>Meanwhile, why the hell are you defending DeLong?
http://www.1866funtoread.com/ then, you and Charles can reread what I wrote: "(Note, I agree with Doug and Max, here; so can it if you think I'm defending de Long's commentary on Sweezy. Why I should have to explain that is, of course, ridiculous....)"
So, if Doug criticizes Chuck0's attacks on WWP/ANSWER, does that make Doug a defender of WWP/ANSWER?
If you believe I'm the scoundrel enemy, then such tactics are fine. But, if you have any pretenses that we might share left principles, then such tactics remind me of Ouchy the Clown's tagline: "Trust me, I'm a clown." http://www.ouchytheclown.com/prodom.shtml
speaking of: Carl wrote: "Brad can get spanked by the list for free, but he would have to pay a dominatrix for this service."
Or maybe we're just idiots for giving it away rather than charging money for it! Fund the Revo, put the smack down on your fave masochist. make that sunnabitch pay!. Otherwise, might I suggest these services for Brad: http://www.happydeathinc.com/ouchy.htm
Dawson:
> He invited the list to dismiss
>Sweezy, at the time of Sweezy's death, as a Stalinist based on a single line
>he wrote in 1952.
This criticism stands on its own. To draw on your favorite metaphor (Electra Complex, aka penis/envy), Why pop viagara if you're not suffering erectile dysfunction?
At 12:12 PM 3/1/2004, Stephen E Philion wrote:
kelley wrote
>What does a
>speaker's/writer's stature in their field or productiveness as an
>author/researcher have to do with whether they are qualified to
>criticize
>someone?
>
>--none, i didn't say it did, of course. <...>
what was the point of insisting he answer Dawson's charge, as if it was such an important charge (it's not and it's sad that you, Steve, think it is): "i believe the point was made, which you hid from, that Monopoly Capital was a work that far exceeds your own accomplishments. forget that the dobb sweezy debate has generated far more serious theoretical discussion among marxists and non-marxists than i expect we can find your work generating outside your blog?"
Charles:
>Let us not forget that Brad D's original statement commits tu quoque fallacy
>with respect to Stalin , as Michael Perelman alluded to.
tu quoque is trying to undermine an argument by saying, "but you do it too; you're a hypocrite."
I think you've misunderstood Perelman. He said that bringing Brad's stature or lack thereof into the discussion is irrelevant. In his own tactful way, he was supporting what I'd said. (correct me if I'm wrong Michael....)
>Being a mass
>murderer is irrelevant to the validity of Stalin's opinion on the continued
>operation of the law of value within part of the Soviet Union. Then , I
>think, there is a second layer of ad hominem in what Brad says, because he
>accuses Sweezy of bad motive in agreeing with Stalin. Not that Sweezy has
>made a bad argument, but that he agrees with someone bad. So, Brad D.'s
>argument is doubly flawed, since we are talking logic.
Yes, but I didn't need to repeat what everyone else had already pointed out. Brad starring as pivotbabe for the circle jerk just doesn't thrill me enough I guess. Don't get me wrong, I DO like to watch, but hmmmmm I prefer really studly hunks as pivotbabe.
>Ironic that the thread has moved to defense of Brad D based on the non-ad
>hominem principle, all there are in Brad's , uh , "argument" are one or two
>ad hominems.
Tsk. Tsk. This is a logical fallacy. If I criticize X's arguments against Y, that does not make me a supporter/defender of Y. It makes me a critic of X -- in this case, a critic of Steve's use of logical fallacy.
I brought it up, as I noted, to illustrate what Carrol's been trying to say about the poverty of the discussions here.
Oh, and speaking of circle jerks: Dennis R: I can think of no better way to build a conformist solidarity than these sorts of gang ups, as well as the use of fallacious logic such as "if you're not with us (in beating up on X), then you're against us." or "If you criticize one of us, you're not one of us." THAT has a chilling effect that is far icier than any attempt to draw on some basic principles of discussion that we can all try to adhere to, however humanly and imperfectly.
Kelley