14-11-2010, 08:33 PM
Jim,
We're getting somewhere.
You have not been engaged in a "debate" with these people.
Would you "debate" a JFK LN?
I wouldn't.
Do you know why?
Because the JFK conspiracy debate is OVER, and anyone with reasonable access to the evidence who wishes to continue it is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.
Anyone WITHOUT said reasonable access is not to be debated, but rather educated. And said education must include a detailed presentation of the "debate is over" reality.
Again, you are not "debating" Burton (in this case). Or at least you should not debate anyone who behaves like him.
FOR WHEN YOU OSTENSIBLY DEBATE A BURTON, YOU DIGNIFY THAT PERSON'S PROFFERED POINT OF VIEW -- AND THUS, BY DEFINITION, YOU DO THE ENEMY'S SACRED WORK.
Let's not argue semantics. Of course one must engage an enemy in order to vanquish it. But "engagement" in this case must include stated recognition of the enemy's nature and objectives.
You cannot engage a Burton and have any hope of victory if you do not define the opposition.
Argument alone, within the context of engagement of this sort of enemy, is doomed to failure insofar as, absent exposure of the enemy's game, even the most powerfully persuasive argument may win a skirmish but undoubtedly will prolong, and thus by definition help lose, the war.
Charles
We're getting somewhere.
You have not been engaged in a "debate" with these people.
Would you "debate" a JFK LN?
I wouldn't.
Do you know why?
Because the JFK conspiracy debate is OVER, and anyone with reasonable access to the evidence who wishes to continue it is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.
Anyone WITHOUT said reasonable access is not to be debated, but rather educated. And said education must include a detailed presentation of the "debate is over" reality.
Again, you are not "debating" Burton (in this case). Or at least you should not debate anyone who behaves like him.
FOR WHEN YOU OSTENSIBLY DEBATE A BURTON, YOU DIGNIFY THAT PERSON'S PROFFERED POINT OF VIEW -- AND THUS, BY DEFINITION, YOU DO THE ENEMY'S SACRED WORK.
Let's not argue semantics. Of course one must engage an enemy in order to vanquish it. But "engagement" in this case must include stated recognition of the enemy's nature and objectives.
You cannot engage a Burton and have any hope of victory if you do not define the opposition.
Argument alone, within the context of engagement of this sort of enemy, is doomed to failure insofar as, absent exposure of the enemy's game, even the most powerfully persuasive argument may win a skirmish but undoubtedly will prolong, and thus by definition help lose, the war.
Charles
Charles Drago
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene