|
i hesitate to post now but....
politicophile: your basic claim in the above is that you object to being asked to outline the premises of your political committments, to treat them as the result of a deductive process.
you object to be treated as an intelligent person who arrived at thier positions via a logical process?
you object to being asked to explain that logic?
why?
to demonstrate your objection, you take a post of mine out of context--such that the tone is inexplicable----and copy it. you obviously hope to blur the question of tone into the content of the post itself, which leave no other conclusion open but that you find being asked why you think as you do to be in itself offensive.
further, what you object to from me, from the past, is fundamentally different from what i objected to in my post....because i have no problem---none--with laying out the premises of my arguments. as such, i do not treat you, as a reader, like a fool. i do not see you, as one posting here, as a fool--like i said earlier, i assume that you have reasons for thinking as you do and ask you to lay them out. that you refuse to do it--which i assume must have been the case in the context from which you snipped the post you quoted above--is for me problematic.
your politics are not Revealed Truth any more than mine are.
this gets directly into a fundamental question concerning politics disucussions themselves, their content and utility. frankly, if the kind of question you post above come to be understood as objectionable in itself, i will not continue to operate here in any way. at that point, there would cease to be any purpose in it. it would be a complete waste of my time. and i do, believe it or not, have other things going on that would in all probability benefit from my diverting the time i spend here to them.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|