[lit-ideas] Re: The Iran Charade
- From: Eric Yost <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:59:24 -0500
Judy: I read you, Eric, as saying that some of the
opponents
of the war who gave a non-pacifist reason for their
opposition were in fact pacifists. And I think that
is what you are saying. *And you have no proof*. If
you mean that some who opposed the war but are not
pacifists strongly dislike violence, well, I plead
guilty. But so what?
Eric: I am being clear as French Roast coffee here.
Following Julie's notion of emotional manipulation
with a notion that people adopt pro-war/anti-war
views for nonrational reasons, I followed with the
notion that people assemble ANY views--regardless
of contradiction--to support their
emotionally-motivated beliefs.
Thus someone with no understanding of Maoism or
grasp of Maoist ideology might cite a Maoist in
furtherance of an antiwar position. Someone with
no knowledge of Nietzsche might cite The Will to
Power to further a pro-war position.
Any ammo in a debate, whether it is consistent or
makes sense.
Part of this "any ammo" strategy is citing famous
people to back claims. Thus a socialist would cite
Einstein's book, although Einstein was no
political thinker. Someone who hates the US might
cite Pinter's speech, though Pinter's speech shows
a misunderstanding of 20th century history.
Further, reasons we give for any position (pro-war
or anti-war) are often things gleaned out of
context, chosen only because they support our
emotionally-motivated convictions. People bring
any ammo to a debate, whether it contradicts or not.
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
