danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Evening, DexterTCN. I’ve been busy today, but I’ll address your post more fully now.
Let’s start, shall we, with the meaning of ad hominem, since you say you aren’t going to resort to that type of argument. Here’s the definition:
“an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument”.
In the same paragraph as saying you won’t use it, you say “I think you knew it was a lie but it suited you to ignore it”. That’s an ad hominem line of argument. So, while you might think you’re above it, you immediately did it. So why say you’re not going to and then go and do it? Just do it and leave it at that.
Now let me focus on this bit: you say “We are suffering an onslaught and you are part of it”.
What you appear to be saying is that disagreement with anything the “Rev” Stuart says makes me the enemy. I disagreed with something he said on Twitter (in this case a series of replies he made to Kirsty Stricklan and Angela Haggerty. - I follow the latter, which is how I came to see the exchange). So, you are presumably saying that anyone who disagreed with the “Rev” about that issue is “part of the onslaught”. That is the kind of thinking I find abhorrent: disagree with anything the “Rev” says and you’re “part of the onslaught”. No, you just disagree with him.
Furthermore, you seem to be saying that disagreeing with the “Rev” on any one thing (whether connected to the following or not) makes one “part of the onslaught” against:
“telling Westminster to fuck off”
“Freeing Libyans”
“Talking about getting rid of Trident”
“helping the poor”
“supporting Palestinians”
And so on. Why did you list these things? One does not have to agree with the “Rev” Stu on everything in order to “support Palestinians”, for example. I have supported the Palestinian struggle, for example, in one way or another all of my adult life. Your sweeping elision of many things into an all-or-nothing polarisation between “part of the movement” or “part of the onslaught” is just nonsense.
You also seem to be conflating Stuart Campbell with the SNP. He is a blogger. A very popular one, but one doesn’t have to agree with everything he writes or the way he expresses himself in order to support the SNP (of which, the last I heard, he isn’t actually a member), far less the wider pro-independence movement. He has said so himself.
“There's a movement going on”, you say. What does that have to do with my disagreeing with Stuart Campbell on tactics, mode of expression, specific viewpoints etc? Unless of course this is a movement in which no disagreement is to be brooked. In which case I would want no part of it.
You seem also to want to hold me to account for everyone who posts on this thread. I’m not Fedayn. So why bring that up? But for the record, I have read Campbell’s blog article on Hillsborough and I disagree with it. I disagree with most of what he says, the way he says it, and actually with his understanding of social psychology (which I studied and have taught). Should I keep quiet about my disagreements? Why?
Here’s what he said: No justice for the 96 He says he stands by it. People are entitled to read it and decide whether they agree with its content and/or tone for themselves.
Let’s also take Campbell’s views on transsexuals, which is something else I disagree with him about. Here is the Twitter tirade he launched on the topic:
WEEKLY WANKER #017: WINGS OVER SCOTLAND
But maybe I shouldn’t disagree with him on that either, because “there’s a movement going on”. Well I do disagree with him. He can say what he likes, but when it’s something I disagree with, there’s nothing going to stop me saying so. Why should it?
Why don’t I post a link from Wings? Because I don’t read it. He does however post copiously on Twitter, and as such I often come across what he posts (not that I follow him, but I see many Retweets every day). So that’s why I’m picking up on stuff he’s said on Twitter rather than what he’s said on his blog.
This paragraph has me utterly mystified though:
“Unable to address the biggest social upheaval you have ever be involved in in the UK...you post nothing about it...sticking to age-old hatred of specific people, built in promotion of others. An utter inability to see the new.”
I’ve no idea what you’re talking about. Start, if you will please, by clearing this up: “sticking to age-old hatred of specific people, built in promotion of others.”
Who am I promoting?
Let’s start, shall we, with the meaning of ad hominem, since you say you aren’t going to resort to that type of argument. Here’s the definition:
“an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument”.
In the same paragraph as saying you won’t use it, you say “I think you knew it was a lie but it suited you to ignore it”. That’s an ad hominem line of argument. So, while you might think you’re above it, you immediately did it. So why say you’re not going to and then go and do it? Just do it and leave it at that.
Now let me focus on this bit: you say “We are suffering an onslaught and you are part of it”.
What you appear to be saying is that disagreement with anything the “Rev” Stuart says makes me the enemy. I disagreed with something he said on Twitter (in this case a series of replies he made to Kirsty Stricklan and Angela Haggerty. - I follow the latter, which is how I came to see the exchange). So, you are presumably saying that anyone who disagreed with the “Rev” about that issue is “part of the onslaught”. That is the kind of thinking I find abhorrent: disagree with anything the “Rev” says and you’re “part of the onslaught”. No, you just disagree with him.
Furthermore, you seem to be saying that disagreeing with the “Rev” on any one thing (whether connected to the following or not) makes one “part of the onslaught” against:
“telling Westminster to fuck off”
“Freeing Libyans”
“Talking about getting rid of Trident”
“helping the poor”
“supporting Palestinians”
And so on. Why did you list these things? One does not have to agree with the “Rev” Stu on everything in order to “support Palestinians”, for example. I have supported the Palestinian struggle, for example, in one way or another all of my adult life. Your sweeping elision of many things into an all-or-nothing polarisation between “part of the movement” or “part of the onslaught” is just nonsense.
You also seem to be conflating Stuart Campbell with the SNP. He is a blogger. A very popular one, but one doesn’t have to agree with everything he writes or the way he expresses himself in order to support the SNP (of which, the last I heard, he isn’t actually a member), far less the wider pro-independence movement. He has said so himself.
“There's a movement going on”, you say. What does that have to do with my disagreeing with Stuart Campbell on tactics, mode of expression, specific viewpoints etc? Unless of course this is a movement in which no disagreement is to be brooked. In which case I would want no part of it.
You seem also to want to hold me to account for everyone who posts on this thread. I’m not Fedayn. So why bring that up? But for the record, I have read Campbell’s blog article on Hillsborough and I disagree with it. I disagree with most of what he says, the way he says it, and actually with his understanding of social psychology (which I studied and have taught). Should I keep quiet about my disagreements? Why?
Here’s what he said: No justice for the 96 He says he stands by it. People are entitled to read it and decide whether they agree with its content and/or tone for themselves.
Let’s also take Campbell’s views on transsexuals, which is something else I disagree with him about. Here is the Twitter tirade he launched on the topic:
WEEKLY WANKER #017: WINGS OVER SCOTLAND
But maybe I shouldn’t disagree with him on that either, because “there’s a movement going on”. Well I do disagree with him. He can say what he likes, but when it’s something I disagree with, there’s nothing going to stop me saying so. Why should it?
Why don’t I post a link from Wings? Because I don’t read it. He does however post copiously on Twitter, and as such I often come across what he posts (not that I follow him, but I see many Retweets every day). So that’s why I’m picking up on stuff he’s said on Twitter rather than what he’s said on his blog.
This paragraph has me utterly mystified though:
“Unable to address the biggest social upheaval you have ever be involved in in the UK...you post nothing about it...sticking to age-old hatred of specific people, built in promotion of others. An utter inability to see the new.”
I’ve no idea what you’re talking about. Start, if you will please, by clearing this up: “sticking to age-old hatred of specific people, built in promotion of others.”
Who am I promoting?
