 |
| Uncle Joe Stalin of the U.S.S.R. |
 |
| Adolf Hitler of Germany's Third Reich |
 |
| Chairman Mao Tse Dung of Red China |
 |
| Fidel Castro of Cuba |
 |
| Kim Jong Il of North Korea |
 |
| Hugo Chavez of Venezuela |
 |
| You-Know-Who promoting anti-gun legislation |
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.
We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.
IN ADDITION
Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Yep.
ReplyDeleteI teach a course in Public Speaking and Current Events. Right now, we are exploring the book The Fallacy Detective and identifying various logic fallacies, especially straw man and appeal to the people.
Most Americans don't seem to have a clue as to how manipulated they are by fallacies in logic. **sigh**
Social scientists have demonstrated overwhelmingly that emotions sway people much more than facts and logic.
ReplyDeleteIt's why we're bombarded with idiotic campaign commercials.
We may have the ability to reason, but, as a species, we are not rational creatures. That's why attempting to divorce reason from passion and vice versa is doomed to fail.
ReplyDelete"It's why we're bombarded with idiotic campaign commercials."
ReplyDelete-----
But of course FT's post demonstrates that the fringe right is immune from cheap emotional pedantry.
Don't it drag on.
"We may have the ability to reason, but, as a species, we are not rational creatures."
ReplyDeleteCorrect, Mr. Free Thinke. And your overwrought post is a fine example of that observation.
It is irrational to compare Mr. Obama to men who slaughtered. by the millions and millions. their own people.
That sort of hyperbole guarantees no one--well no one who is rational--will give any attention to any legitimate grievances. You've called President Obama's parents savages and other ghastly names, and now compare him to beastly murderers?
We understand your discomfort with the present administration, but your emotionally frantic paranoid reaction to it will do nothing but discredit whatever criticism you wish to express.
In some quarters, one would even go so far as to call your type of behavior manic.
BTW, please notice the children grouped around this other murderous villain, as he signs his No Child Left Behind into law!
ReplyDeleteSince you've grouped Mr. Obama with history's worst killers, I'm surprised you left this guy out of your photo gallery of monsters who use children for propaganda!
And THIS!
ReplyDeleteImagine! An American president using children as props while he signs bills into law!
O the humanity!
One thing's for certain, we're certainly bombarded with idiotic campaign commercials, publicity stunts, news presentations etc. from all sides and to every purpose.
ReplyDeleteHow do we break the cycle?
That sort of hyperbole guarantees no one--well no one who is rational--will give any attention to any legitimate grievances.
ReplyDelete...admonishes the Blogger responsible for "Progressive Eruptions", a site with 100x the histrionics...
Interestingly enough both Adolf and Fidel lookgenuinely good-hearted and sweet-natured in this particular assortment. I had never seen a flattering picture of either of them before, so it took me by surprise to think, "Hey! That looks like somebody I might really have enjoyed knowing!"
ReplyDeleteAnd doesn't THAT show how misleading even an undoctored photo may appear?
Mao, of course, is represented by a cartoon obviously designed to promote a benevolent image.
The others wouldn't have fooled me for a minute with their cynical use of children as props in a photo op. How they prevented those poor little kiddies from crying out in terror to be held by the likes of Kim Jong Il and Hugo Chavez I can't imagine.
Well, I suppose the Democrats could still have a field day dragging out Checkers, the Nixon family's Cocker Spaniel, and the famous references to Pat Nixon's "good Republican cloth coat." Oh! And Eisenhower's aide Sherman Adams' "Vicuna Coat," remember that?
Now you just hush up, Thersites.
ReplyDeleteDon't you know that Marxian-Fabian-Socialist-Liberal-Progressive-Whatchamacallitz long ago bought up all the rights to the exercise of One-Way Rudeness, Chastisement and Condemnation? ;-)
We must accept that as a GIVEN in American Politics.
It's perfectly all right for THEM to indulge in Ecstatic Exhibitions of Excoriation, Orgies of Outrage, Carnivals of Contempt and Cavalcades of Castigation, but WE must behave like perfect ladies and gentlemen, and use out best drawing room manners at all times lest we tarnish our already media-blackened reputation.
A primary identifying feature of the left is their infinite capacity to take themselves, their beliefs -- and LIFE -- MUCH too seriously.
I have to admit I enjoy yanking their chains now and then. The utterly predictable response can be downright hilarious -- especially at times when we most desperately need a laugh.
As Jez says of the circular argumentation he enjoys so much, "It's FUN!"
TALLY-HO!
I also find it amusing to be accused of producing an "overwrought post," where with the exception of the headline -- a fragmentary biblical quotation -- I did not post ONE SINGLE WORD of editorial.
ReplyDeleteIt might be safe to say that "People are best known by the INFERENCES they draw," mightn't it?
"Ha ha ha!, Ho ho ho!
And a couple of Tra la la's --
That's how we laugh the day away
In the Merry Old Land of Oz ..."
