[Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and mental health

[Art Deco]

Crabtree writes:

'I don't really believe that there is any real lack of clarity on this list as to where the "left" leaves off and the "right" kicks in."'

Either define "left" and "right" or enumerate those on the list that you consider to be "right" and "left" so that people will not have to attempt to reach the foggy recesses of your mind in order to decide who's who in your opinion.  Otherwise, most will think you are pulling a Roger Falen by refusing to respond to an issue in any meaningful terms except by repeating yourself using different words and syntax.  

I think that you are cravenly refusing to define or enumerate "right" and "left" because even in that dark back room of The Lock Shop you know that there is vast disagreement among those you claim to be on the left on this list on some very fundamental issues such as abortion, the death penalty, health care, first amendment rights, gun ownership rights, religious freedom and truth, the bailouts and other economic issues, educational reform, drug policy, the desirability of unions, possible solutions to the immigration problems, etc.  

And hence, any meaningful characterization of "left" and right" would exclude or make very fuzzy their inclusion in the list many you apparently think of as leftists.  That this is so is exhibited by many prior discussions on this list.  So, to deny such is either dishonest and/or cowardly.  [Google:  "Over-simplification", "Over-generalization", and Dishonesty".]

'Also, the definition of "hate speech" is absolutely clear. It's pretty much anything the left doesn't want to hear from the right. Hate speech is defined by its source not its content.'

So if someone on the right says "the economy will do better under conservative leadership," and someone you allege is on the left disagrees,  that's hate speech?  What rot.  Again you offer no reasonable criteria to determine what hate speech is except that it is anything one particular [the "left"] group doesn't like about what another [the "right"] says.  That makes almost any political discussion of opposing views hate speech.

See:  The Fallacy of Persuasive Definition:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition

It is not surprising that you again refuse to participate in a meaningful discussion of the issues.  That is your style and fits your limited worldview from the window of the backroom of your business.  Your definition of "hate speech" is so prejudicial, and it's lack of clarity greatly amplified given the lack of precision of the meaning of "right" and "left" that it tells readers a lot about you, but not much about the reality outside of you.

"The never-ending insistence that everything evil emanates from the conservative end of the spectrum and that the libs are long suffering saints is hogwash and an endless round of competing lists will do nothing to change that fact."

Another gross distortion/lie/exaggeration.  Who one the list said anything like that?  Some have said that violent rhetoric and hate speech is more common from pundits on the right, but I do not see that anyone claimed that such practices where exclusive to the right.  So starting with a grossly false O'Reillyism, you then negate the possibility of anyone giving any kind of evidence that would might clarify or give weight to one side or the other on the issue.  What a dunce-like position!

Although you falsely accused Reggie of being foolish because you disagreed with his characterization of three people on his prior long list, and although your alleged counterexamples are open to reasonable questions such as Andreas Schou has raised, it is you that appears to be foolish, if not dishonest and cowardly when you:

[1] Refuse to define in any meaningful way what you are talking about, 

[2] Use really cockeyed, prejudicial persuasive definitions when you do deign to define terms, and 

[3] Tell bald-faced lies about other's positions.

Perhaps your self-education might benefit from a concentrated study of Wesley Salmon's concise, but incisive book Logic.  Or a careful reading of Proofiness by Charles Seife might help you deal with some of your problems of over-generalization and over-simplification.

It's time to man up and either respond to the issues in a way that would promote understanding/clarification and possible resolutions, or man up and admit that you are just another propagandist whose goal is not truth, but attempts at persuasion exalting your personal ideals.

w.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gary Crabtree 
  To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 7:48 PM
  Subject: Re: [SPAM]Re: [Vision2020] that Jared guy and mental health


  Interesting. You sound like the kid on the playground who always wanted to tell everyone else what the game should be, define the minutia the games rules, and then become pouty when his expectations weren't met with regard to being deferred to in all matters. Life can be a disappointment for kids like that.

