Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Justin Barret, Indymedia, Stormfront and UCD
Options
Comments
-
My position is fairly clear actually. If I choose to dismiss or ignore your arguments it could be because:The Corinthian wrote:This increasingly appears to be your only means of argument. Certainly you’ve made no attempt to answer points made to you, which you conveniently seem to believe are not worth answering.
a) They’re boring.
b) Nobody is obliged to respond to every single point of every post. Even yours.
c) Anyone who assumes that opposition to A must necessarily equal unconditional support for B, C or Z is not thinking rationally and should not be encouraged. That autonomic sort of reasoning may be suggestive of a mild cognitive disorder. Who knows.
d) Anyone who attempts to defend an alleged criminal with the primary school classroom “Please sir, he did it too!” defence may well be too childish to argue with. If Pinochet ever goes to trial and his lawyers try that rubbish, the judge will feck them out of it.
e) They consist of suspicion and opinion which can’t be backed up with any kind of evidence. Like this for example - "The majority of those who would argue for the denial of freedom of expression for Fascism do not do so because it has anything to do, or not, with racism." So allegations of hypocrisy cannot be taken seriously from someone who lectures others about the ‘intellectual fraud’ of stating opinions as fact. To wit -The Corinthian wrote:What is the basis for you forming that opinion? That is the challenge that others and I have repeatedly made. You have not proffered an answer.
You cannot state something and take it as true unless proven otherwise. The onus is upon you to prove that your opinions, when stated as fact, are indeed that. Not the other way around.
Stating opinions as fact is an intellectual fraud. It can be a man’s opinion that blacks are all stupid, but that does not make it true.
So we are left with the intellectual deception of stating an opinion as fact, then (when challenged) defending that ‘fact’ with the evidence of more opinion.
State anything as fact as long as you can prove it, but not if it is simply based upon opinion - as ultimately it was in this case.
Otherwise, should you state opinion as fact in debate and you become fair game to your opponents. Of course if they don’t challenge you or your opinion is not simply an opinion and can back it up, then you’ll get the points for it - if they do, you’re dead. That’s how it works in competition debating, on the college, national and international level.
(f) All of the above and a couple more probably.
As for the clueless comments about skinheads and anti-fascist "uniform", well it’s like listening to a doddery old brandy soaked tweed suited coot muse upon the Scandinavian death metal scene in between falling asleep and reading the Telegraph’s obituaries column while sunk in a giant leather armchair in some Tory “club”.
Here's a pic of a protest against the banning of Berlin's mayday parade in 2001.
And here's a pic from the antifascist march on mayday 2002.
Where's everyone's "uniform" then?
Time I tapped that wonderful ignore button I think.0 -
Heh, nothing new there. Orwell wrote about it in Homage To Catalonia. "As for the kaleidoscope of political parties and trade unions, with their tiresome names—P.S.U.C., P.O.U.M., F.A.I., C.N.T., U.G.T., J.C.I., J.S.U., A.I.T.—they merely exasperated me. It looked at first sight as though Spain were suffering from a plague of initials. [...] At Monte Pocero, when they pointed to the position on our left and said: ‘Those are the Socialists’ (meaning the P.S.U.C.), I was puzzled and said: ‘Aren’t we all Socialists?’ I thought it idiotic that people fighting for their lives should have separate parties; my attitude always was, ‘Why can’t we drop all this political nonsense and get on with the war?’"therecklessone wrote:All this talk of RedAction and the SWP and Workers Liberty got me chuckling...
REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fu*king Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah...
JUDITH: Splitters.
P.F.J.: Splitters...
FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG: What?
LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG: People's Front! C-huh.
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG: He's over there.
P.F.J.: Splitter!
0 -
Redleslie2 wrote:F.A.I.,
Bloody FAI, couldn't keep Keane in Saipan, couldn't win the Spanish civil war...
0 -
Keane's got a neo-nazi hairdo, but here he is battering blueshirts, and him in a red shirt and everything, so he must be a communist. No wonder the FAI didn't know what to do to keep him in the squad or win the war.therecklessone wrote:Bloody FAI, couldn't keep Keane in Saipan, couldn't win the Spanish civil war...
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement