Emlyn writes
> Lee, I'm not sure what your goal is here. Do you just desperately
> want Harvey to say "You are right, I am wrong"?
Sure. That would be a good start. I don't have any problem
admitting it when I'm wrong. I had to just last night, for
example. I just got a little angry when noting the inconsistency
of his position (as Mike Lorrey also pointed out).
> I agree with you to some extent, in that the Planet of the Abes
> article could not have been fraudulent in its presentation of
> facts. This because there are no facts presented in the
> article that I can find, only unsupported assertions.
Yes, most of the article didn't contain statistics, but only
assertions like
> And some [conservatives] would even revel in the Great
> Emancipator portrayed as a brutish, war-mongering sub
> human. Indeed this was a common caricature of Lincoln
> during the Civil War. Even today, Lincoln's reputation
> among conservatives remains a source of unending
> controversy- as our recent quarrel with Joe Sobran attests.
As I said about this article the other day, it was written
by a conservatives *for* other conservatives, and does not
(as I think you rightly imply) have much in it to criticize.
That indeed was probably the source of Harvey's angst: since
it was too shallow, he needed to denounce the site or the
author instead.
> Harvey appears to give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming that these
> assertions are grounded somewhere in something, rather than just made up off
> the top of the author's head. Finding no evidence in the article to support
> any of the claims, he follows the trail of references, and comes to the
> conclusions that he has posted.
Would you mind telling me what assertions or claims that
you are thinking of? Here we have once again some hand-
waving at "claims" and "assumptions" without any particulars.
(Calmly. Don't lose your temper again, Lee.) This is what
kind of started the argument, or at least *my* argument
in the first place!
> I can't see any problem with Harvey's methodology; I am only
> surprised that he is prepared to put such a lot of effort
> into what is, in the end, a rather stupid opinion piece.
Now honestly, Emlyn, I really think that there is some
asymmetry here. I do not believe I go around calling
pieces that I disagree with "stupid". I have admitted
that I would never post such a piece because it didn't
have enough deep content about which we can (constructively)
criticize each others' views. (By the way---I only put in
that word "constructively" for the newbies who never heard
of pan-critical rationalism. They should study the
Extropian site, of course.) But now I'm starting to think
that Michael Butler's intuition didn't let him down: the
piece has brought out some very important principles here.
> If we all spent the time to criticise in detail every piece
> of idiotic editorial on the net, we'd die trying, even giving
> massive life extension, and no one would benefit from the
> results. But that's just my opinion :-P
Oh, you are right of course. Harvey could have dismissed the
article in any number of very accurate ways. Here is what I
would have said if I were a liberal:
> Sobran's anti-Lincolnism is wrong because it completely
> misidentifies the origins of our current occupying army:
> i.e., the legions of liberals who, like the apes in the
> movie, exercise an unnatural dominion over human society.
> Today's liberals don't, of course, look like apes. Indeed,
> they are the beautiful people of our time. But in their
> attitudes toward human liberty, the enviro-thug gorillas,
> chimpanzee professorate, and orangutan feminists do seem
> almost of another species from the men who wrote the
> Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
This highly exaggerated and ad hominem attack on liberals and
feminists is obviously worthless, and we can charitably suppose
that this hit piece is only meant to be read by the faithful.
Or I would have said about
> Whatever else he may present in his indictment, Sobran [a fellow
> conservative] cannot attribute to Lincoln the idea that the
> Constitution was merely an 18th century document, and therefore
> out of date; that natural rights were a "fantasy;" that modern
> life because always changing-required a government that was
> always growing; and that "progress" meant there was nothing
> permanently true or right. But these were precisely the opinions
> voiced by the leading American philosophers, journalists, and
> politicians in the Progressive Movement. It was John Dewey,
> Herbert Croly, and Woodrow Wilson-not Abraham Lincoln-who gave
> us the principles and practice of the modern leviathan state.
(Finally, some meat!) Well, that may be so! (continues Lee the
liberal). Lincoln had no intention of fostering the sort of
government that really helped people. He was too mired in the
century he lived in, and had greater worries anyway. Indeed,
the author is correct in saying that progressive government
was a twentieth century innovation.
> Finally, can we please put a stop to the ridiculous reposting
> of (ridiculous) articles over and over again? Most here are
> not imbeciles, and can follow a thread.
Well, ;-) *this* imbecile easily loses old posts. In fact, I
think that the URL to the original is now stale. (I would have
posted that instead if I could have.)
Now it *is* true that some people are very inconvenienced by long
posts, because of slow download speed or lack of disk space. I
do sympathize, and those of us who are not more considerate of
this problem perhaps should be. If there are others who have a
problem with long posts for either of the two aforesaid reasons,
or some other technical reason, would you please let me know
privately? (lcorbin@tsoft.com) I will report on it.
I assume that you would be equally offended by a repost of a
long (though nebulous) article that you happened to agree with.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:12 MDT