Heidegger

—– Original Message —–
From: “Malcolm Riddoch”

> On 07/06/2006, at 5:33 AM, Anthony Crifasi wrote:
>
>>> 1. Opposing views as paranoid idiocy
>>
>> Please include under #1 the specific view I was addressing - that
>> the WTC was brought down secretly by the US government.
>> Will you do that please? And if not, why not?
>
> I think this comes under ‘7. Demand defence distract’, but then the
> meta principle here is an important one which I’ll add as 13. Repeat
> cycle

Nope, I insist that you explicitly add the above example under #1 (Opposing
views as paranoid idiocy), #2 (Opposing views as flat earth science), and
#4 (Opponents suffer psychiatric disturbance), since it makes clear why the
opposing view in question was called paranoid idiocy, why the opposing view
in question was equivalent to flat earth science, and why the opponent in
question suffered psychiatric disturbance. Otherwise, if you leave the
example out, you might be mistaken for trying to give the impression that
anti-anti-Americanism simply dismisses any opposing view as paranoid idiocy,
as flat earth science, and any opponent as psychiatrically disburbed - and
you certainly weren’t trying to give any such impression with your little
“proscription,” were you?

> If anyone else would like to comment on the Heidegger list code of
> practice for proscription please feel free as I think we’re getting
> close to a final draft. Also what do people think about
> universalizing its principles? In one sense what is being proposed
> here are global principles for proscription insofar as “Americanism”
> is a global concept rather than anything merely confined to America
> so in a sense it involves all non-American “Americans” as well, or at
> very least all of us non-Americans who are party to the “Coalition of
> the Willing”. On the other hand proscription is itself not something
> merely American but as a formal practice dates back to the
> legislative tradition of the Roman Republic under Sulla. In an
> informal sense one might even say the tendency for proscription, as a
> function of polemos, is universal to all of us and crosses all
> cultural/ethnic/religious/national borders, or can we only speak for
> us moderns?

Your silly little proscription speaks for someone trying to misportray
anti-anti-Americanism as merely dismissive by ripping accusations from the
specific contexts in which they were originally applied, which is your usual
m.o., and therefore hardly surprising.

Posted on Wednesday, June 7th, 2006 at 1:10 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback