[MD] BBC documentary 'the trap'

[John Carl]

o.m.g., dearest Darling David,
  There is this thing people do, where they project what is in their own
minds onto others and you seem to be doing that a lot.

dmb]

> I think you and others are trying WAY too hard to find something wrong with
> that documentary. To the extent that it exposes and criticizes things you
> believe in, this is understandable. But it's just face-saving ego stuff and
> that is not intellectually respectable.



I myself have not seen the documentary, but I did read Craig's explanation
of why he found it's arguments  weak.  He presented a clear logical argument
of classic simplicity and explanation.  If you disagree with his logic, you
should address that.  But you don't.  You attack instead of argue .  Tsk
tsk.  That comes across as defensive and intellectually weak.  We are here
to do philosophy.  Philosophy includes logic and rhetoric.  Hopefully
working together.  Rhetoric isn't just pounding the table.  Clear reasonable
argumentation is the rule.

Or did you think that being the designated teacher's pet puts you beyond the
rules?

dmb]

> The Trap merely explains the suspicious, paranoid historical context (the
> cold war) in which a suspicious, paranoid theory of human behavior was able
> to take hold.


Ok I'll take your word for it.  I'd come to that conclusion myself just
based on the plain relationship of fact, but I suppose having a talking head
confirm it for me wouldn't hurt.

 dmb]

> This is not a syllogism of any type.


Dude.  Everything can be framed as  syllogism.  Everything is an argument,
with parts.  It is the classic  process of philosophical debate to re-frame
english into logical construction and base conclusions on that.  It's been a
while since I studied formal logical refutation, but I sorta expect a bit
more from a guy who is supposedly devoted to that whole academic philosophy
path.

 dmb]

> It's just an observation of what occurred. It only connects the dots in a
> complex cultural situation, which has very little to do with any kind of
> logic.


I believe you.  And what a sad commentary it is on modern discourse. And  if
what you say  is so, then it has bigger problems than Craig was describing.
 Tsk Tsk indeed.   You yourself seem to have very little to do with any kind
of logic, it must be a spreading disease.


dmb]

> And the responses to this documentary from right-wing apologists like
> yourself also seem to have very little to do with any logic.



Ah if only life were like tv, and the good guys and the bad guys were so
easy to distinguish.  You've got this nice meaningless cliche all  set up in
your head and you attack it constantly.

 My advice is more time with a good basic logic text and less with HBO.


John the good advicer