Re: just checking...

On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Mike Findlay wrote:

>>> If it is to be a battle of experts I'll take my experts.
>>
>> "You have your Jews and I have mine," eh?  Well obviously that just 
>> begs the question; it's an extension of that old fallacy, the appeal to 
>> authority.  And it exposes the reason *why* that fallacy is, in fact, a 
>> fallacy: we can always choose the "authorities" that appeal to us.
>
> No, it isn't.  You have no higher claim to say that it was offensive 
> than I do.  And from what you have presented so far your claim is
> inferior to mine, I have presented objective facts that there are those, 
> with standing, that say it should not be found offensive and that it is 
> ridiculous to claim it is offensive.

The only objective fact you have proved is mine, namely that Palin's 
choice of words has inflamed the debate.  The fact that the "experts" who 
appeal to you have joined the debate just proves my point.

> Just who are the offensive/insensitive police and why do I or anyone 
> else have to obey them?

An irrelevant question, but just for the record, I might as well ask why 
anyone should obey *your* preferred "experts".

> You haven't demonstrated that it is offensive to anyone.

You mean people *aren't* debating the appropriateness of Palin's use of 
the word?  Wow, ya coulda fooled *me*!

> Ha.  I have more evidence.  Offensive my largess ass.  This blood libel 
> nonsense is manufactured outrage.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html
>
> That article is dated 1/10/2011 with "blood libel" in the headlines, in 
> fact I'll bet that's where she got the term from.

You know, you might very well be right about that.  It doesn't change my 
point, or anyone else's, of course.

> A headline in a column two days before Palin made her speech and where's 
> the outrage.  Apparently, it only becomes outrageous when Palin says it.

Well, obviously, nobody cares what Glenn Reynolds says.  Not the way they 
care about what Sarah Palin says.

> You haven't even demonstrated that the term was offensive historically - 
> all you can show is that the *act* of creating a blood libel was 
> offensive, not the term.  Unless of course you are saying that that term 
> can *only* be used if you are Jewish and claiming that some one is 
> accusing you of killing their children to use the blood for your 
> matzahs..

I refer you to that brilliant post that Johne re-posted here, which shows 
how Palin's invocation of the term shows a woeful lack of any sense of 
proportion.

> Are you really trying to keep us captive to history?  Sure we can learn 
> from it but I'm not going to live in it . . .

Hate to tell you this, but you *are* living in it, whether you like it or 
not.

>> More of that appeal-to-authority fallacy.  We don't need to appeal to 
>> the credibility of others when we can check the facts for ourselves.
>
> I'd be glad to check you facts when you present some on this issue.

You really think you're arguing against nobody at all?  Amazing.

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot