Thursday, March 17, 2005

Arguments from the Left...

Typically they will begin to make some scripts in which they are Victims. That is where if one attacks what they are saying then you are attacking, "Who they are." It is rather simple. It seems that all you need to do is to throw yourself, personally, in front of whatever views you hold in order to claim some personal hatred or intolerance on the part of any who would dare disagree with you. This type of argument is typical to the social Left.

It also works backwards, the shifting or blurring of what to who.

Some of its form,
"Despite its logical untenability, the genealogical method holds a great attraction for Foucault and his followers. In debates with their opponents, especially if the opponent is a 'positivist' or a 'piecemeal empiricist,' they hold what they believe is an unassailable position by focusing on who is speaking rather than on what is being said. They use the genealogical method to absolve themselves of the need to examine the content of any statement. All they see the need to do is examine the conditions of its production--not 'is it true?' but 'who made the statement and for what reason?'. This is a tactic that is well known in Marxist circles where, to refute a speaker, one simply identifies his class position and ignores what he actually says."
(The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and
Social Theorists Are Murdering Our Past
By Keith Windschuttle (The Free Press. NY.) (1997) :132)