What follows is my latest, as yet unpublished, two-part comment to Ben Goren on his anti-Top Gear post. I assume he's been busy and that it will be published later, but I think it stands up reasonably well as a response on an entry-level political debate - reasonably well enough to be reproduced here. Ben's remarks appear in italics, mine in regular typeface...
* * *
"...since the Football club had helpfully put in both the rule [on ejecting fans from their stadium for shouting racist abuse - ed] and means to enforce it they have in practice accorded me the right to not have to hear..."
Not so; you conflate 'expectation' with 'right' because, I surmise, you don't have a clear understanding of what 'rights' are: the basic necessities of a free and decent society, not subordinate rules like this. The only right in play here is the right to private property pertaining to the football club; since the stadium is their property, they may rightly establish whatever rules they like - yes including any insane ones you might imagine (for which their supporters and other people would punish them by refusing to attend or by ostracism or other civil measures).
"...the right to not be offended which in practice is likely to put untenable pressures on a society through the suspicion and fear it could generate."
Yes - correct, but not the primary reason why such a right would be invalid.
".. anything involving morality is difficult.."
Some things may be difficult, but to say 'anything' is false - or it is only true for instinctively evil people, the easily confused and those without a firm conceptual grasp of the relevant principles, their derivation from which premises, and the situations to which they do and do not apply.
"Keeo [sic] the license fee. Make the BBC reach a higher standard. Don't have to go all Orwelian but cracking down on racist stereotyping and sexism is a good first step."
How about this? "Keep thieves on the street. Make them reach a higher standard in how they spend their stolen goods. Don't have to go all Orwellian but cracking down on say cheap booze and drugs would be a good first step." Where's the difference in principle Ben? The BBC's license fee is a transparent instance of coercion, and ought never to have been instituted in the first place. The best way to raise standards at the BBC is to abolish the license fee and expose the BBC to the mechanisms of market competition.
"A friend today told me he didn't believe in free speech because he didn't believe people should be free to stand in a crowded theater and shout 'fire!'."
Then I'm sorry Ben, but your friend is a moral and intellectual teletubby, for he/she clearly thinks 'rights' are akin to political bon bons dished out by the State-God. They are not. Here: 'rights' are the moral sanctions for you to exercise full authority over your own life in a social context that includes other people - which necessarily entails commensurate responsibilities to the rights of other people. In the case of the theatre, the act of shouting out "fire" (assuming there isn't actually a fire) is not granted by the right to free speech, since shouting out "fire" is likely to cause other people to be killed or injured in a stampede - which contradicts the right to life. This is merely an example of the principle that authority over your own life entails responsibility to others.
"...so we have laws that establish rights in the person that clearly delineate what actions contravene those rights."
Will you stop doing that? Rewriting what I said to include concepts I did not mention - in this case "laws". "Rights" are distinct from laws - in the same way that 'justice' is distinct from law, since there may be both just and unjust laws.
"So, since the law has gradually evolved according to social mores, norms and values such as 'free', 'just' and 'decent' they are themselves the outcome of a general discussion about what is commonly held to be offensive: abuse of the person."
Yes in a narrow sense but no in the broader and more important sense. Yes: certainly laws have changed over time - to call this an "evolution" may be more accurate in respect of the old British common law tradition, but the recent growth of statutory laws did not 'evolve', for many such laws were derived from political fiat (in an arrogant, paternalistic and misguided attempt to "improve" the morals of the population), not common cultural acceptance. No: as I have just indicated above, my point about why child abuse is wrong pertains to the nature of justice, not the nature of laws; child abuse is not illegal in Afghanistan for instance, but does that make child abuse 'just' so long as it occurs in Afghanistan? Of course not - it just means the people in Afghanistan are savages.
Laws may be just or unjust - and their 'justice' is not to be measured in the degree to which they reflect prevailing social mores, since the fact that these things change (and often through political and religious manipulation) would render the concept of justice itself arbitrary and meaningless [actually, no - the correct term there would not be "meaningless" but redundant since "justice" would be no more than the application of social mores - ed]. No - the justice of laws is to be ascertained in comparison to how they reflect a Universalist ethics which must be derived, if not from objective facts, then from basic prescriptive premises that can be applied universally. See my post on Martin Luther King's "Letter From Birmingham Jail" for related remarks on this point.
* * *
Saturday 5 February 2011
27 comments:
Comment moderation is now in place, as of April 2012. Rules:
1) Be aware that your right to say what you want is circumscribed by my right of ownership here.
2) Make your comments relevant to the post to which they are attached.
3) Be careful what you presume: always be prepared to evince your point with logic and/or facts.
4) Do not transgress Blogger's rules regarding content, i.e. do not express hatred for other people on account of their ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation or nationality.
5) Remember that only the best are prepared to concede, and only the worst are prepared to smear.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hello Michael
ReplyDeleteI am interested as to the sense in which you hold things like private property to be rights, while dismissing Ben's putative 'right' as invalid (let's leave aside the seeming contradiction that arises from you denying it is a right while in the next breath saying it is an invalid right, surely an oxymoron of sorts).
I have read several of your posts treating of the subject of rights without yet coming across anything approaching an express metaethical foundation for your position (admittedly I haven't read your writings exhaustively, so please feel free to bang me to, er, rights with a relevant passage).
Perhaps you feel the dichotomy of positive and negative rights a contrived or fallacious one but as intuitive as your contention is that rights may be defined as the basic necessities, you do not establish a case for the objectivity of certain rights.
Do you consider yourself a moral realist? If so, I must baldly state that the notion that ethics can derived from objective facts - as if they were, to paraphrase Mackie, somehow woven into the fabric of the universe - is demonstrably false. In what would objective values consist? Arguments as facile as that of queerness seem sufficient to dismantle the claims of non-natural properties propounded by Moore.
With your mention of prescriptive principles (surely not premisses), am I to take it that what you are tilting at is some kind of inter-subjectivity (Cf. again Mackie) of values? Until you set forth a workable framework for a foundation of morals, which I do not think you can do, I am baffled as to how you can deny or posit something as a right in any other than the legal sense.
Cheers
James
James,
ReplyDeleteI haven't yet written a piece explaining the political derivation of rights from ethical premises as such (but yes, premises - since these include both principles and prerequisite concepts such as free will) but I did make some brief comments on this general topic on my post on the Letter From Birmingham Jail under the section entitled "The Religious Basis of King's Universalist Conception of Justice". It would be good for me to write up a proper essay on this topic to refer back to.
"...let's leave aside the seeming contradiction that arises from you denying it is a right while in the next breath saying it is an invalid right, surely an oxymoron of sorts."
Let's not, since it is easily explained and involves an error on my part: there are two senses to the term "right" - one concerning its' politico-legal instantiation (is), and the other pertaining to its derivation from ethics (ought). My error was in not distinguishing these two senses.
"Do you consider yourself a moral realist?"
In an ironic sense, yes, but I am not flippant about this.
"If so, I must baldly state that the notion that ethics can derived from objective facts - as if they were, to paraphrase Mackie, somehow woven into the fabric of the universe - is demonstrably false."
I presume you understand Hume's Law, yes? Then with that problem in mind as context, perhaps you can demonstrate the falsity of the following assertion: there are no objective facts about ethics, except one: this one itself.
Michael
ReplyDeleteNot sure what you have in mind when you say Hume's Law as, like the Fork, this often refers to rather distinct ideas. In the context of ethics, it is usually referring to the is-ought distinction, right?
Your statement appears to be more in keeping with the circle that also crops up in Hume's Standard of Good Taste. It is no mean thing to be accused of begging the question and I think you might have had a fair point had I said there are no objective facts about ethics. I didn't exactly say that, though. Still, 'demonstrably' was a bit strong, you are right, and I concede that I am in something of a logical bind here. Like Wittgenstein, I want to have my cake and eat it, spending a lot of time talking about that which must be passed over in silence!
Really, though, all this is by the by. The question in my original post remains unanswered: outside of jurisprudence, what, in your view, makes private property a right, while Ben's posited right not to have to suffer verbal abuse is not?
"In the context of ethics, it is usually referring to the is-ought distinction, right?"
ReplyDeleteYes - there are quite a few terms flying about, and I suppose the onus is on me to clearly delineate subject and aspect here. But yes Hume's is-ought problem.
"I think you might have had a fair point had I said there are no objective facts about ethics. I didn't exactly say that, though. Still, 'demonstrably' was a bit strong, you are right, and I concede that I am in something of a logical bind here."
Alright, fair play.
"Really, though, all this is by the by."
