven wrong, she will deny that to be the case, and attempt to change the subject or distract the discussion. If it is shown that her position contradicts the evidence (and often evidence she has provided herself) she will simply deny that, and indulge in personal slights on the understanding or literacy of her interlocutor, something which she professes to abhor in others. If shown that she has contradicted herself, she will simply ignore the evidence, and, once again, if forced to respond, deprecate her interlocutor's sense or reading comprehension.

Some0ne resurrected (ironic, innit) a thread about the historicity of Jesus. Fox showed up and provided "indisputable" evidence for the case, i.e. a passage from Flavius Josephus, a passage from Tacitus and a letter from Pliny the Younger to the Emperor Trajan. I pointed out that the passages in Flavius Josephus and Tacitus were indeed disputed as interpolations, and that the letter from Pliny does not assert that any such individual ever existed, but simply mentioned a cult called (in the Latin) christianos. Within a few pages, she again mentioned her "indisputable" evidence, and i know that she was not electronically ignoring me at the time, as she was, albeit elliptically, answering my posts. So i pointed out again that her "evidence" was disputed, and this time provided links to several sources to that effect--and pointed out again that Pliny's letter is not evidence of anything other than that Christians existed at that time (something no one i know of disputes). Again, within a few pages, she repeated her "indisputable evidence" BS, and i not only linked the posts in which i had linked the case that her evidence was disputed, i linked a page which showed a break-down of recent (last few centuries) scholarship on source documents for early Christian history showing that a majority of reputable scholars publishing in the field consider the Josephus and Tacitus passages to be interpolations.

Before more than a page or two had gone by, Fox was again trumpeting her "indisputable evidence." At that point, i told her: "you lie, you lie like an old rug." I suspect she has had me on ignore ever since.

Fox is unwilling to see evidence which contradicts her, including evidence that she has contradicted herself, and will practice blatant cognitive dissonance to that end.

Foxy-- Set has me on Ignore presumably because I don't do any of those things he accuses you of doing. I must not be suitable material for him having indignation freak outs.

Did you see him quote A.C. Clarke and then rubbish the quote in his next sentence. That's a new one. That's cognitive sonambulism.

Threads like this - inviting others to discuss/criticize a particular individual on this forum - make me extremely uncomfortable. I don't know what exactly can be achieved by such a discussion, apart from making the person under discussion feel like crap.

No worries msolga, but thank you. (Also thanks to other friends who do accept me as I am.)

I have most of those who specialize in trying to make people feel like crap on ignore anyway because I frankly am not interested in participating in juvenile schoolyard type insults. So I don't see their crap anymore.

I do my damndest to not be unkind or cruelly critical or judgmental of others and am also uncomfortable when such is directed at other members. And I highly resent it when thoughtful and fun-to-have-around people are driven to go elsewhere to avoid that kind of nonsense. I miss them all.

While I never claimed to be a saint or without fault, those who accuse me usually make up most of the stuff anyway. Honest people know better.

And while I admit that I do have strength of my convictions and will defend them--I thought that was what a forum like this was supposed to be--my point of view is generally different from those who accuse me. I just figure they can't defend their point of view--at least they never do when challenged--and I must be hitting a lot of raw nerves to deserve such attention.

I apologize, Foxfyre. Msolga is correct (this thread was a bad idea).

It was my spontaneous response to a challenge you made to start such a thread. Of course, you were being sarcastic. I am probably more sarcastic than you are (as you have witnessed over the last 5 years).

You are fun to talk to, Foxfyre. Politics is a subject where I need to find common ground with someone before I respond.