From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Mar 15 2003 - 00:26:46 MST
Michael writes
> Lee Corbin wrote:
> > I think that you totally missed my point. My point is that
> > it's very valuable and extremely healthy to be able to
> > describe the point of view of one's adversaries in a way
> > that they'd agree with. This principle is even used in
> > psychology, as I understand it: in the Rogerian method,
> > the analyst must be able to state the situation from the
> > patient's point of view to the utter satisfaction of the
> > latter.
>
> > Doubtless a fine piece of satire or parody [...]
> > But it completely misses the idea of this thread.
>
> Hmmm. Well try this, then. The PNAC paper summation is what one's
> adversary would admit for the record, in polite public discourse.
Sorry---but I'm too undisciplined at the moment to go
look up PNAC. What are you talking about?
Somehow I'm starting to suppose that you still have no
idea whatsoever of what I am talking about (I could be
wrong, and it may be because I'm reading too literally).
I don't see how I can make it any clearer than the above
paragraph. Perhaps (in all literality) you would answer
some questions? (Thanks!)
1. Do you agree that, if one had the time to spare,
and the inclination, that it would be a learning
experience to be able to articulate one's political
opponents' viewpoints?
2. Have you ever tried to do this? (Frankly, it's been
ages since I have, at least in political discussions.
When I was in the 7th grade, my little liberal friend
and I joked that we *could* do it, so familiar had we
become with each other's viewpoint. Oddly, I feel
less capable of doing this now than then!?)
3. If you did try to do what Steve Davies did, that is,
to eloquently state his political opponent's views
in the mildest and most rational way---exactly as
they would have---do you think (pretend that there
was a LOT of money in it for you) that you could
actually do it?
4. Or would you simply come to a sudden awkward stop
(as indeed might happen to me!) when the seeming
lack of common sense and good judgment became so
appallingly absent in the conservatives' views
you were attempting to espouse?
> Instead, I'll befriend the adversary and, as a friend, relate my
> understanding by shortening the whole paper to my 'pre-bomb the middle
> east' summation. The author giggles a bit at the bluntness of it but
> nods his head. So I meet your condition yet you say I totally miss your
> point.
No. You have not met my condition. You must find something
a lot less extreme than "pre-bomb the Middle East". On the
*face* of it that sounds unreasonable.
> For an example, read 'A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the
I will. And I will start a new thread on that. This thread is
non-political.
5. Can you imagine how it could be non-political?
6. The phrase "pre-bomb the middle east", of course, appears
nowhere in the paper. But you have talked to the author?
You have seen him giggle a bit but nod his head? Or are
you using "artistic license" again?
Lee
> Realm' at http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm . Yet Another Perle
> Doc. The entire section titled 'Securing the Northern Border' can be
> shortened to 'bomb Syria' (seems to me).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 00:27:30 MST