Heidegger

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

> 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.

not the point, Malcolm. You explicitly said (which you conspicuously clipped
out in your reply above):

“JUST ADD, DELETE, AND EDIT AS YOU SEE FIT AND ONCE WE REACH AGREEMENT I’ll
put it through the Google translator and copy the lot over to the Heidegger
FAQ wiki for easy reference.”

So until you fulfill your own terms, it’s an excellent #8:

#8. Propose a representation of the interlocutor’s critique, and tell them
that you are open to their adding, deleting, and editing it as they see fit
until “we reach agreement,” without telling them that you are lying about
that.

> 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.

Just as I predicted, your m.o. - a misportrayal by universally extending a
criticism applicable to only a certain subset.

> 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.

Of course it doesn’t bother you that I could easily extend your rejection of
the polls I cited to mean, Rejection of scientific studies. After all, the
universal potential is there, even if you specifically meant to apply this
to only a certain subset of studies.

But such considerations wouldn’t suit your purpose.

Posted on Friday, June 9th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback