« Racists? – Obama and Holder | Main | GMC = General Motors China »

01 June 2012

Comments

George Rebane

Gregory 135pm - Yes, but then there are those lucid moments.

In DougK's 1136am my concern is not so much that he's all over the place, but that he has established a "connection" with discussants who don't visit these pages, and may exist undisturbed only in his conscience. Early on, most of us were advised not worry about people who talk to themselves, but only about those who also demonstrate their ability to carry on a full blown conversation, solo.

Douglas Keachie

When Greg builds straw men, he uses choco-flavored flex straws, full of artificial ingredients, many untested by the FDA.

Greg, please lists the monuments to the white slaves brought over from Europe. What, you can't find any? Only blacks were imported as slaves. To import only blacks as slaves is racist. To start deciding that underpopulated by whites, states, need to start counting their slaves, to figure out how much representation they should get is also racist. Don't believe me? Try polling 100 random blacks and see what results you get. This is a prie example of compartmentalized thinking, when you can't see the discrimination involved in slavery and this system setting up representation. Maybe they should have counted cows and grant 1/5th of a vote for steers, 2/5ths for cows, and 3/5ths for a bull.

Gregory

Bizarre. Keach, you really don't have a handle on the language, do you?

From the wiki: "According to a PBS article, the Three-Fifths Compromise is sometimes erroneously said to mean the founders believed blacks were only partial human beings (i.e. three-fifths of a person). The article also states the compromise had no relation to the individual worth of the black slave."

Gregory

Here's a simple yes/no question, Keach: In your mind, would counting slaves as a whole person in the clause in question been less racist than the 3/5 compromise?

Douglas Keachie

Nope, accepting states into to the union at all where slavery was legal was both dumb and immoral. Prove other wise, and note that all of SE Asia did not become communist after the fall of Saigon, and that one of our better water volleyball players, and ex nuclear submarine engineer, has moved there permanently to enjoy his retirement, on the coast, a 100 miles north of Saigon. The USA did not "need" the South.

Douglas Keachie

I not only have the handle on the language, I can pump like hell. Who did you think Zimmerman/Dylan was talking about, "Subterranean Homesick Blues?"

Gregory

Considering the large number of slavers who were Scots, your forebears probably didn't agree. And, given only five of the original thirteen colonies were Free, it's amazing the slave states didn't force a deal better than they got.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_SlaveFree1789.gif

Without the slave states, there would not have been a USA, and without the USA being formed as it did, the institution of slavery would have been free to expand, including into the west.

Douglas Keachie

"Without the slave states, there would not have been a USA, and without the USA being formed as it did, the institution of slavery would have been free to expand, including into the west."

Possible but not provable. That's why I mentioned Vietnam, I thought that was obvious.

Gregory

No, the only obvious thing was yet another disconnected connection.

Cold war Domino Theory in southeast Asia and expansion of slavery in north America had similar dynamics? And that is obvious? Bizarre.

Douglas Keachie

"Bizarre," Gregeeze for, "I refuse to consider it in any rational logical way."

Douglas Keachie

I never said they had similar dynamics. You lie.

Gregory

It's even more bizarre to think one could inform one on the behavior on the other if their spread weren't governed by similar dynamics.

Really, Keach, not a single one of your posts on this thread held up to even minor scrutiny. You just do your usual dance steps, changing the subject, erecting straw men and waving red herring.

Face it, the original colonies were dominated by the slave trade the Brits and Scots instituted, and it took most of a century after independence to roll it back.

And, to belabor the point which you never conceded, there was never anything in the Constitution that declared blacks or ANYONE to be less than 100% human.

Douglas Keachie

"there was never anything in the Constitution that declared blacks or ANYONE to be less than 100% human." Again I never said this. I said that the general spirit and tone of the times was racist, certainly by today's standards. What the hell do you mean by "similar dynamics?"

I did make it clear that you have no way of proving your hypothetical history, and illustrated that by indicating that the right wing conservative fears that all of SE Asia would fall to Communism never happened. Even Vietnma itself is now welcoming Americans to find a happy retirement there.

Gregory

More bizarrity from Keach.

"Again I never said this."

You attacked me for asserting the contrary, which goes way beyond a mere implication.

Dynamics is in the dictionary, look it up. Forgive me for thinking your drawing of a parallel between the cold war Domino Theory and the history of slavery in the US was more than just an idiotic statement trying to equate a looking back to the early history of the US to a cold war fear, and that you were actually considering the economic and political mechanisms for slavery spreading.


I decided something special was needed to convince Keach that the progression of slavery in America was slowed by the Union... here we go, from a source whose leftist credentials are undeniable:

"The last Continental Congress of 1787 and the first Constitutional Congress of 1789 -90 had legally excluded slavery from all Territories of the republic north-west of the Ohio. (Territories, as is known, is the name given to the colonies lying within the United States itself which have not yet attained the level of population constitutionally prescribed for the formation of autonomous states.) The so-called Missouri Compromise (1820), in consequence of which Missouri became one of the States of the Union as a slave state, excluded slavery from every remaining Territory north of 36 degrees latitude and west of the Missouri."

-Karl Marx, Die Presse No. 293, October 25, 1861.

Douglas Keachie

"(Reuters) - A Somali Islamist militant group is offering rewards of chickens and camels for information on the whereabouts of President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, mocking the millions of dollars the United States has offered for leaders of the al Qaeda affiliate."

I'll bet three Llama's and three avians I know where to find the guy who like to refer to those he despises in the third person.

Gregory

Keach, I accept your forfeit; you just can't stay on topic, can you?

Douglas Keachie

Greg, you can't handle comments on meta-communication. Have you figured out yet how the job creators are going to change their stripes and start creating jobs in the USA? Give zero taxes and zero regulations, will they come back here, or will they continue to milk the workers of the world outside the USA for all they can get and sell. Romney's not going to be able to do a damn thing, and bunker-cading isn't going to work to save the quality of life in the USA, not even for the .01% ter's.

As an old commenter on The Union used to say, "WAKEUP, AMERICA!"

Gregory

"Meta-communications"... so that's what you call your inability to actually discuss issues of the day without completely misrepresenting the positions of the adults you're talking to?

Gregory

Checking into "meta-communication", knowing how Keach relies on wikipedia, I found their explanation:

"Human communication, in addition to verbal communication, involves kinesic and paralinguistic elements which can be seen as metacommunicative signals i.e. messages about messages. These indicate how the verbal communication should be understood and interpreted. Meaning does not depend only on literal verbal meaning, but is codetermined in a critical way by the intensity and inflection of the voice, facial expression, accompanying gestures, secondary signals sent to bystanders ,etc. The same verbal message framed by different metacommunication can mean something entirely different, including its opposite."

Keach, you do understand no one here can see the faces you're making when you type, don't you? Just how does this "meta-communication" of yours work on a blog thread?

What you really are performing is a classic "Gish Gallop".
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

That isn't a recipe for discussion. The only real question is whether you are trying for a Gish Gallop, or you just can't manage anything else after years of your style overwhelming whatever substance you may have started with.

Douglas Keachie

You obviously failed again, depending only on wikipedia. Meta-communications also involves considering the manner and stylistics used in the written and spokjen word. In this case I called you out for disrespect, by way of mentioning your penchant for referring to me in the third person, much as two adults talking about a child might do, even with the child in the room and hearing everything.

Gregory

The wiki is awaiting the editing of "meta-communication" by Keachie. It will require citations, which he may find hard to find.

The manner and stylistics of his writings suggest a childish avoidance of facts and a penchant for "drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood". In other words, the Gish Gallop or

Since he may well believe much of what he writes, substitute "misconceptions" or "delusions" for "lies"

Douglas Keachie

Greg, the childish loser of the argument, is continuing his meta-communication missteps by going on again, referring to his fellow adults as if they were children, in the third person, in what is otherwise an open adult forum. Grow up, Greg! Or keep on writing meta-code, and pretend to be erudite.

Douglas Keachie

Here, chew on this for awhile:

How does one evaluate the risk or potential return for an investment of intellectual
capital? If it were somehow possible to create a theory-neutral environment wherein
conflicting paradigms might be compared—an environment devoid of social, psychological,
and emotional variables and influences—scientific debate might be relatively
brief. The arguments would be a simple matter of logical or mathematical proof, or of
identifying the perspectives required to support each paradigm. But as Kuhn suggests,
when dealing with theory-choice (i.e., practitioners’ commitments to a paradigm), debate
is not simple:

Debates over theory-choice cannot be cast in a form that fully resembles logical or mathematical
proof. In the latter, premises and rules of inference are stipulated from the start. If
there is disagreement about conclusions, the parties to the ensuing debate can retrace their
steps one by one, checking each against prior stipulation. At the end of that process one or the
other must concede that he has made a mistake, violated a previously accepted rule. After that
concession he has no recourse, and his opponent’s proof is then compelling. Only if the two
discover that they differ about the meaning or application of stipulated rules, that their prior
agreement provides no sufficient basis for proof, does the debate continue in the form it
inevitably takes during scientific revolutions. That debate is about premises, and its recourse
is to persuasion as a prelude to the possibility of proof. (Kuhn 1996:199; italics added)"

You'll find more at: http://www.sil.org/silepubs/Pubs/48756/48756_Blackburn%20P_Code%20model%20of%20communication.pdf

Gregory

"A variant of the Gish Gallop is employed by bloggers who post an endless series of dubious assertions - each of which can be countered, but to no effect, as it will be buried under the cascade of dubious posts."

Keach, if you want a long discussion on your new found favorite subject, as opposed to the one George posted on, why not post it on that blog of yours and wait for someone to join you there?

Douglas Keachie

You are the one who wandered it off topic, with your rude behavior, which I called attention to. Next time, don't be so rude, and we can stay on topic. BTW, Car Show fotos here: http://www.277foto.com/

Gregory

Note to George, this is not one of his "lucid moments".

Douglas Keachie

Note to George, Greg is such a rude dude, with an attitude, that shows negative altitude. Third person seems to be his preferred mode of communication.

Gregory

"A variant of the Gish Gallop is employed by bloggers who post an endless series of dubious assertions - each of which can be countered, but to no effect, as it will be buried under the cascade of dubious posts."

Douglas Keachie

Greg's had one too many doobies.

The comments to this entry are closed.