Possible Montana Secession?

[D'rok]

Do you agree with drkitten's assessment?

Her (assumption, correct me if that's wrong) assessment about historical perspective? Sure. Do I agree with your implication that contrarians like yourself and Ron Paul can accurately see through the current smokescreen of self-serving political rhetoric to reveal social reality as it really is and can thus know what the future brings?

No.

I've studied more than enough of the various historicisms and futurists to know that, prima facie, you're all fantasists.

Also, drkitten has a track record here as one of the most intelligent and lucid, if snarky, posters. She gets cred up front from me (not unquestioning belief - just initial credibility that demands she be taken seriously). You have some work to do in that regard.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Her (assumption, correct me if that's wrong) assessment about historical perspective?

You agree that writings from a particular time period by the actors themselves is not valid when in disagreement with current text books?

 

[drkitten]

Current public policies are based upon incorrect characterizations

You mean, incorrect characterizations like "Iraq is buying yellowcake uranium in support of its active WMD program, and therefore must be stopped imnediately"?

Yeah, I'm cool calling that "incorrect." And only in hindsight, as more information came in, did we learn the truth about the actual Iraqi situation. I suspect that another twenty years and two hundred journal articles and we will have a much better idea of what's going on in Iraq today than we have now .

Oddly enough, you're proving my point for me.

 

[D'rok]

You agree that writings from a particular time period by the actors themselves is not valid when in disagreement with current text books?

Depends. Will I defer to competent historians over political rhetoric from the period in question? Of course. It would be foolish to do otherwise.

Some argue that history as an academic discipline began with Thucydides. His rendering of Pericles' funeral oration is masterful. But even that is rhetoric itself; it reveals more about the politics of the time than it does about actual fact-based events in the declining democratic Athenian empire. If you based your opinion of what Athens actually was from that speech, you would not have accurate knowledge. Since Thucydides, historians have honed their craft.

It seems to me that this is yet one more example of your radical scepticism, which ends up not looking very sceptical at all. Must you re-invent every wheel based on your own musings?

 

[drkitten]

Although that one doesn't have quite the same ring to it. Maybe a general fallacy would be better?

reductio ad dystopium

I think it's a more general reductio ad fictium; the citation of fictional works as though they described reality. I've seen eutopiae cited in this context as well, where someone points out that a particular course of action must be good because it worked for Batman....

 

[D'rok]

I think it's a more general reductio ad fictium; the citation of fictional works as though they described reality. I've seen eutopiae cited in this context as well, where someone points out that a particular course of action must be good because it worked for Batman....

Ah, the Batman ontological theory. I think I'll base my reality on Lord of the Rings. I'm dorky that way.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

How do you know they don't disagree? You are only reading current text books.

I have read the inaqurual addresses and have some primary sources. I admit haven't read much of the CSA's writings. Well, none, really. I should, I suppose, and probably will later.

Anyway, discussion re the Civil War should be posted elsewhere, and I've started a thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107713

 

[skeptical]

I stated that I am willing to listen to the course. In fact, I generally seek out presentations which hold contrary views. I just am not going to pay for information which is purported to present a conclusion which is incorrect.

The POINT is, you are basing an assessment of a course on what some unknown person says they think the course will convince you of. You know nothing more about it than that, and you have already decided that it is "propaganda". You are allowing the opinion of someone you don't even know to bias your assessment of information before you have even looked at the information.

Do you not see the problem with this?

ETA: Another problem is, you have appear to have absolute certainty that you are right. If you are not willing to consider that you might be wrong in your current historical assessment, then there is not much point in examining any courses. You must be willing to consider new information, or you will learn nothing.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Another problem is, you have appear to have absolute certainty that you are right.

Did not the offer of the information carry the idea that the presenter was certain he was right?

You are not being consistent in your thoughts or criticisms.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You mean, incorrect characterizations like "Iraq is buying yellowcake uranium in support of its active WMD program, and therefore must be stopped imnediately"?

Yeah, I'm cool calling that "incorrect." And only in hindsight, as more information came in, did we learn the truth about the actual Iraqi situation. I suspect that another twenty years and two hundred journal articles and we will have a much better idea of what's going on in Iraq today than we have now .

Oddly enough, you're proving my point for me.

Equivocation Extraordinary!


ETA: I was wondering if I put it in italics and gave it a Latin sounding cadence would it carry more weight?

 

[JoeEllison]

Ah, the Batman ontological theory. I think I'll base my reality on Lord of the Rings. I'm dorky that way.

Don't you mean you're D'roky that way?

 

[D'rok]

Don't you mean you're D'roky that way?

Drat! My anagram secret is out.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You are incorrect. I would recommend reading the writings from that time period, not text books recently written telling you was was going on then.

Why don't you just tell us what the causes were, so we can laugh at you.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Why don't you just tell us what the causes were, so we can laugh at you.

That does seem the extent of the thinking ability of many.

By the way, who is this "we"? Do you carry a mouse in your pocket?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That does seem the extent of the thinking ability of many.

By the way, who is this "we"? Do you carry a mouse in your pocket?

Libertarians like you have been the source of much laughter and derision over the years on this forum.

Sounds like you don't want to post the cause(s) of the Civil War.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Libertarians like you have been the source of much laughter and derision over the years on this forum.

Symptom of weak minds that have fallen into atrophy.

Sounds like you don't want to post the cause(s) of the Civil War.

I already did.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I already did.

Without even reading it.....

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Without even reading it.....

I did nine! This makes me 9 times as good a thinker as you!

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Stop being a child, Jerome. That is, stop moving the goalposts, stop being intellecutally dishonest and above al lelase, stop automatically rejecting anything that doesn't agree with your worldview.

 

[skeptical]

Did not the offer of the information carry the idea that the presenter was certain he was right?

You are not being consistent in your thoughts or criticisms.

There is a difference between thinking you are right, and being absolutely certain of it. Everyone thinks they are right, the question is whether they are willing to re-evaluate.

Based on a single posters comment that they thought information in a course would convince you of something, an opinion that could have been interpreted in numerous ways, you made the enormous leap of logic that:

1) The course is nothing but propaganda
2) The course is factually wrong

If you can make these statements without having seen the course or its material, the only reasonable conclusion is that you have a certainty in your opinions that is the equivalent of a religious belief and is not based on evidence.