Testing a theory by "select[ing] a few facts to expose the weaknesses and strengths of it and its alternatives" is not circularity, FT. If you really can't see the difference, well maybe you deserve all the condescension I can provide, and more. ;)
ReplyDeleteNo, Jez, because I can see you like to argue just for the sake of argument. I, personally, find that tiresome and a waste of precious time.
ReplyDeleteThat' all right. I'm still in your debt for posting the text to What's Going to Happen to the Tots? Thank you again, for that.
FJ,
ReplyDeleteIt is Mr. Free Thinke, not I who called Mr. Obama's mother a whore, and Mr. Obama's father a savage. He has hurled nasty epithets at the First Lady and compares President Obama to dictators who killed millions and millions of their own people.
What sort of inferences can one take away from those incendiary comments?
Mr. Free Thinke claims he uses hyperbole to make a point--that President Obama is the same as murderous dictators.
But Mr. FJ believes my blog deals in 100x histrionics?
Ye gawds! Do you people actually listen to yourselves?
Argument exposes error and identifies validity. I'm blessed to find joy in such a useful pursuit. Actually, it's the moments of epiphany that are fun, and everybody loves those.
ReplyDeleteBlah, blah, blah... "Who ME histrionic????"
ReplyDeleteBWAH!
In my considerable experience I have never found anyone who can accept an unpleasant, inconvenient, unflattering observation with good grace. It just doesn't happen.
ReplyDeleteWith very few exceptions -- and I can't cite even one right offhand -- this ancient aphorism holds true:
"The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions."
~ Socrates (470-399 B. C.)
You group a right of center corporatist with Hitler and Stalin and you don't think you're going to be called for being called a fool?
ReplyDeleteDEMAGOGUE
ReplyDelete1. A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace.
2. a political agitator who appeals with crude oratory to the prejudice and passions of the mob
3. someone who becomes a leader largely because of skills as a speaker or who appeals to emotions and prejudices.
4. a political leader who tries to influence people by making emotional speeches
5. a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power
6. a leader who plays to peoples' emotions and uses prejudices to gain power.
7. a popular leader; commonly in a bad sense, a leader of the mob; the people A leader of the rabble; one who attempts to control the multitude by specious or deceitful arts; an unprincipled and factious mob orator or political leader.
an orator who pleases the populace and influences them to adhere to him.
8. a leader of the popular as opposed to any other party. Being particularly used with an invidious sense of a mob leader or orator, one who for his own political ends panders to the passions and prejudices of the people, the word has come to mean an unprincipled agitator.
Right of center... sounds like Ducky is still in denial about the corporatist Left.
ReplyDeleteDucky's in one of his "I'm a happy little moron" moods again.
ReplyDeleteRelax! This too shall pass -- until the next time.
How far back do you have to go to find a president who was not a demagogue?
ReplyDeleteFor the UK, in some moods I would nominate John Major, although his "back to basics" campaign was a bit dodgy.
"The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions."
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Therefore let us redouble our efforts against partisanship.
I think we should all take to heart the message: Tyrants all love little children. Wonder why? H
ReplyDeleteHave tyrants all been corrupted deep in their souls in early childhood by adults in their midst?
Ducky, who's your daddy? Wesley Mouch?
ReplyDelete"Not only must you obey me... you must also LOVE me."
ReplyDeleteLOVE me, DAMMIT!
LOVE ME!
ReplyDelete"Do it for the children! The CHILDREN are our FUTURE!"
ReplyDelete...and they will pay the bill.
The intense world weariness, hard-bitten cynicism, loss of faith, embrace of decadence and impetus toward suicide that appears to capture the essence of most the "deep thinking" emanating from late-nineteenth and early twentieth century Germany infected the entire civilized world with a malaise -- a psychosis really -- from which it may never recover.
ReplyDeleteWe ARE what we THINK, ladies and gentlemen, and too many of us prefer to be led into Perdition than to make the necessary effort to think for ourselves.
What really got the Germans into trouble is when they abandoned Deep Thought and embraced the kind of air-headed folksy common-sense anti-intellectual but-look-at-all-my-passion idiocy that is becoming ever-more acceptable in modern Western politics.
ReplyDeleteThat after all is surely what FT meant by inviting the comparison between the political styles' of modern American politicians and 20th century despots'. -- there is no aspect other than presentational style for which the comparison holds up and is not absurdly offensive.
FT must be aware that the Nazi comparison is a cliche, especially on the internet.
Ms. Shaw says;
ReplyDelete"Ye gawds! Do you people actually listen to yourselves?"
Do YOU, Ma'am?
Does ANYONE?
We're all so busy trying to find ways to discredit and impugn the integrity of anyone whose thoughts are not congruent with out own, we rarely-if-ever LISTEN to each other with any hope of gaining greater understanding.
Instead we indulge in fantasy mind-reading exercises that never fail to attribute fiendish or fatuous motivation to our [perceived] antagonists.