bleeding heart Posted September 17, 2012 Report Posted September 17, 2012 (edited) You attempt to entirely dismiss an article based upon some concept you have of a "great man theory" wherein I presume all men should be considered equal and no man great and you deduce I am not interested in an honest discussion. No. You opined that my argument was something that hadn't even entered my mind...much less become part of my response. That is, I get it. Men are all the same. As if I were talking about the crudest form of feminist identity politics...bashing "men," or something. Totally unrelated. I do wish an honest discussion. You aren't giving me one. No, you demonstrably don't, as you'd much rather invent a view for me that I didn't say (and for the record do not hold). It doesn't even rise to the level of caricature. Edited September 17, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Pliny Posted September 19, 2012 Author Report Posted September 19, 2012 No. You opined that my argument was something that hadn't even entered my mind...much less become part of my response. That is, As if I were talking about the crudest form of feminist identity politics...bashing "men," or something. Totally unrelated. No, you demonstrably don't, as you'd much rather invent a view for me that I didn't say (and for the record do not hold). It doesn't even rise to the level of caricature. I pointed out that you didn't make any distinction between respect for an individual and his ideas and idolatry. Apparently, any respect for someone's ideas on a subject that has a few "acolytes" and holds an elevated position by them is suspiciously close to cultish idolatry. I'm sorry but that has nothing to do with the content of the article which is what I wish to discuss. So if you would like to talk about that we can have a discussion but then since you dismiss it with the generality that it is not a "structurally coherent piece of argumentative writing" I assume you consider no further discussion is necessary. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
bleeding heart Posted September 23, 2012 Report Posted September 23, 2012 I pointed out that you didn't make any distinction between respect for an individual and his ideas and idolatry. Apparently, any respect for someone's ideas on a subject that has a few "acolytes" and holds an elevated position by them is suspiciously close to cultish idolatry. No, I think language about the Beautiful Minds of the Great Men of political economy can sometimes go over the top. There are doubtless some Marxists who fall into the same unfortunate category. I'm sorry but that has nothing to do with the content of the article which is what I wish to discuss. Then by all means, let's do it. You seem to think that the Residential schools are somehow an accurate analogy for public schooling. How so? I assume you consider no further discussion is necessary. On the contrary. If you can refrain from inventing ideas for me that I expressly do not hold--you know, elementary honest debating practice--I assume we can discuss to our hearts' content. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.