Well not quite actually, because it has import for an individualist ethics from which a preference for the right to private property is derived - for if no ought can be derived from an is (other than the "meta-ought" that no other oughts can/may be so derived), then there can be no objective ethical justification for violating the non-aggression principle by, for example, the State robbing from Peter to give to Paul - an act which by its coercive nature is an attempt to impose some "ought" upon Peter. By contrast, merely observing the non-aggression principle (i.e. not violating it) involves no such contradiction by the Humean is-ought gap.
These are just brief, off-hand remarks for now James, as I don't have time - but I promise you I'll write this up as a proper posting in its own right sometime this week, maybe even tonight or tommorow.
Cheers Michael.
ReplyDeleteI'm particularly interested in this as there is marked translatlantic divide on this subject with my North American pals universally holding freedom of speech without restriction to be sacrosanct.
Because it is enshrined in the Constitution, some seem to hold it to be an objective right but really is is just the interefernce of state that they object to. Brits, by no means all - or even most - I find to be much more at ease with checks on such freedoms where they feel they interfere with other 'liberties' such as the one Ben mentions.
Look forward to you post.
"...my North American pals universally holding freedom of speech without restriction to be sacrosanct."
ReplyDeleteIt depends on what kind of "restriction", but if by that you mean laws passed by the State, then, although I myself am British, I am 100% with the Americans on this (and for the price of a bottle of Baker's I can be 200% with them).
"Because it is enshrined in the Constitution, some seem to hold it to be an objective right but really is is just the interefernce of state that they object to."
Well the Bill of Rights is a document expressing the political recognition of those rights, and the consequent proscription of the interference of the State in matters pertaining to those rights, but the document itself cannot be held up as an argument for the ethical objectivity of, or justification for those rights. So here, I'd be with the Americans again but I'd have better arguments than that.
"Brits, by no means all - or even most - I find to be much more at ease with checks on such freedoms where they feel they interfere with other 'liberties' such as the one Ben mentions."
I'd say that a lot of people in Britain have simply become accustomed to a life bounded and shaped by the State - so much so that they overlook this very fact, even as they trumpet their "liberalism" and "tolerance".
Anyway, got coffee, I'll start writing...
Of course, I felt quite certain you would agree with our American pals. I'm not if you were being serious but elsewhere I think I've seen you saying Obama is a Marxist, the kind of thing we hear from Glenn Beck and something nearly all of my American friends think is preposterous.
ReplyDeleteWhere you see sanctimonious faux liberalism and tolerance I see a libertarianism that culminates in a lack of community and humanity for the less fortunate. If you don't want your tax money given to scrounging loafers, by all means live outside the state as an anarchist.
Am I to take it you do not agree with any legislation on incitement to violence?
"Obama is a Marxist, the kind of thing we hear from Glenn Beck and something nearly all of my American friends think is preposterous."
ReplyDeleteJust because all your friends say so, doesn't mean they are right.
In fact I'd go so far as to say that neither they nor yourself seem to understand the term "Marxist" as anything other than a sort of swear word. The history of the political Left in Europe is intimately tied up with Marxism - with the hardline Marxists forming the Communist parties and the moderate Marxists helping to form the Social Democratic parties. Moreover, the claim that someone is a "Marxist" ought not, of itself, to be inflammatory - the journalist Christopher Hitchens, for example, is a self-confessed Marxist (though not a socialist) and is someone for whom I have a very large measure of respect.
However, the current President (and the Secretary Of State) actually are Marxists - though perhaps of a more vulgar sort (and they have other shortcomings) - and this is something you would know from actually attending to their intellectual influences and occupational history. It is not "preposterous" to say such people are Marxists, it is merely a more or less precise statement of fact.
"I see a libertarianism that culminates in a lack of community and humanity for the less fortunate."
That's because you're not thinking, you're just reacting on an ingrained political reflex.
Interesting post but a negative conceptions of rights doesn't, as you seem to think, extricate one from the problem of explaining how Ben's 'right' is not actually a right at all. Far from it.
ReplyDeleteIt is pretty easy to skew many purported rights to fit either category, most negative rights having at some level to be guaranteed by at least the possibility of coercion.
Can the right to be free from abuse not be construed as negative? It's all very well claiming hate laws are infractions of the negative right not be have speech curtailed but that is just another law itself. I'm afraid you have proved very little aside from the fact that you can also beg the odd question.
I don't have the time to address your ontological claims right now but I will say that the black and white distinction you would draw of freedom loving individualists, on the one hand, and ant-like drones on the other does no one any favours.
As for the observations as to what I or the folk I have mentioned know(or don't as you prefer), I'll let them slide as I don't want this to unravel into petty ad hominem sniping.
"...a negative conceptions of rights doesn't, as you seem to think, extricate one from the problem of explaining how Ben's 'right' is not actually a right at all. Far from it."
ReplyDeleteThe post on rights was meant as a general take on rights for me to refer back to in future posts (and from which you could work out the answer to specific questions like that yourself), and was not intended specifically as answer to that question.
However... in so far as Ben's "right" not to be offended is concerned, I was never in any problem to begin with for as I explained to Ben, what counts as "offensive" is subjective (I find the title of Turton's blog offensive for instance). What counts as coercion is not subjective. Therefore whether a "right" to not be offended is construed as negative is besides the point, since such a right is incoherent to begin with and would thus necessarily lead to vaguely worded laws granting an effectively arbitrary power of prosecution. It's banana republic stuff.
"...most negative rights having at some level to be guaranteed by at least the possibility of coercion."
Says you. I say they don't - for that would collapse the very concept of a negative right into self-contradiction. No, they are made real by the credible threat of retaliation, not coercion. In present circumstances it is the State that poses the threat of retaliation to violations of negative liberty (assuming it does at all) on behalf of the wronged, but it does not need to be - it can be a woman who has chosen to arm herself with a 22 handgun. You've merely presumed the truth of your own assertion without any supporting argument.
"It's all very well claiming hate laws are infractions of the negative right not be have speech curtailed but that is just another law itself."
But it's a different kind of law - it is a constitutional law - not a legislative law, and thus has no means of enforcement except that which the people bring to bear upon those who presume to govern them.
"...I will say that the black and white distinction you would draw of freedom loving individualists, on the one hand, and ant-like drones on the other does no one any favours."
I didn't say "ant-like drones", because I was not using a metaphor, and my purpose was not ad-hominem. I said "member cell of a larger hive-like entity"; a literal description of one kind of relation between an individual and a group made salient in the nature of ethical thought and action. And you'll note the qualification too - when adherence to "positive rights" is not the result of error or a slip into Irrationalism.
"As for the observations as to what I or the folk I have mentioned know(or don't as you prefer), I'll let them slide as I don't want this to unravel into petty ad hominem sniping."
Well I won't. You're the one who said that a description of the current President as a Marxist was something your American friends thought preposterous. If that's true, then I presume precisely nothing when I say that you and your friends simply aren't in possession of the relevant facts.
"However, the current President (and the Secretary Of State) actually are Marxists..."
ReplyDeleteLOL! A Marxist that bails out Wall Street... I love it! I suppose you can dig through Marx' writings, however, and turn Marxist to mean whatever you want it to. But most people understand a Marxist to be a communist, just as they understand beer is a drink, pen is something to write with, etc.
A fairly entertaining back and forth. It kind of gets extreme at the end when you say you're in possession of the relevant facts. I wonder if history's smartest individuals have made similar claims.
"But most people understand a Marxist to be a communist, just as they understand beer is a drink, pen is something to write with, etc."
ReplyDeleteAnd not only do "most" people make mistakes every day, but, if what you say is true, then "most" people are guilty of two particular mistakes here: the first is a failure to identify the rational nature of the principles behind the President's actions (Marxist principles), and the second is that they are ignorant of the history of Marxist thought subsequent to the 1960s, as I see you yourself are - despite your interest in history. In stating the relation of Marxism to communism, you have it the wrong way around; just as a beer is one among many types of drink, a communist is one among many types of Marxist.
Let me ask you this: is Christopher Hitchens a communist? Or Norm Geras?
"A Marxist that bails out Wall Street... I love it!"
You love it because, like James earlier, you are not thinking, but merely blissfully jerking off on Pavlovian reflex. Re-check your premises Patrick and look for contradicting information. Here for example, is a very short interview with the journalist Stanley Kurtz whose research on Barack Obama's intellectual background brought him to a similar conclusion - although he uses the term "socialist" rather than "Marxist" (but although "Marxist" is the broader concept here, not all Marxists advocate the same idea of "socialism").
It doesn't matter a jot what his intellectual background is Michael. My intellectual background includes the study of Marxism as, I suspect, does yours.
ReplyDeleteYou really are way off telling me I have no understanding of the term and that that's why I am disputing it. The following is the most ludicrously patronising and unsubstantiated claptrap:
"Well I won't. You're the one who said that a description of the current President as a Marxist was something your American friends thought preposterous. If that's true, then I presume precisely nothing when I say that you and your friends simply aren't in possession of the relevant facts."
What a fine argument: I say O is X. You and your mates say the claim that O is X is rubbish. I say that's because your definition of X is rubbish (in fact, I really say you have no cogent definition of X). With that, I have in some way proved that O is X.
Sounds like more question begging in the form of an appeal to authority - yours. Oh and before you accuse me of the same fallacy in invoking "my friends," I was in no way trying to claim it was "preposterous" because my friends said it. I have, to borrow from your lexicon of pomposity, much better arguments than that.
I, as easily as you, can just claim your understanding of something is flawed (in fact I'd say I have better grounds, regardless of whether you are right or wrong, as you have revealed much more of your hand).
Instead of slipping the conclusion into the premisses and, once again, begging what is in question, how about telling us what a Marxist is and explaining how Obama is one. I don't think you come close to doing in the post where you claim it to be the case.
Oh and for Pete's sake stop harping on about Hitch. I too have a lot of time for him but what on earth does it have to do with the price of fish? Saying not all Marxists are the same proves nothing.
"It doesn't matter a jot what his intellectual background is..."
ReplyDeleteWell it wouldn't matter if he had subsequently revealed and repudiated it, rather than tried to hide it from public view.
"My intellectual background includes the study of Marxism as, I suspect, does yours."
It doesn't actually, at least not beyond having read a few things on my own.
"You really are way off telling me I have no understanding of the term..."
Well what else do I have to go on, other than your own words? I'm not a mind-reader. You reacted as if it was controversial to call Barack Obama a Marxist. I'll make the argument for this claim in due course, but I just want to say briefly that I find it very interesting that some people think this controversial. I say it's a fair inference to draw from consideration of his policy choices as President, voting record in the Senate and background in community organizing. And then there's also his intellectual background and past associations (which went far beyond merely being a daft student "hanging out" with Marxist profs).
"...how about telling us what a Marxist is and explaining how Obama is one. I don't think you come close to doing in the post where you claim it to be the case."
I could make a blog post on this to explicate my argument for the claim more fully, but in a nutshell the reasoning is as follows:
{1} The salient Marxist doctrine here is collective ownership, via the State, of the means of production. It is a Marxist doctrine of means - the nature of the ends is something I should write on at more length than a blog comment.
{2} The bills which Obama has signed (the financial reform bill, stimulus bill and healthcare bill) further politicize to a far greater degree than they ever have been previously, structurally significant aspects of the market economy (i.e. these bills transfer subtle, but de-facto control over certain means of production to the State). His bail out of the Wall Street banks was achieved by asking the Fed to print dollars, giving them to the banks and then paying them to sit on this money to cover their liabilities. This is either a hyper inflation tap waiting to be turned (recall the dictum attributed to Lenin's that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was by ruining the currency), or a play to gain political control over the capital markets. Either way it's a modern variant on classic Marxist-Leninist tactics. There's so much more to this, but... I'll stop here for brevity's sake.
{3} Conclusion: the President is employing recognizably Marxist means to achieve (presumably) socialist ends - therefore he is a Marxist.
"I, as easily as you, can just claim your understanding of something is flawed (in fact I'd say I have better grounds, regardless of whether you are right or wrong, as you have revealed much more of your hand)."
This is a very interesting comment - you say you'd have better grounds to claim my understanding of something (presumably Marxism?) is flawed regardless of whether I am right or wrong?! If that is not a mistake on your part, then surely it means you will oppose me even if you think I am right, no?
And as to "revealing my hand" - I think you'll find that all my cards have been on the table in open view from the moment I started this blog and this is reflected in my blog's sub-heading, and in many other posts I have made and letters I have written - both published and unpublished.
One last comment: have you nothing at all to concede to me in respect of your earlier claims regarding Ben's "right" to not be offended and the claim that negative liberties depend on coercion?
"he first is a failure to identify the rational nature of the principles behind the President's actions (Marxist principles), and the second is that they are ignorant of the history of Marxist thought subsequent to the 1960s, as I see you yourself are - despite your interest in history."
ReplyDeleteYou miss my point. Marxism = communism in the popular imagination. I am talking about how it is perceived, not about the many other ways its meaning could be worked and reworked by even reading a few pages of Das Kapital. Most people will tell you Marxism = communism means sharing wealth without much of a second thought, regardless of who you are or how hard you have worked to achieve the goodies. The average American, like me, will tell you as much, if you listen to them/me. Obama by this rationale could not be a Marxist, as he bails out rich guys. His bail out package has kept many of the fat cats, and the businesses they operate on Wall Street, operating. He is also not a Marxist = communist because he is rich.
I have made no such claims of an "interest in history." How did you ever come up with that? Let's get it straight. For me, history works in a different way. For starters, I don't believe I've ever explained to you what I am up to when it comes to history. But I'll tell you now: I see history as an obligation to making a record, not an interest (whatever that means and leads to). With all due respect, this "interest" angle reads like a projection. Furthermore, to call history an interest could be viewed as shallow if not dismissive.
I have enjoyed a few of your posts. Your heart is definitely in the right place. I can see that by the amount of blog posts you produce. What are you so worked up about though? Here's my suggestion to you: take it down a couple of notches. Humor is universal; everybody seems to enjoy it. Apply it from time to time. A bit of self-deprecation has never hurt a writer either.
"Most people will tell you Marxism = communism means sharing wealth without much of a second thought, regardless of who you are or how hard you have worked to achieve the goodies... Obama by this rationale could not be a Marxist, as he bails out rich guys. His bail out package has kept many of the fat cats, and the businesses they operate on Wall Street, operating."
ReplyDeleteTwo points: first, that just means, if true (which I don't think it always is), that "most people" are working with an extremely shallow concept of Marxism; second, I throw your rationale right back at you - by the same rationale, was Lenin a Marxist or not?
"I have made no such claims of an "interest in history." How did you ever come up with that? Let's get it straight..."
No, no, no: you get this straight - take more care in future as to what you presume, and don't take that tone with me again on my blog. The only thing I know about you is this post you did on Taiwanese history, hence my use of the word "interest" was with the common meaning as in someone who is "interested in history".
"What are you so worked up about though?"
Read more than a "few" of my posts and you'll know.
"Humor is universal; everybody seems to enjoy it. Apply it from time to time. A bit of self-deprecation has never hurt a writer either."
Time and a place for humour. This is not one of them.
Going to leave this now but #2 is palpable drivel. If you don't like that tone delete/censor away.
ReplyDeleteLike Patrick, I'm a big boy. Check our blogs and see some of the stick we come in for. Neither of us deletes comments, even if they are wanton abuse, which this is so far from being it's laughable.
Talk about pots and kettles. You need to go back to Patrick's blog (yes that is how I made it over here but, no, that is not why I posted) and check YOUR tone mate.
Compared to anything that has been said here, you were extremely confrontational and arrogant. Just a bit of browsing shows you have bags previous in this wise.
It seems you are quite prepared to dish it out but none to fond of being on the receiving end, even when it's an utterly innocuous remark.
If want to stromp off with your ball, go for it. For someone who rails about free speech though, your threats are baffling and pretty (unintentionally) ironic.
"It seems you are quite prepared to dish it out but none to fond of being on the receiving end."
ReplyDeleteI get it all the time elsewhere - and the tone I took on Patrick's blog was not anything like the tone either have you have taken with me. I have no objection to people banning me from their places, and as yet I have no need to resort to deleting your or anyone else's comments.
And I'll note that you haven't had the decency to offer either refutations of my arguments, or to concede that I am right, in spite of me going out of my own way to answer your questions and claims with as much detail as time and space would allow. Your accusation of "drivel" is not an argument and as such can be instantly dismissed without argument itself.
Raise your game if you come back.
mike
Oh and you misunderstood this:
ReplyDelete"(in fact I'd say I have better grounds, regardless of whether you are right or wrong, as you have revealed much more of your hand)."
I mean you have explained yourself and your reasoning, while I have not. All I have said is that I do not believe Obama is a Marxist. I have not said why I believe this.
You have simply resasserted your conclusion and said that because it is valid whatever premisses I have for mine are necessarily faulty.
Once again, as I have not outlined my position, it should be obvious to a fool that I have inherently stronger grounds for disputing yours (again, regardelss, of its validity) than you mine, of which you know naught.
I think this about covers it:
ReplyDelete"I get it all the time elsewhere - and the tone I took on Patrick's blog was not anything like the tone either have you have taken with me"
We'll obviously never see even closely eye-to-eye Mike because you seem to live in an alternative reality.
You used the word 'tone'. Please show me where the descent into (albeit initially veiled) name calling began here. If preposterous offended you, note that I said people considered this position to be so, not that you were.
To employ your favourite little device: No, it started when you started implying that I was a doughnut bereft of the facts.
The reason you rub people up the wrong way is all about tone, which I admit doesn't always convey a writer's intentions. It's just this silly 'Why haven't you responded? will you now admit I'm right?' stuff. This on (at least two to my knowledge) people's blogs. THEIR blogs Mike. But then you have the temerity to start issuing warnings about this being YOUR blog.
Similarly, your claim that your letters are always well written just makes you look like pompous ass.
I've worked as a professional journalist and writer for years and would never make such a claim: I have produced some right doggerel in my time and will doubtless continue to do so. I've also had the odd moment of which I'm fairly proud.
I heard Derek Walcott reflecting on some of the crap he had written in his youth on a visit to Taiwan a few years ago. I think I can safely say that Walcott's crap was probably in a different league from my best!
Learn some humility old bean. You're obviously near the top of the intelligence pile among expats in Taiwan but it doesn't hurt to hold it down sometimes.
"No, no, no: you get this straight - take more care in future as to what you presume, and don't take that tone with me again on my blog."
ReplyDeleteCan dish it up only huh? Your tone is condescending. I wish merely to point out:
A. it's annoying and scuttles anyone wanting to debate the "philosophical" issues that you care about
B. it begs the more general question: "who do you think you are?"
My advice to you is to avoid "scare quotes." If you have something to say, simply say it. Humor and an ounce of humility will serve your purpose in getting readers to empathize with you.
From what I can see, Lenin was hardly a Marxist. Americans have an understanding of the word Marxist. You're probably right, an incorrect one. That wouldn't be the first time. The right wing noise machine has the same understanding of Marxist = capitalist is simply lying to them.
"No, no, no: you get this straight - take more care in future as to what you presume, and don't take that tone with me again on my blog."
Whatever. I've been known to liberate discussions and bring them over to my own blog when I thought the moderator was getting self-righteous. This discussion is not interesting right now, so I probably wouldn't proceed like that, to give this the light of day on a blog that people actually read, etc.
James:
ReplyDelete"All I have said is that I do not believe Obama is a Marxist. I have not said why I believe this."
Despite having asked for, and received, an argument to support the claim.
"You have simply resasserted your conclusion and said that because it is valid whatever premisses I have for mine are necessarily faulty."
Sure: but since I believe my claim that the President is a Marxist to be correct, would it not be strange for me to assert that your contrary conclusion (not your premises) is not faulty? You may or may not have valid premises, but I am reacting to your conclusion - for which, as you say, you have not provided an argument.
"Please show me where the descent into (albeit initially veiled) name calling began..."
I will admit that my assertion that, in addition to your friends, you also found my claim "preposterous" was a presumption - and that this was a bit loose on my part. But it doesn't seem to have been entirely unwarranted, since you have said the argument I gave for this claim is "drivel". As to the "descent" - I say it really started with Patrick's remark:
"LOL! A Marxist that bails out Wall Street... I love it!"
That annoyed me - which is why I responded as I did. Up until then my comments were not really of an ad-hominem nature, and were certainly not gratuitous.
"We'll obviously never see even closely eye-to-eye Mike because you seem to live in an alternative reality."
Show me where I was rude, or adopted a condescending tone on Patrick's post. The claim is not true - I was not rude, slightly confrontational perhaps, but I was disagreeing with him, i.e. confronting something he said and trying to show he was wrong. I made no ad-hominems, and certainly not gratuitous ones. If that constitutes an "alternative reality", then you're the one with the problem, not me.
James again:
ReplyDelete"No, it started when you started implying that I was a doughnut bereft of the facts."
I didn't say "doughnut" and nor did I imply that - your insult not mine. As to you being bereft of the relevant facts, I did not imply this, I said it straight with only the slight qualification of the word "seem" - since I only have your own words to go on. This was a stricture, not an ad-hominem, as I neither said nor implied anything about the personal qualities of you or your friends.
"This on (at least two to my knowledge) people's blogs. THEIR blogs Mike. But then you have the temerity to start issuing warnings about this being YOUR blog."
Other people on their own blogs are entirely free to respond to me or ignore me, or ask me to wait, or demand that I don't say this or that, or take a certain tone - or to ban me from commenting there altogether (and I've both received and complied with all of these things out of a respect for private property, including a ban from Turton's blog). I simply reserve the same right to make such requests or demands on my own blog.
"Similarly, your claim that your letters are always well written just makes you look like pompous ass."
That claim was made in response to Ben's implied assertion that my letters are often badly written and wildly irrational. I did nothing more than stand up for myself - nobody else is willing to do so on my behalf - so I have little choice. I would have been a pompous ass if I had claimed I was always right, but I didn't and I so far as I can recall I have never said this, so your accusation is unwarranted.
"I've worked as a professional journalist and writer for years and would never make such a claim: I have produced some right doggerel in my time and will doubtless continue to do so. I've also had the odd moment of which I'm fairly proud."
Good for you, but that has nothing to do with me. I am not a professional journalist, and I haven't got a pot to piss in, but that doesn't mean I have an obligation to make fun of myself and denigrate my own writing - even if that might make you and Patrick more comfortable.
"Learn some humility old bean."
I have it in spades already (yes, I'm aware of the irony of that statement) and am perfectly willing to concede defeat in an argument (which can be seen elsewhere in other posts and comments) - but neither of you have given me much argument at all.
***
Patrick:
"Your tone is condescending."
Yours was to me, or at least, it seemed that way. I need say nothing to you on that score, since I merely retaliated to your LOL tone.
"If you have something to say, simply say it."
I have done.
"From what I can see, Lenin was hardly a Marxist."
Oh - what was he then? I'd say the onus is on you to prove that he wasn't since I know of no author who would deny this.
"The right wing noise machine has the same understanding of Marxist = capitalist is simply lying to them."
That's a syntactical mess, but insofar as I can ascertain the meaning, this is nothing but a vague and unsupported accusation against nobody in particular.
"I probably wouldn't proceed like that, to give this the light of day on a blog that people actually read, etc."
Hey I didn't invite your magnificence here or ask of him to bring me "the light of day", so you're perfectly welcome to piss off back to your own blog which "people actually read, etc".
"Hey I didn't invite your magnificence here or ask of him to bring me "the light of day", so you're perfectly welcome to piss off back to your own blog which "people actually read, etc"."
ReplyDeleteLOL. I plan on doing just that in two or three moments. Yes, I said two or three moments. Then I'll go back to my readers, just as you have advised. I should remind you though that when I do, you'll be losing a good 25 to 50 percent of your readership. As one of the two or three, perhaps four, that has done a bit of wading on your "blog," I think I have the right to say something (even if nobody else besides you and James will even read it). Here goes. It's a response to: "That's a syntactical mess, but insofar as I can ascertain the meaning, this is nothing but a vague and unsupported accusation against nobody in particular." Do you actually talk like this? Do you grab people and back them into a corner and go on about how they speak or write? If so, do you also think you are gracious and well-mannered? I don't. I think anyone who says "that's a syntactical mess" is an idiot.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone in Taiwan actually get your pedantic windbaggery? Has a single person from Taiwan ever responded to you?
"As one of the two or three, perhaps four, that has done a bit of wading on your "blog," I think I have the right to say something..."
ReplyDeleteNo you don't have any such "right" on my blog; you are here entirely on my sufferance. Patience exhausted: piss off, take your "readers" with you and don't come back. If you'd have talked like that to my face I'd have fucking lamped you by now.
(In response to deleted post): I won't tell you again Patrick - don't come back.
ReplyDelete'I haven't got a pot to piss in'
ReplyDeleteNeither do I Mike. I support four people working several jobs. I wasn't trying to act the big shot by saying I work as a journo. I've not been particularly successful and I struggle every month to make ends meet.
It's no fun being poor Mike, I know, but it's a good deal worse when you have people depending on you. For what it's worth, I'm sorry this degenerated into this morass. I really do think you have an aptitude for rubbing people up the wrong way, though and should think about why that is. I guess it takes ones to know one and all that ...