Letters to the Editor
-
So That Would Be A 'No'
Me:
So, enlighten us, oh Great Master! Show us the error of our ways! Show us how you were not arguing disingenuously...
WinSmith:
Paul
You still don't get it, and I grow tired of trusting you to parse the nuance of the satire of your binaries.
The entirety of 20th Century philosophy was to advance thought away from simplistic mathemetical logical reductionists. I invoked Lacan to introduce psychoanalytic affect. I invoked the structuralists to discuss how fragment and dialectic play a role in consciousness.
You return to silly 10th grade high-school "logical fallacy" tropes. Did you google it, or retain that high school brilliance all on your own there, P.R.?
The point of the structuralists and even more so the post-structuralists like Derrida, was to remove reductionist thinking as the false constructs that they are.
Clearly, you never moved beyond that stage. But hey, you'd have been massively popular in the 19th Century when the whole kit and caboodle was being broken down into if/then formulae.
Far be it for me to break up your undergrad party. Like with Bohr's model of the Atom, the basic logical fallacies are crucial for getting us to a more complex mode of thinking.
So I mocked your dated intelligensia for what it is, a dude playing smarty pants dress-up.
Until you engage the culture industry tropes like Adorno, until you bridge the dialectics of consciousness on a level without resorting to all or nothing pedagogical simplicities and binary linguistic polemical distraction games, you'll fail to grasp even the rudimentary concept behind a cultural narrative perpetuating stereotype, as seen with AIPCAC.
You continually assume I'm defending AIPAC, further demonstrating your inability to transcend the binary: I'm either liberal or Neo-Con.
You must categorize me. Which is it? Liberal? Or Neo-Con.
Logical fallacies dictate we must have an either/or answer. It's the only way a weak mind can create the reassurance of false conscious construction and reassure himself that the structure really isn't there, the simulacrum is fictional, and the Gulf War really did happen.
You can't show us how you were not arguing disingenuously. You had your shot, and you didn't take it.
Case closed.
And, as your penalty, you have to stop badmouthing Neils Bohr. His model of atomic structure is still perfectly fine for most purposes. We know that electrons aren't simply located in space, but the energy-shell and its explanatory power vis-a-vis the Periodic Table, undergirded by the Pauli Exclusion Principle--it all holds together a damn sight better than anything you have to say.
-
Originally,
I had intended to comment on the gorgeous, gorgeous photos of Iran that Glenn linked to in this post. Definitely worth a few minutes of Time.
NoDemographics4Me
-
@Presumptuous Insect
I gave him a clear shot to do his deconstructionist best, and all I got was this third-rate invective.
It was soooooo disappointing!
I want my money back!
-
@ -- Retired Military Patriot
I will give this poop head credit for one thing. He strung you out further than anyone else ever has.
-- Retired Military Patriot
I do give him credit for that. I need the filter to save me from myself.
I came here to talk about David Brooks' column and ended up arguing with a 9prolific) BS'er.
-
NoDemographics4Me
Wow, I disagreed with Glenn once before on a completely unrelated discussion. I guess that means something something.
-
Pedinska's potty mouth
I don't expect you'll be able to parse this difference, I'm sure you'll toss another witty insult my way,
I wasn't trying to be witty. I don't like to be vulgar, but I'm gonna one-up Mona and maybe you'll find this funny.
Fuck you and the uppity Ph.D. you rode in on.
You need to stop indiscriminately assigning support for "hidden" agendas to us. We reject your characterization because it does not apply to Glenn, nor to the vast majority of us.
The polite rich old white woman who tips the "Negro cleaning girl" means well, too. But she perpetuates racism with the sweetest and noblest of intentions.
(Mona, plug your ears.)
What absolute bullshit. I waited on "polite, rich, old white women" at a small restaurant in a department store when I was in college. If they tipped me anything at all it was rarely more than a quarter. Didn't have a damn thing to do with "racism" or "sweet and noble intentions" either. They were just chintzy old bitches.
We have awareness of slanders of all kinds around here, something you would know if you'd read as much in this forum as you say you have. And I don't really care what your politics are perceived to be. It's irrelevant to me.
We did not invade Iraq because of AIPAC.
And no one here has made this claim.
When you buy into notions that a largely non-Jewish republican party is secretly being controlled by Jewish financial cabals, you need to throw some cold water in your face and edumacate yourselves, stat.
You really need to stop. This is not a "notion" that exists in this particular community.
It.
Just.
Doesn't.
And all your santimonious, Phhhhd-fueled arguments won't make it so.
I'm done with your specious ass.
-
Oy Vey
No human being is defined by either his ethnicity or sexual orientation, and Glenn focuses on the issues for which he has great passion and an unrivaled ability to tackle -- issues that are important universally.
So Glenn makes the completely wrong charge that I brought his ethnicity up as relating to his argument, when not only I didn't, but actively said it didn't matter to me.
Glenn's mischaracterization then gets cemented by, pardon the pun, the Dittoheads, and soon everyone keeps repeating it.
Yikes.
I guess we do have our own fever swamps.
-
I think he advances his argument well...
Maybe he will learn some humility when he grows up, at which point he will know that spending hours online arguing with almost everyone on this thread, and making no headway at all, is, to say the least, not the best use of his time.
-- Presumptuous Insect
To the rear, away from the front. He must be a neocon chickenhawk. It's settled then.