09-30-2017, 06:00 PM
(09-30-2017, 05:16 PM)Dill Wrote: You threw out a quip calling my analysis of logical implication a "twist," as if all I do is quip too, which implies you do not understand logical implication or could not see it here. In response you got a clear, simple explanation of how logical implication works in this case. No chatter about your intellectual dishonesty, my contempt for you, and how debating you is "pointless"-but-I-do-it-for-others-who-presumably-cannot-manage-without-my-help. I give no stage directions as to how people should imagine me or you. I let my argument make the argument. (You seem to think that drives people away though?)
I don't care how you respond, I care about the content. Again, more insinuation of intellectual superiority, as boring as it is tiresome.
Quote:If you are given to wasting half a post in personal insults and explicit descriptions of how I make you feel and your position of superiority, then no one should be surprised if you "feel" condescended to when basic logic trumps your statements in clear, unemotional language. Yes, you look and feel bad then, but it's because you are caught in a dynamic you yourself created, in which any effective response will make you feel badly, nor matter how restrained, and in that case no one should suppose that anyone but you is responsible for your feelings.
All I hear from you and your ilk is "personal insults". I challenge your intellectual honesty, I hold your duplicity in contempt. I also challenge your assertions in so doing. In reducing these posts to "personal insults" all you are attempting to do is invalidate a claim without addressing it. You're transparent, be aware of this and stop wasting our time.
Quote:Back to the argument--A claim that anti-fascists are not as bad as fascists, not their ethical/moral equal, does not, prima facie, endorse tolerance of "violence as a political tool." To make that leap, you need a statement from me to the effect that "violence against fascists should be tolerated because anti-fascists are better people" or some such. But you have no such statement, and lacking that, you just made the inference yourself, imputed it to me, and then marveled at my intellectual dishonesty.
Sorry no, there is no such thing as "anti-fascists". Both they and fascists are merely fascists. The target of your fascism, or the end of the spectrum it originates from, does not mitigate the ultimate end game. That being violent subjugation of viewpoints you find unacceptable. You, and any who defend this concept, are no less fascist than the brown shirted SA member of the NKVD commissar.
Quote:Further, if I state the claim thus: "BAMN is not just an equally evil mirror image of the KKK," then I have said that the KKK (and by implication fascists) are evil. This is a "bias" against them, certainly. You acknowledge this, perhaps unawares, when you claim I tolerate violence against views which are "acceptably unacceptable."
Being aware of one evil while turning a willingly blind eye to another is not grounds for congratulations.
Quote:Affirming an ethical distinction between fascists and anti-fascists does not require that a fascist who breaks a window in a riot be punished differently than an anti-fascist who breaks a window. However, claiming that there is no ethical distinction between fascists and anti-fascists because legal punishments should be applied equally reduces ethics to mere legality, where fascism and anti-fascism are indeed on equal footing.
Except, as I illustrated above, there is not ethical distinction. The only distinction lies in the political views the group seeks to eliminate through violent action.
And finally, I have noted that liking a Facebook page does not establish the Mayor is a member of BAMN.[/quote]
You say this, but, as I've already pointed out, liking the KKK or ISIS facebook page, or that of any other extremist group, would certainly be held as proof of membership, or at the very least sympathetic feelings, towards said extremist group.
Quote:Continuing to maintain he is a member is, as I said, just stretching primary data to support your claim.
No more than claiming the guy who follows ISIS on Facebook is a member/sympathizer.
Quote:You could indeed meet my "lofty scholarly standards" in this case were you to provide actual evidence of membership, e.g. a report that he holds elected office in the organization.
Please, miss me with the bullshit. I expect better than this even from you.
Quote:In any case, you ought not to use my reliance on scholarly standards as an excuse to avoid supporting claims.
Except you don't. You have your own personal view of what is "scholarly" or acceptable. Oddly enough the only scholars seem to be people who agree with you.
Quote:Otherwise you leave the impression that it is pointless to argue with me precisely because you actually have to argue. If you just throw around unsupported claims and insults, you won't end up feeling good about yourself.
Merely stating my claims are unsupported does not make them so. The readers perception is their reality and I would never attempt to cater to the "reality" of a person such as yourself. You are no less blinkered than any other radical ideologue. You are the person who can castigate the US for oppressing its citizens while lauding Castro or the Chavez government in Venezuela, a la Jeremy Corbin. Intellectual consistency is entirely subjugated to ideological purity. Feel free to vomit up yet another long winded rebuttal, I can punch holes in your inconsistencies all day.
