Heidegger

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

> On 08/06/2006, at 2:23 AM, That Pete wrote:
>
>> What the engineers say:
>> 9/11: Debunking The Myths
>> http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/…
>>
>> The heck of correctness.
>
> That’s more like it, I think we really need to discuss some of these
> problems and you’re helping that discussion along That Pete so good
> for you. And yes, Popular Mechanics is a populist publication and no
> less averse to flat earth theories than anyone else, especially in
> these troubled times. An excellent use all round of principle #1.
> Denigrate and dismiss, subsection - Flat earth.
>
> Cool, we’ve actually managed to start a serious 911 discussion on a
> philosophy list. By the way, the main documents for negating the
> proscribed interpretations are the FEMA, NIST and 911 Commission
> reports rather than the mass media. Which one do you want to start with?

#1: Denigrate and dismiss opposing study without specifically addressing
arguments contained therein.

> We were discussing
> something of the nature of nationalist necessities and the use
> terror, from the Nazi holocausts through the Stern gang and Freedom
> Party and on to today’s Palestinian terror against Israeli state
> terror in a world transfixed by the US Neoconservative use of a
> global terror war, and all of this prescribed by the practical
> logistics of power.

#2. Present moral accusations in the form of a neutral philosophical
discussion by exclusively giving ideologically one-sided examples when there
are plenty of other ideologically undisputed ones.

>>> If you would care to elucidate on what you perceive as the one
>>> sidedness
>>> of my offering to discuss both Jewish and Palestinian terror in their
>>> respective approaches to diaspora and state sponsored terror then
>>> please
>>> do so.
>>
>> You wrote:
>>
>> “Israeli, British, US or Nazi war crimes”
>>
>> “Jewish or Palestinian “terror” in response to to the use of overwhelming
>> force and complete dispossession.”
>>
>> no loading the question there, and to top it off, you chronically
>> insult the intelligence by denying this. This has been pointed out
>> to you before, and not just by me. You show no absolutely no
>> willingness to acknowledge this continuing problem, so until you
>> do, discussion is rather pointless, don’t you think?
>
> What exactly are you talking about Anthony? What problem is there
> apart from your own inability to explain what you mean by ‘one
> sidedness’ and who else is pointing this ineffable problem of yours
> out?

#3. Deny the use of one-sided examples, irregardless.
#4. Ignore identical criticisms from multiple sources.
#5. Deflect and distract by denying understanding of the point and demanding
explanation, no matter how eminently clear the point was.

>> Nope, I insist - include the specific example (WTC brought down secretly
>> by the US) under 1, 1-a, and 1-b. Otherwise, the abstraction as you
>> present it would misportray anti-anti- Americanism as universally
>> dismissing of all opposing views as “flat-earth” and psychiatrically
>> disturbed. I’m sure you wouldn’t want your “proscription” to contain
>> such a misportrayal, would you?
>
> No I disagree, for me the negation of what you view to be extremely
> polemical truths is the point, like for example your reaction to the
> notion that the 911 tower collapses can only be logically accounted for
> by controlled demolitions. It’s just a theory yet instead of discussing
> the various scientific and engineering perspectives you are driven to
> negate any discussion whatsoever. And I gotta say, my money’s on the
> Scholars for 911 Truth and it looks like you’ve got a rogue executive on
> your hands.
>
> The same goes for our discussion of Benny Morris’ account of the 1948
> war. You actually called Hannah Arendt and Alfred Einstein naive
> ignoramuses for denouncing the Freedom Party as a terrorist organization
> no less self-reflexive than the Nazis.

#6. Leave out unessential details, such as the fact that an interlocutor did
not actually say what he/she is presented as saying, or the specific reasons
and examples why an interloctur said he/she did said.

> But this is no longer about you or anti- Americanism Anthony if you
> haven’t noticed. These principles can apply to any modern nationalism in
> our increasingly nationalist world. Our modern nihilism doesn’t seem to
> involve the collapse of belief itself but rather the fragmenting
> intensification of belief’s bankruptcy. Or put another way, our gods are
> dead and we are the ones who killed them. What do you reckon?

#7. When repeatedly called to task on #1-#6, change the subject.

Any further contributions from you would be most welcome until we finally
achieve a final draft. Where may I post my list in both English and German?

Posted on Thursday, June 8th, 2006 at 4:40 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback