|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 17, 2019 21:45:58 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2019 10:01:26 GMT -5
Rand made a comment on a genocide that happened a hundred years earlier. And what she said was clearly in conflict with the rest of her philosophy (especially the non-initiation of violence). By contrast, Chomsky was denying a Genocide while it was happening, and the evidence was right there in front of him. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 18, 2019 11:41:08 GMT -5
Rand made a comment on a genocide that happened a hundred years earlier. And what she said was clearly in conflict with the rest of her philosophy (especially the non-initiation of violence). By contrast, Chomsky was denying a Genocide while it was happening, and the evidence was right there in front of him.
What does Chomsky's denial of a genocide have to do with his comments about postmodernism, a completely different subject?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2019 13:55:34 GMT -5
Good point! You haven't been able to explain that in the other thread, either.
So, what does his supposed denial of genocide have to do with anything?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 18, 2019 13:57:17 GMT -5
Good point! You haven't been able to explain that in the other thread, either. So, what does his supposed denial of genocide have to do with anything?
What does Rand's? 
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2019 14:05:52 GMT -5
Good point! You haven't been able to explain that in the other thread, either. So, what does his supposed denial of genocide have to do with anything? What does Rand's? Bob
If you dismiss a genocide denier's ideas because they denied a genocide, then why are you not dismissing a genocide advocate's ideas because they advocated for genocide?
Your characterization of Chomsky as a "Holocaust denier" and your equation of Cambodia with the Holocaust says something very interesting about your real motivation, but what would be a Red Herring here.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 18, 2019 14:22:40 GMT -5
What does Rand's? If you dismiss a genocide denier's ideas because they denied a genocide, then why are you not dismissing a genocide advocate's ideas because they advocated for genocide? Exactly when did I dismiss Chomsky's ideas because he denied the Cambodian Genocide? I never did. Go back to that thread and read the posts again. I never once claimed that Chomsky's ideas should be dismissed because he denied the Cambodian Holocaust. Ad Hominem. My alleged motivation has nothing to do with the validity of my posts. Have you found any factual errors in my posts so far? If so, please state them. If not, then simply admit that you have not been able to find any factual errors. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2019 12:49:31 GMT -5
Exactly. Your insinuation that Chomsky is a Nazi was an ad hominem, intended to undermine the validity of his arguments, without you ever actually engaging with his arguments in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 19, 2019 12:58:17 GMT -5
Exactly. Your insinuation that Chomsky is a Nazi was an ad hominem, intended to undermine the validity of his arguments, without you ever actually engaging with his arguments in the first place.
Nope. I never said that Chomsky was a Nazi. You made that up.
What I did say was that he was a denier of the Cambodian Holocaust. And that was true.
As for undermining validity of arguments without actually engaging them in the first place, I refer you to your many, many posts about the one time Rand mentioned the Native-American genocide.
Apparently you believe that only you may use Ad Hominems.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2019 13:49:46 GMT -5
Exactly. Your insinuation that Chomsky is a Nazi was an ad hominem, intended to undermine the validity of his arguments, without you ever actually engaging with his arguments in the first place. Nope. I never said that Chomsky was a Nazi. You made that up.
What I did say was that he was a denier of the Cambodian Holocaust. And that was true. If you had actually read my post before starting your usual "I-dinna-say-nuthin" song-and-dance, you would have noticed that instead of claiming that you literally said "Chomsky is a Nazi", I claimed that you insinuated as such with your "Holocaust Denier" moniker. LOL, I really hit a nerve there didn't I? Maybe, if you want to keep your high horse, don't become the follower of a genocide apologist when you want to argue that not believing the same as you turns me into Hitler. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 19, 2019 14:29:56 GMT -5
Nope. I never said that Chomsky was a Nazi. You made that up. What I did say was that he was a denier of the Cambodian Holocaust. And that was true. If you had actually read my post before starting your usual "I-dinna-say-nuthin" song-and-dance, you would have noticed that instead of claiming that you literally said "Chomsky is a Nazi", I claimed that you insinuated as such with your "Holocaust Denier" moniker. The mass murder of over 20% of the Cambodian population is just as much of a Holocaust as the Nazi Genocide and the massacres of Tamerlane the "Great". No special insinuation meant. And none necessary. You didn't hit a nerve. But you keep referring to it again and again so I have to respond. One error does not refute a whole philosophy. I totally reject Rand's view of the Native-American slaughter. I have already said so on several occasions. I never accused you of being Hitler. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2019 22:38:56 GMT -5
If you had actually read my post before starting your usual "I-dinna-say-nuthin" song-and-dance, you would have noticed that instead of claiming that you literally said "Chomsky is a Nazi", I claimed that you insinuated as such with your "Holocaust Denier" moniker. The mass murder of over 20% of the Cambodian population is just as much of a Holocaust as the Nazi Genocide and the massacres of Tamerlane the "Great". No special insinuation meant. And none necessary. my emphasis
I never accused you of being Hitler. By which you mean, you never used the literal words "I accuse you of being Hitler" when argueing that being Hitler is the logical end point for every leftist/statist/not-Randian, after ten years of argueing that every single political position I hold is "fascist" or otherwise leads to becoming Hitler. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 19, 2019 22:48:30 GMT -5
The mass murder of over 20% of the Cambodian population is just as much of a Holocaust as the Nazi Genocide and the massacres of Tamerlane the "Great". No special insinuation meant. And none necessary. my emphasis
That's not the whole definition:
": a mass slaughter of people"
"any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life."
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2019 22:50:09 GMT -5
Then you would describe the colonization of America as the Holocaust, and the Ayn Rand Institute as an organization of Holocaust Deniers?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 19, 2019 23:45:12 GMT -5
Then you would describe the colonization of America as the Holocaust, and the Ayn Rand Institute as an organization of Holocaust Deniers?
That was one Holocaust out of many:
As for the Ayn Rand Institute, you would have to ask them. I never belonged to that organization.
If they did deny it, then yes, they would be Holocaust Deniers.
Once again, if a philosopher makes an outrageous claim that is inconsistent with the rest of their philosophy, it does not necessarily disprove the rest of their philosophy.
If that were true, then most philosophy would have to be rejected.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2019 12:09:42 GMT -5
If that were true, then most philosophy would have to be rejected. Isn't that exactly what you've always been doing though? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 20, 2019 14:22:44 GMT -5
If that were true, then most philosophy would have to be rejected. Isn't that exactly what you've always been doing though?
Your point being...?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2019 12:35:40 GMT -5
My point is that your position is hypocritical, which is not an ad hominem btw
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 21, 2019 13:14:12 GMT -5
My point is that your position is hypocritical, which is not an ad hominem btw
Oh but it is an Ad Hominem.
That's the proper term when you can't disprove what someone is saying so you try to discredit them with a personal attack.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2019 12:01:33 GMT -5
It's not a personal attack to say that your position is hypocritical. It's an attack on your position.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on May 22, 2019 14:26:46 GMT -5
It's not a personal attack to say that your position is hypocritical. It's an attack on your position.
Oh please. Look at the definition of hypocrisy:
"a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel "
Positions are not hypocritical. Only people can be hypocritical.
Your attack is an Ad Hominem.
Now, do you have any comments on the issues or do you want to avoid dealing with facts?
Bob
|
|
