Diversity of Everything but Thought

WITH WHOM DO YOU MORE CLOSELY IDENTIFY?

The castroites work to:
1. Establish different rules for different people;
2. Satisfy everyone’s needs;
3. Equalize everyone’s capabilities;
4. Allege the theories and solutions advocated by their opponents lack sufficient supporting evidence;
5. Vilify their opponents by false description of their opponent's position, or by vilifying the associates of their opponents.

The adamsites work to:
1. Establish the same rules for everyone;
2. Satisfy everyone’s wants;
3. Increase everyone’s capabilities;
4. Propose theories and solutions;
5. Compare the evidence supporting proposed theories and solutions to identify the better theory and solution.

Theory: The differences between castroites and adamsites are probably irreconcilable. Look at the evidence.

0 Replies

Please, somebody wake me when this is over. I do need to compliment the author of this thread for the dedication to diversity and tolerance exhibited here. Bravo, or brava depending on the author.

0 Replies

Good to see you, glitterbag.

Always nice to 'hear' one of the original A2K voices here.

0 Replies

That would be brava, GB, as the thread is the "brainchild" (no irony zone) of the walking sponge with spectacles.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

That would be brava, GB, as the thread is the "brainchild" (no irony zone) of the walking sponge with spectacles.

Wow, walking sponge, I like that. However, aren't sponges asexual? Oops, I think I just did what I promised I wouldn't do "exhibit low character by asking for clarification" Forgive me. I really do like the idea of walking sponges regardless of their gender identification.

0 Replies

Nice to hear from you ehBeth. Hope everything is going well for you.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

That is without doubt the best policy for you to pursue, Mr. Mountie, for no amount of reason will ever penetrate the dense, devoted and void cranium of which you speak.

Tough words from a sensitive soul.

0 Replies

Sigh, and the thread goes on... and on....

Fox

Quote:

Victims are for those on the left and they play that role to the fullest.

You can't even see the victim role you have fallen into. It's unbelievable.

Every time someone has decided to discuss the actual aspects of your case (argument? idea?) you have brushed them off, blown off their arguments, and failed to offer any other support for your case when requested to. You have not examined the logic of your case. You don't care to. You just rally around the idea, over and over, and every time someone criticizes you, you fall RIGHT into the victim role instead of accurately answering criticisms or even deigning to discuss your position any further; you retreat to the proposition that even though your evidence is known not to support your case (Lash figured it out, we were hoping you would as well).

I think that you simply like the attention.

As to the topic of the thread, I still find the proposition to be unsupported by anything other than ideology and completely devoid of any causal evidence whatsoever. Anyone who would like to get back to discussing why, I would like to get back to discussing why.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Please list the "we" to whom you refer Cyclop. I might as well know who all is in your claque.

0 Replies

Sorry, I only travel in packs or cliques and sometimes gaggles but never anything so crass as a claque.

But if you would like to discuss the proposition, perhaps introduce some new evidence that you have found while combing the web, I'd be more than happy to discuss that.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As to the topic of the thread, I still find the proposition to be unsupported by anything other than ideology and completely devoid of any causal evidence whatsoever. Anyone who would like to get back to discussing why, I would like to get back to discussing why. Cycloptichorn

Please discuss why you "still find the proposition to be unsupported by anything other than ideology and completely devoid of any causal evidence whatsoever."

Just for the record, except for specific examples of strongly biased professors like Ward Churchill, I'm currently unable to support the proposition that there is inadequate diversity, or that there is adequate diversity of ideas presented on today's campuses.

0 Replies

Great!

I think that there are some people who have the idea that our Campuses across the nation are 'leftish,' and that there is a bias towards Conservative thought on most University campuses.

This seems quite logical to certain people, because as Conservatives, they are often in diametric opposal to the thoughts of many of the 'Liberal Elite' college proffessors.

Deciding to forward an argument that this is true has been the move that really takes this from the realm of opinion and seeks to codify it as fact. This is the purpose of arguments, isn't it? To try to Prove something. To use this proof as a moral basis for the enactment of change.

Nothing has been proven at all with the information given, other than the fact that surveys have shown that there are more Liberal(Democrat?) professors in Colleges these days than there are Conservative(Republican?) professors. This in no way proves the main argument. The 'Anectodal Evidence' is immaterial to the argument as it doesn't support it in any way other than to confirm that some people believe that Conservative thought is punished on Campuses.

So what is there to discuss? Someone's opinions on the topic? We know we're going to disagree, so what's the point when there is no argument being forwarded whatsoever?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptihorn writes

Quote:

I think that there are some people who have the idea that our Campuses across the nation are 'leftish,' and that there is a bias towards Conservative thought on most University campuses.

This seems quite logical to certain people, because as Conservatives, they are often in diametric opposal to the thoughts of many of the 'Liberal Elite' college proffessors.

Deciding to forward an argument that this is true has been the move that really takes this from the realm of opinion and seeks to codify it as fact. This is the purpose of arguments, isn't it? To try to Prove something. To use this proof as a moral basis for the enactment of change.

Cyclop writes (Post 1311396 4-30-05)

Quote:

Well, that's fair as well; except for the CRITICAL fact that Fox and Lash are presenting this as more than opinion. As Fact. I rarely attempt to do this online (my opinions often don't have enough evidence for me to claim they are solid facts) but would feel free to have others criticize my errors (which I do make)

That's what sticks in our craw; a lack of evidentiary knowledge presented as a wealth of knowledge. It displays a lack of understanding about how arguments and proof is formed. Which really means that they aren't qualified to have this discussion at all, doesn't it?

ps Horowitz is nothing but a politically motivated, right-wing hack. He hasn't done anything but criticize the Left for twenty years, and this latest attack is no different.

To which I responded

Quote:

Quote:
Horowitz is nothing but a politically motivated, right-wing hack. He hasn't done anything but criticize the Left for twenty years, and this latest attack is no different

The above statement is presented as a fact. Could you please cite the specific attacks you have in mind over the last 20 years, citing quotes and links bearing in mind that I will put the quotes within their full context?

To which he responded

Quote:

My above statement is presented as opinion. You are free to disagree with it; if I wanted to state it as a categorical fact, I would have provided supporting evidence, which I didn't care to do.

In short Cyclop says he can provide only opinion, but he apparently considers himself qualified to decide who is qualified to enter into a discussion. There are other examples, but this one pretty well says it.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

I have not read the book [The Art Of Political War by Horowitz], nor have I claimed to. Nor do I plan to.

Ican appears to be one passing himself off as one who has read the book.

Foxfyre wrote:

No he has not passed off any such claim. He found the information on the book at Amazon.com and posted it.

Sorry, Foxfyre, Ican has strongly implied that he has indeed read the Horowitz book.

Let's go back a week. Note Blatam's posthere

blatham wrote:

... Let's take a look now at Horowitz and his operation, starting with a quote from the fellow himself:

"...you cannot cripple an opponent by outwitting him in a political debate. You can only do it by following Lenin's injunction: 'In political conflicts, the goal is not to refute your opponent's argument, but to wipe him from the face of the earth." (from The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits")

...

Here's another quote, from the same book:

"Politics is a war of position. In war there are two sides: friends and enemies. Your task is to define yourself as the friend of as large a constituency as possible compatible with your principles, while defining your opponent as the enemy whenever you can."

To which Ican replied:

Ican711nm wrote:

In these excerpts you lost their real context (as in deed you did with your quote of what I posted). Horowitz was describing and not advocating the lousey tactics of contemporary radicals.

Now Foxfyre, how on Earth can Ican credibly say that Blatham has misinterpreted specific passages from Horowitz' book unless Ican has read the book himself?

Two specific passages, and Ican says without a hint of qualification, that Blatham has them interpreted wrong. Without question, Ican is definitely implying he has read the book.

Moreover, in a later post, Ican said the reason he does not transcribe specific passages from the book to attempt to refute Blatham is that the transcription would not be believed. This clearly implies that he has read the book and would be able to find those passages to transcribe. In the same sense that a fellow who says, on a wintry day, "I would take the Jaguar down to pick up my wife but Jags are no good in snow", is implying that he actually owns a Jaguar-even though he did not say so in so many words.

Ican has strongly implied he has read The Art Of Political War by David Horowitz.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Correct! That single sentence you asked me to produce is not in the Amazon provided three page excerpt.

But that does not stop you from referring to the "excerpts" you provided as refuting Blatham. But Blatham asked you for quotes from Horowitz-considering that you have strongly implied that you have read Horowitz-and the sole excerpt from Horowitz that you provided, by your own admission, is useless to that aim.

So why include it?

The answer is plain. You mixed the irrelevant Horowitz excerpt in with a bunch of non-Horowitz, (and thereby useless), excerpts for the purpose of trying to get people to confuse the two.

Ican711nm wrote:

I don't presently have access to Horowitz's book.

[/color]
Don't worry, we had that figured out days ago. The only question that remains is if you ever had Horowitz's book in the first place. The more this thread goes on, the more the finger of probability points in the direction of No.

0 Replies

As stated previously, a week ago Blatham made the following post.

Blatham wrote:

... Let's take a look now at Horowitz and his operation, starting with a quote from the fellow himself:

"...you cannot cripple an opponent by outwitting him in a political debate. You can only do it by following Lenin's injunction: 'In political conflicts, the goal is not to refute your opponent's argument, but to wipe him from the face of the earth." (from The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits")

...

Here's another quote, from the same book:

"Politics is a war of position. In war there are two sides: friends and enemies. Your task is to define yourself as the friend of as large a constituency as possible compatible with your principles, while defining your opponent as the enemy whenever you can."

To which Ican replied:

Ican711nm wrote:

In these excerpts you lost their real context (as in deed you did with your quote of what I posted). Horowitz was describing and not advocating the lousey tactics of contemporary radicals.

To which Blatham replied, within an hour,

Blatham wrote:

Ican
Again, you make the claim that what has been said means other than, or even opposite to, what has been said. Unless you provide textual evidence from the sources noted that backup these rather odd claims....

So now, Ican challenges:

Ican711nm wrote:

Quote that in the book which makes it plain that Horowitz is advocating those lousey political tactics.

[/b] [/color]

You have that backwards.

When we read a book, we have the expectation the author is being straigtforward with us, unless he goes out of his way to show us he is not. Otherwise, every single paragraph in any nonfiction book would have to start off with the sentence, "Now, I mean what I say in this paragraph.....".

Now, the following two things are agreed on by everyone of every political stripe:

A) Horowitz is a leftist turned conservative, who prolifically turns out books written from the right wing side,

B) The Art Of Political War is written as advice to the conservatives on how to beat the liberals. The excerpt from Amazon makes that clear-this book is written as advice to conservatives on how to win.

Given these facts, the above quotes in red from Horowitz's book must, at first glance, be considered as Horowitz' advice to conservatives as to how to win, since that is what the whole book is about.

Yes, it is conceivable that Horowitz did not mean it in that way-but anyone who takes that position would have to point to specific passages where Horowitz makes clear that he is not recommending conservatives follow the advice in these quotes. Because the whole book is about advice to conservatives on how to win.

The burden of proof is on conservatives to show, with quotes from Horowitz, that he was not advocating that conservatives actually follow the advice in the red passages quoted by Blatham.

We eagerly await Ican producing these passages. I suspect we all might be waiting a long time.

0 Replies

I went back looking for the source of those quotes of Ican you posted, KW, as I would like to see them in their full context. I gave up as it goes back too far. I think he could be asked politely whether he has read the book, and I am pretty sure he would give a straight forward answer.

I refer to your words:

Quote:

Yes, it is conceivable that Horowitz did not mean it in that way-but anyone who takes that position would have to point to specific passages where Horowitz makes clear that he is not recommending conservatives follow the advice in these quotes. Because the whole book is about advice to conservatives on how to win.

I have taken the position that I did not know what Horowitz meant in the excerpts Blatham claims to have posted, but I have not seen in his writings--more specifically his writing that I posted here--that he advocates that Republicans behave as Democrats behave in the political wars. I am picking up from the Amazon.com links and the reviews to which Ican referred us that it is more of a 'know thine enemy' sort of thing notwithstanding his scathing indictment of Republicans. I will be reading the whole thing soon.

Nor do I know what Ican meant by the comments you find so objectionable, but I have been reading Ican for awhile also and have not found him to be either duplicitous or given to fabrication. He is as capable as any of us of a gaffe or misstatement though for him those are really really rare.

Blatham, however, frequently intentionally or unintentionally takes my words out of context and presents them as something other than what was said or intended, misrepresents what I say, and usually holds conservative points of view in contempt. He has taken Horowitz's words out of context and has refused to put them into context when asked to do so. He further has not thus far been willing to consider Horowitz's words in context as posted here.

So on this one I give benefit of the doubt to both Horowitz and Ican with no suggestion that Ican categorically supports Horowitz's views on anything. Ican is more than capable of speaking for himself on that.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

So on this one I give benefit of the doubt to both Horowitz and Ican with no suggestion that Ican categorically supports Horowitz's views on anything. Ican is more than capable of speaking for himself on that. (emphasis added)

If this be so, one is lead to wonder why you have just gone on at such length.

0 Replies

PS to KW. What is it with you guys that keep a stop watch on members anyway? I can understand those who don't have a life. But you apparently do. I certainly do. Is it some big deal that a post isn't answered right away?

0 Replies

My congratulations to blatham for posting that these supposed surveys state that faculty members tend to vote Democratic. News flash. Democratic does not necessarily mean liberal.

0 Replies

Diversity of Everything but Thought

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know