  I don't really believe that there is any real lack of clarity on this list as to where the "left" leaves off and the "right" kicks in. (I don't consider myself a proper member of the "right" but to make this easier for you we'll pretend it's the case) The difficulty arises, at the very least in the most current discussion, when those on the left want to pretend to be Sunday's child where it comes to acts of violence and political discussion that is less then demure. The never-ending insistence that everything evil emanates from the conservative end of the spectrum and that the libs are long suffering saints is hogwash and an endless round of competing lists will do nothing to change that fact.

  Also, the definition of "hate speech" is absolutely clear. It's pretty much anything the left doesn't want to hear from the right. Hate speech is defined by its source not its content. When the same sentiments are expressed from a liberal perspective it becomes passionate political discourse and a sacred first amendment principal. From the right, pure incitement to violence (even when none was voiced) to be quashed by any and every means possible. Violent speech is funny in that when a person hailing from the "right" talks of targeting a district, defeating an opponent, or quotes the founding fathers the remarks are an unequivocal, bold neon colored calls for assassination. When the "left" explicitly hope for the death of Sarah Palin and/or her children, pray for Dick Cheney's heart to give out, and make big budget Hollywood movies glorifying the murder of GWB, the speech is apparently translucent in the lack of notice it receives.

  I hope that this gives you "a clear and distinct idea" on where this cartoon character stands on the matter at hand. Now, if you'd be so kind, could you go into a little more detail with regard to my education? There is very little that I find more fascinating then to hear the playground mope expound at length on the topic of what he imagines my background to be.

  g




  From: Art Deco 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 2:35 PM
  To: Vision 2020 
  Subject: [SPAM]Re: [Vision2020] that Jared guy and mental health


  A lesson to Reggie, et al:

  This dispute is on Vision 2020 is driven by at least two things:

  1.    The lack of anywhere near agreement on the definitions of "right" v. "left" and "hate speech".

  2.    The apparent inability and unwillingness of Falen/Crabtree to support their positions with meaningful arguments.  With Roger, it is the apparent inability to understand what an argument is; with Crabtree, it is the long demonstrated unwillingness to engage in meaningful dialogue on any subject where his basic beliefs may be threatened by facts and/or alternative values.

  Reggie:  When you put the list at issue together, you offered evidence.  One would expect those holding an opposing views would offer a different list of at least the same magnitude.  Both Crabtree and Falen are unwilling to do so.  Forget meaningful dialogue.

  At some point, maybe one side or the other would offer more clarifying definitions so that the dispute could be better conducted by referring meaningful evidence.  Don't look to Falen or Crabtree for that either.  It is too threatening.

  I repeat the following without much hope that either Falen or Crabtree will alter their self-satisfying, but futile, churlish behavior:

  'It may be wise to remember in a discussion of values [or any other subject] the following paraphrase of a quotation from English Philosopher John Locke:

  "When comparing two ideas, it is necessary to have a clear and distinct idea of each."'

  Or its modern statement:

  "When comparing two statements or theories, the clearer, less vague and ambiguous statement(s) of and definitions used in each, the better the chance of meaningfully determining the truth, or in the case of values, the correct application, or least discovering the roots of agreement or disagreement."

  Over many months of reading Crabtree in action on V2020 I have thought that he might be the object of a possible Far Side cartoon whose caption would be "When self-education goes horribly wrong."


  Wayne A. Fox
  1009 Karen Lane
  PO Box 9421
  Moscow, ID  83843

  waf at moscow.com
  208 882-7975

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: lfalen 
    To: Reggie Holmquist 
    Cc: vision 2020 
    Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 10:52 AM
    Subject: Re: [Vision2020] that Jared guy and mental health


    I hope that you had fun putting together this list, some of which it would really be a stretch to call hate speech or necessarily from the the right. It would almost seem that anything you disagree with is hate speech or right wing. I don't much care if it is exactly equal from both sides. suffice it to say that there is plenty on both. I am not going to go tit for tat with you.
    Roger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110202/8be0af12/attachment-0001.html