“Not extremely persuasive, particularly in light of the 17 or 18 years I’ve spent doing this.”
I dont find your assertions persuasive.
“That particular statement implies feelings of superiority, not closed-mindedness or bigotry. Further, I’ve never said that I wasn’t implying it; I said I wasn’t assuming it.”
Oh, well that’s alright then. (sarcasm).
“Haven’t made any. That’s why I say you are assuming (incorrectly) where I am not.”
And when I say I haven’t made any, I say that you are assuming.
“Exactly? I guess people could quibble over what is meant by exactly. Of course, your notes have not revealed your taste in wine or perfume, but they have revealed a good deal about what you think.”
But not everything that I think.
“As some people who spell “realize” with an “s” often say, “Pull the other one, mate.””
Well ding a ling a ling then.
“I haven’t come right out and said it.”
No you haven’t. Exactly. Which makes the accusation of “fancy footwork” you subsequently make ironic in extremis.
“You do behave a lot like a leftist, and you hold some leftist positions, but with all your fancy footwork I can’t say where on the continuum you fall.”
If by fancy footwork you mean an unwillingness to get put into the neat little box labelled “leftist” you have stashed in your mind, then guilty as charged.
“Yeah, well, sorry, but what you think of yourself is only one part of the picture.”
And ditto for yourself.
“That’s a much-misinterpreted saw. Some ends do justify some means.”
Example?
“The problem arises when one attempts to justify evil means by pointing to a putatively good end.”
Agree 100% with that.
“Now, see, statements like that betray a long association with the left, even if only as a student subject to the abuse of leftist teachers and professors.”
Assumption yet again.
“Hitler would never have said anything like that. He hated Christianity only marginally less than he hated Jews. Many priests were swept up by the Holocaust. While he knew he couldn’t eradicate long-standing German religions, the only religion that Hitler endorsed was a faux revival of pre-Christian Germanic paganism, and even that was only a tool and not a matter of belief for him.”
From Hitler’s autobiography “Mein Kampf” (my struggle).
“Thus did I now believe that I must act in the sense of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jews I am doing the Lord’s work”.
and later:
“I have and always will consider myself a Catholic.”
Of course, the Christianity Hitler believed in wasnt in any way what Christianity is really like (or at least should be really like) Hitler had become the kind of person to whom everyone and everything is an object and a tool to be used or discarded. A true definition of evil.
“Are you asking me to set forth one of them, or asking for a philosophical definition of definitions?”
I’m asking you to set forth one of them.
“Eck-tuwally, I don’t do that.”
Eck-tuwally, you do. You persist in doing it even when the alternate is presented and explained, and even when an apology for confusion is offered.
“Any adult will tell you that statements quite often communicate a meaning diametrically opposed to the plain meaning of the words.”
And it is at least equally likely that statements are communicating exactly what the plain meaning of the words are. Occam’s razor. If there is a possibility of two meanings to someones statement, then surely the sensible thing is to ask for clarification.
“You know what I hate worse than that? The Oscar Wildean mal mot, the subtle understatement, the “If I couch my insult in these terms he’ll never even see that he’s been insulted” barb that covers the offender with a semblance of civility while conveying insult that is every bit as crass as swearing, while lacking even swearing’s single virtue of straightforward honesty.”
And you know what I hate even worse than that? The proud donning of a mantle of authority, based solely on an (unsubstantiated) access to an advanced knowledge and wisdom unavailable to ordinary peons, and then the use of that position to denigrate, insult and rubbish everyone who even tentatively dares to even whisper a suggestion of an opinion that could be construed as mildly differing.
“You have that in common with Elmer Gantry style fundamentalist protestants.”
And thus the proposition is tarnished by association, and with someone best known for another issue. I just dont like swearing. And I especially don’t like it being falsely ascribed to me.
“I dont find your assertions persuasive.”
Too bad. You should.
“Oh, well that’s alright then. (sarcasm).”
It’s all right if one holds that truth is a defense against the charge of slander.
“And when I say I haven’t made any, I say that you are assuming.”
That would only make sense if I had accused you of that which you have implied of me.
“But not everything that I think.”
So?
“No you haven’t. Exactly. Which makes the accusation of “fancy footwork” you subsequently make ironic in extremis.”
1. It’s not an accusation; it’s an observation.
2. “In extremis” does not mean “extremely.” It means “at the point of death” or “in grave or extreme circumstances,” as when two ships have arrived at the last moment in which a collision could be avoided.
“If by fancy footwork you mean an unwillingness to get put into the neat little box labelled “leftist” you have stashed in your mind, then guilty as charged.”
No, I mean the statements you have made to avoid being labeled a leftist. It’s funny, you know…many leftists share your desire not to be labeled as leftists, but we conservatives don’t mind our label at all.
“Example?”
The end of deterring murder justifies the death penalty, when applied justly through the rule of law.
“Assumption yet again.”
You seem to have a real problem with the definitions of common words.
If I go outside and see the sun in the sky, and on that basis state, “The sun is up,” I am not making an assumption. I am reporting an observation.
“From Hitler’s autobiography “Mein Kampf”…and later”
And, of course, every word of Mein Kampf is to be regarded as Gospel truth from the pen of a man never known to lie, right? It would be foolish to regard his actions and later statements as better indicators of his actual beliefs, wouldn’t it?
“Hitler had become the kind of person to whom everyone and everything is an object and a tool to be used or discarded.”
Hitler was used and discarded by Satan. He was little more than a ventriloquist’s dummy.
“I’m asking you to set forth one of them.”
Good grief. I have to leave the house in 25 minutes to go to Confession and take one of my kids to work. Maybe when I get back.
“Eck-tuwally, you do. You persist in doing it even when the alternate is presented and explained, and even when an apology for confusion is offered.”
I persist when experience tells me I’m being snowed. As for the latter, I accepted your apology.
“And it is at least equally likely that statements are communicating exactly what the plain meaning of the words are.”
Sorry, that statement is false. One cannot calculate the probability across multiple cases involving multiple speakers. One can only calculate the rough probabilities for a specific speaker and listener, given their relationship and the context.
“Occam’s razor.”
Doesn’t apply in every case. See paragraph directly above.
“If there is a possibility of two meanings to someones statement, then surely the sensible thing is to ask for clarification.”
That, too, depends on the specific speaker and listener, given their relationship and the context. If one is speaking with a leftist, asking for clarification merely gives him another opportunity to lie.
“And you know what I hate even worse than that? The proud donning of a mantle of authority, based solely on an (unsubstantiated) access to an advanced knowledge and wisdom unavailable to ordinary peons, and then the use of that position to denigrate, insult and rubbish everyone who even tentatively dares to even whisper a suggestion of an opinion that could be construed as mildly differing.”
Yes, that’s the typical reaction of a leftist to a confident conservative. Let’s look at a couple of problems with it.
The false perception of “pride” stems from the leftist’s indignation that anyone dares disagree with the left. The “advanced knowledge and wisdom” (which previous generations called “common sense”) is available to all, but the leftist refuses to think about it in any meaningful way, because he has been taught to reject it as “reactionary,” “closed-minded,” “bigoted,” etc. And finally, the positions of the left differ not “mildly,” but radically. Those who hold the positions of the left well deserve to be denigrated, insulted, and rubbished, and worse. They are the enemies of humanity, of the good, and of God Himself.
Oh, burning them at the stake might be a tad much, but I would definitely have them branded on the cheek and refused the right to vote.
“And thus the proposition is tarnished by association, and with someone best known for another issue.”
Didn’t you know that two could play at that game? Did you think conservatives were too stupid for that?
“I just dont like swearing.”
Apparently, you like to lay your insults between the lines, with plenty of room for plausible deniability.
“And I especially don’t like it being falsely ascribed to me.”
Nobody ascribed any swearing to you.