[MD] Free Speech

[ian glendinning]

Platt said,
> Arlo is intolerant because he cannot tolerate anyone who disagrees with his
> idea of what constitutes "intellectual grounds."

No Platt, as David M points out Arlo shows amazing tolerance,
persistence and patience, where others of us have given up many times
previously.

I see your arguments as extremely "anti-intellectual", and what you
are failing to see is the point Arlo repeatedly tries to make, that
you seem to provide only social arguments, interwoven with sneaky
rhetoric to see if they will pass for intellect.

Regards
Ian

On 11/26/06, ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [Platt]
> No, Arlo is intolerant because he cannot tolerate anyone who disagrees with his
> idea of what constitutes "intellectual grounds."
>
> [Arlo]
> The "intellectual grounds" demanded by the Academy is thorough and intensive.
> The "intellectual grounds" you demand consists solely of "Limbaugh said it".
>
> And since we've reduced "intellectual grounds" to "what my party says",
> "intolerance" is reduced to anyone who thinks any position is "wrong". Like I
> said, a reduction to meaningless to deflect criticism. The "Pee Wee Maneuver".
> (Which is what you're trying to do to "intellectual grounds" as well.)
>
> There is no such thing as "selflessness", so my selfishness is justified.
> There is no such thing as "tolerance", so my intolerance is justified.
> Criticizing "hate" is "hateful", and so espousing hate and condemning it are
> exactly the same.
> Criticizing "fear" is "fearful", and so manipulating fear and exposing it are no
> different.
>
> Thank goodness the Academy does not cave to warped rhetoric like this.
>
> [Platt]
> As for "reductio ad adiafore" (something Arlo made up --a search of Google and
> Wikipedia came up with no results) it's directly contradicted by Dr. H. Scott
> Peck, as follows:
>
> [Arlo]
> Adiafore is latin for meaningless. A "reduction to meaninglessness" is what this
> tactic attempts to do. There is no such thing as "unselfishness", or
> "tolerance", or "non-fear". Make everyone else as low as you, and you make
> yourself look better. Or so the attempt is.
>
> [Platt quotes someone who I suppose he considers an "authority"]
> "There is no such thing as an unselfish person. I myself am totally selfish.
> Strictly speaking, I've never done a thing for anyone else....
>
> [Arlo]
> Horrible right-wing "logic". If everyone everywhere is "selfish", then how on
> earth do we even understand the word "selfless"? Or come up with it in the
> first place. Luckily, "logic" like this is rare in the Academy.
>
> [The illogic continues]
> "When I extend myself for my children, it's because I want to have an image of
> myself as a good father."
>
> [Arlo]
> Yes, so this person is as selfish as Scrooge. Both Mother Theresa and the
> capitalist are equally selfish. Indeed, everyone is always selfish. Define the
> word into meaningless. Just what I had said. Thanks for providing another
> example.
>
> [Platt]
> Yes indeed, chagrined at Arlo's tactic of claiming intellectual superiority for
> himself and DMB. I have yet to see any evidence. :-)
>
> [Arlo]
> The intellectual criticisms against the social-level perversion of intellectual
> patterns by both the KKK and Coulter are quite well-documented. Indeed, this
> isn't even a claim of "intellectual superiority", since that would be the
> outcome of two conflicting intellectual patterns. Since both the KKK and
> Coulter rely on manipulations of fear to elevate social patterns OVER
> intellectual patterns, I'd say its "intellectual pattern superiority". Which is
> how it should be.
>
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>