Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> >Doug Henwood wrote:
> >>
> >> it's not the whole story.
> >
> >Some day a mathematician is going to win a Nobel prize in something or
> >other by arguing profoundly that the denominator is not the whole story
> >of fractions.
> >
> >This phrase -always, not just sometimes -- is in practice (and probably
> >in intention) a way to abort discusion because scoring stupid points
> >about the superiority of denominators to numerators is far more
> >entertaining.
>
> I keep forgetting it's much better to read you as performance art
and
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [lbo-talk] specious generalizations... Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 14:34:21 -0700 From: Jim Devine <jdevine03 at gmail.com> Reply-To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org References: <42D96FB5.4070806 at kreise.org><20050716205445.63856.qmail at web32909.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
On 7/16/05, Chris Doss wrote:
> I have seen this bizarro confusion of Islamist
> quasi-fascism and "anti-imperialism" in Chechnya for a
> billion years now.
Justin writes: >It's just that 3/4 of the left can't
> hear the word biology mentioned in the same context as
> behaviort without thinking that that it's some sort of
> reactionary justification for the worst aspects of the
> existing order.
Michael Pugliese seems to think that the "left" is almost entirely populated by "third worldists."
I wish that people would stop making generalizations about some allegedly big segment of the "left" that has crazy opinions. It's a version of the straw-man argument. Instead, simply present your viewpoint and argue its validity (or argue against the specifics of some specific viewpoint). -- Jim Devine
-----
The point is, Doug, that all these phrases you are so fond of are ways of avoiding subject matter. You remind me a good deal of Eisenhower press conferences. Now the 'real' Eisenhower was probably brighter than anyone on this list, including you, but the Press-Conference Eisenhower was deliberately creating the illusion of being a generalizing idiot. Is that the picture you want to present of yourself?
Instead of all these cute dodges, why don't you procede as Jim suggests: "Instead, simply present your viewpoint and argue its validity (or argue against the specifics of some specific viewpoint)." That would promote rather than kill discussion by deflecting it into personalities, which is what your cute generalizations always do.
Carrol
Carrol
> than as political commentary.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk