Heidegger

On 09/06/2006, at 2:47 PM, Anthony Crifasi wrote:

> 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”
>
>
> May these be added directly after your final draft - just to make
> things a little clearer?

Which draft, anti anti-Americanism or the universal proscription? You
could of course simply include these in your own version Anthony,
that’s the reason I’m giving everyone access to publish on the web site.

As to their relevance to the principles so far I really don’t think
qualifying or limiting these to only certain situations is going to
add anything. The point here is they are guidelines for any claims
you or anyone else might feel are too extreme and constitute anti-
American or anti-Zionist or anti-Arab, anti-Europa or anti-Latvian
speech for that matter and so on. It’s not up to us to tell people
what they should feel affronted by, but in the event of an affront to
whatever nationalist, religious or ethnic sentiments the guidelines
might be of help in neutralizing any real discussion of the matters
at hand.

However, we could change the two subsections of #1. Denigrate and
dismiss to a. denigrate the claim (as in ‘flat earthism’) and b.
denigrate the opposition or ad hominem (as in psychiatric
disturbance). So the polemics would be the classic bait and run,
attacking the oppositions character and flat earthing their claims.
These seem to me to be universal potentials for any polemics and are
also the classic traits of trolling in that they distract the
discussion from actually dealing with the initial propositions.

Cheers,

Malcolm

**********************************
Dr Malcolm Riddoch
An-archos community networks
Web http://an-archos.com

Posted on Friday, June 9th, 2006 at 10:20 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback