I must have pressed the send button prematurely. Excuse me.
Eric, I'm lost. I don't know what you're getting at in all this mishmash.
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.
S
From: "Eric Yost" <eyost1132@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Iran Charade Date: Thursday, January 19, 2006 8:20 PM
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.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html