From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Mon May 23 2005 - 13:38:37 BST
Hi Ian,
I understand what you're saying and appreciate the input. In
starting this thread my purpose is not to sell Chomsky or any other
thinker to unreceptive minds: you can't hold someone down and pour
truth into their brains.
My purpose here, in this thread, is to keep this forum from being
just another portal for injecting vile dogma into cyberspace. My
plan is to challenge any intellectually unsupported attacks, and to
post the results of those challenges for all to see.
And, as I said earlier, I don't regard myself as removed from this
process; I encourage others to subject my opinions to the same
scrutiny.
Best,
Mark
On 23 May 2005 at 17:27, ian glendinning wrote:
Funny's not a word I'd use Mark.
I did venture the opinion earlier that to hold partisan political
debates about national and international affairs was pretty pointless
on a forum inhabited by the arch-but-unsubtle-rhetorician.
Platteral shifts not only deflect any meaningful argument, but also
put distortions of what you actually say in front of others - and off
the memes run. Selling Chomsky to Platt is very "coals to Newcastle"
(nope, wrong metaphor, but least offensive one I could think of) -
anyway - a lose-lose battle I would have thought.
You need to start with someone just slightly left of Platt - like
Genghis Khan perhaps - and work from there.
Brave effort though :-)
Ian
On 5/23/05, Mark Steven Heyman <markheyman@infoproconsulting.com> wrote:
> On 22 May 2005 at 9:36, TFP wrote:
>
> Nothing I've read in the MD has ever been more hilarious than MSH's 4-page
> polemic purporting to prove that unless you read and/or agree with Noam
> Chomsky you cannot possible be considered a genuine philosopher.
>
> msh:
> One of the many tactics employed by TFP is to deliberately
> misunderstand or misstate a point of contention in order to ridicule
> it. Often, as here, the point to be ridiculed is a complete
> fabrication. This tactic is sometimes referred to as the Platteral
> Shift, in honor of its inventor.
>
> The point made in my previous post, with ample evidence, is that a
> faux philosopher denigrates or ridicules someone else' contributions
> to philosophy, and then, when questioned, refuses to provide evidence
> and argument in support of his libelous opinions.
>
> Another variation of the Shift is to repeatedly ridicule the ideas of
> another and then, when asked for evidence, say "This is a forum
> dedicated to the work of Robert Pirsig. What does this have to do
> with Pirsig?" For example:
>
> "Howard Zinn is a Marxist and I don't believe anything he says."
>
> "What evidence do you have that Zinn is a Marxist?"
>
> "This forum is about Robert Pirsig, not Howard Zinn."
>
> OR
>
> "I don't believe any reports issued by anti-American organizations
> like Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch."
>
> "What makes you think they are anti-American?
>
> "What does this have to do with the Metaphysics of Quality?"
>
>
> And round and round he rides the Carousel...
>
>
> Best to all,
> Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
> --
> InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
> Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
> Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
>
> "Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder 'why, why,
> why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he
> understand." - Kurt Vonnegut, Cat's Cradle
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 23 2005 - 13:39:54 BST