Afghanistan

[Dill]

(08-26-2021, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote:[url=http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Afghanistan?pid=1051315#pid1051315][/url]LOL so it’s the people who call other humans “scum” just “because they are,” who are “adult enough" to partake in this discussion?  Why don't we hear more of that in responsible political commentary and scholarship then?  Are the demogogues the real adults?

Yeah, I'm quite comfortable calling people who engage in wanton acts of murder, torture and rapine human scum.  You, for some reason, are not.  But you're quite comfortable comparing Americans to Nazis and the Taliban.  An rather illogical position, but that's you.

Not for "some reason." I have explained this carefully, and twice. Now for the 3rd time, re-quoting post #237:

1. "Those engaged [in scholarly research] do not call the objects of their study "human scum"--be they individuals, parties, or states.... [because] such terms offer no descriptive or analytical precision. Demogogues use such language to express and arouse negative emotions, often to demonize minority ethnic groups, and they have no place in social scientific/historical description, where they simply mark the writer's own distortive bias."  

I subscribe to this ethos of modern scholarship, as do some others on this board. You do NOT, and so are "comfortable" with the bolded. 

2. I am indeed "comfortable" making social-scientific comparisons between authoritarian regimes and current US politics; that is one way in which political science scholarship serves democracy. And you are NOT, at a time when our politics have taken an authoritarian turn. 

Such comparisons are not made to "call" people Nazis or Taliban (remember 1 above?), but to forestall authoritarian, anti-democratic politics which might expand under new names, but a similar logic to past authoritarian politics. You are not "comfortable" with that either. 

If you think it contradictory to refuse to call people 'scum' while engaging in scholarly comparison of authoritarian politics, that just means you conflate the latter with name calling. 

Why did you choose to simply repeat the conflaction, rather than actually addressing my defense of scholarly/social-scientific  ethos, methods, and purposes? The latter is what you are really at odds with here, not some personal dill quirk.

(08-26-2021, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Can you identify one statement in of my posts which purports to “refute the excesses of Islam”?  The points I "proved" for you don't seem to actually be in my posts. 

Oh, that's not possible, because you never address it at all.  Well, except to object to Isis scum being called scum.

Wait, am I "refuting the excesses of Islam" or "never addressing [them] at all"?

At least quote the claims you attribute to me, or stop asserting that I make them. The rest is just dodgery.

My refusal to call ISIS "scum" is neither premise nor conclusion to some "refutation of excesses.of Islam." 
Rather that addresses your rhetorical excesses.