Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 02-08-2005, 10:21 AM

actually, irate, i think your position is at play here.
and i find it funny that you, the first to object when you think an argument runs through messageboard space and into your 3-d life, would assume that my position is a simple-minded as you do.

what i call bushworld is a style of argument.

one of the main features of that style of argument is an inability to process dissonant information. the whole premise of your thread recapitulates that tendency. you position yourself in a state of transparency--you understand better than those who opposed the war what is now happening on the ground--you want to start from that basis to pose a series of "reasonable" questions about expectations.

you are still recapitulating this main feature in your responses above.
you act as though bushworld (see above for a definition) is not itself a problem.

no wonder you cant answer host.

but what the hell, give it a try....why not address the linkages that you see between your assessment of the situation in iraq and your support for the war?
or do you really think that support for the war was so obviously correct that it is not up for debate, that the logic which connects it to assessments of outcomes is transcendent--so that it is only the positions of those who opposed the war which are problematic? because there you see a particular linkage: where in yours, there are no linkages?

one of the funniest things conservatives can do is claim to be empiricists.

02-08-2005, 10:21 AM	#24 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	actually, irate, i think your position is at play here. and i find it funny that you, the first to object when you think an argument runs through messageboard space and into your 3-d life, would assume that my position is a simple-minded as you do. what i call bushworld is a style of argument. one of the main features of that style of argument is an inability to process dissonant information. the whole premise of your thread recapitulates that tendency. you position yourself in a state of transparency--you understand better than those who opposed the war what is now happening on the ground--you want to start from that basis to pose a series of "reasonable" questions about expectations. you are still recapitulating this main feature in your responses above. you act as though bushworld (see above for a definition) is not itself a problem. no wonder you cant answer host. but what the hell, give it a try....why not address the linkages that you see between your assessment of the situation in iraq and your support for the war? or do you really think that support for the war was so obviously correct that it is not up for debate, that the logic which connects it to assessments of outcomes is transcendent--so that it is only the positions of those who opposed the war which are problematic? because there you see a particular linkage: where in yours, there are no linkages? one of the funniest things conservatives can do is claim to be empiricists. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 02-08-2005 at 10:27 AM..