-
wot Lenin said:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/mar/x10.htm
-
What do you think are the fallacies?
I think it sounds spot on...
-
St Jeremy can do no wrong in @Oliver Schick ‘s eyes.
-
It might sound that way, but that's the way of sophistry. It sounds convincing and persuasive.
The false premises and false inferences (B follows from A plus whatever when A is (a) untrue and B wouldn't follow from it if it were true, anyway) sort of run into each other--claiming that Corbyn has a simplistic world view (he does not, but it's a standard tactic people use against him, because he's not university-educated so obviously must be a bit simple); implying that Corbyn's not condemning Russia enough or somehow excusing Russia when all he did was refuse to comply with the immediate war-mongering and distraction from home politics that the former 'Home Secretary' is currently employing, all the while appealing to diplomacy and international law, which, if in the post-George W Bush era it still had any power (and yes, I know how Corbyn's appeal to it is effectively in vain, but you have to start somewhere), might just get in the way; implying (a standard tactic, too) that Corbyn might consider Russia/Assad 'powerless' in this scenario--nothing could be further from the truth; asking, rhetorically (another tired one) whether Corbyn would really accept a decision by Parliament in favour of war--no, of course not, but at least due process would have been followed and there would have been a chance of a vote against--somehow, this argumentative tactic even tries to turn Corbyn's vote against the Iraq war in 2003 into a negative--I mean, Parliament voted by majority against him, but did he accept that? Nope (this is in line with persistent attempts to paint him as an enemy of democracy--funnily enough, even being outvoted doesn't mean that one then has to agree with the majority)--anyway, there are some more but they'd take more typing than it's worth to bring them out.
Anyway, here's a sample fallacious (even allowing for Tw*tt*r-typical condensation)--paragraph (3), after the previous two paragraphs both contained a number of simplistic falsehoods (standard sophistic tactic: accuse others of what you yourself are doing):
'This is why he will never support any use of military force by the UK, US or any other Western country. They have power therefore it is not legitimate for them to use it. Instead they should give it up /3
The first sentence is untrue. It appears to be an attempted conclusion of an inference from (presumably) paragraphs 1 and/or 2 and the first clause of the following sentence ('they have power'), with the second clause an alternative re-statement of the conclusion about Corbyn's alleged opinion without naming him. 'Sorting out' power imbalances and solving all the problems of the world that way (natch) morphs into it not being 'legitimate' for Western powers to ever use their power (the use of that word might be a silly oversight, and it is of course used in contexts other than law, but the connection with law is still there). This doesn't follow (while both premises, as far as I can construe them in all this muddle, are false). The last apparent conclusion, although it makes no claim to being logically derived from the foregoing, is also false, and again sophistic: Earlier, the poster talked about the 'unequal distribution of power and wealth'. In the middle sentence, he moves to just 'they have power'. Then he moves to 'they should give [...] up [power]'. Needless to say, it is not the same to criticise and propose to correct power imbalances as to suggest that somehow those who currently have power should give 'it' up (the silent implication is 'all of it'), thereby insinuating Corbyn's politics would leave the West defenceless. Of course he wouldn't say that the West should give up its power, but he would certainly agree, I think, with correcting power imbalances.
Also, as Corbyn strongly supports the rule of international law, he evidently does not think it always illegitimate for such powers to use their military capacity, as this is permitted under certain circumstances in international law, e.g. as a means of last resort--much of his recent interventions simply boil down to reminders that the means of first, second, third, etc. resort are not being used, e.g. diplomacy.
The confusion and logical errors and omissions are only deepened in what follows.
Anyway, this is just tiresome muddle-headed, personally-targeted antagonism from this poster. A lot of people active in or commenting on politics are like that, playing to the crowd irrespective of whether what they say is even remotely true, and generally attacking the person rather than ideas. I would generally first assume that they're just reasoning incorrectly rather than that they know what they're writing is false.
-
St Jeremy can do no wrong in @Oliver Schick ‘s eyes.
Either you know me better than I know myself, or this is ignorant bullshit.
I'm sure that I'd find quite a few further points of disagreement with Corbyn if I looked, but for the record, I'm not a socialist and would never align myself with any one political party. (Yes, I still vote.) Like most people, I support some of his policies and not others. I also think he has certainly not done himself favours at times.
As I've said before, what motivates me here is simply the sheer amount of hostility, misrepresentation and outright lies that Corbyn constantly suffers and the inexcusable role of a large section of the media. That needs to be corrected.
-
Even a fella who got two E’s at A level might realise that it is Russia provoking the confrontations.
Standard example of standard anti-Corbyn tactic, as referenced above (and drafted before you posted this).
-
Corbyn’s own words are a much better indication of what motivates him than that thread:
https://mronline.org/2017/12/11/jeremy-corbyns-geneva-speech-in-full/Now, I happen to agree with him on the idea that a rule-based global order should be the ideal, and a lot of what he says in that speech is along those lines.
It of course gets much more messy when you’re faced with war crimes committed by a state against its own people with the support of a veto member of the UNSC - the rules that exist aren’t working effectively. But you can have a respectful argument over whether the correct thing is to stick by the rules and thereby hope to reinforce the rules-based system, or to break with some kind of military response to make the point that some things are beyond the pale.
-
Yes I can support Oliver on this on no he does not support Jeremy Corbyn regardless and you needless slur rather scuppers your argument
-
Even a fella who got two E’s at A level might realise that it is Russia provoking the confrontations.
This is true, but the rule-based system we wanted the Russians to participate in has been debased by the US in particular not playing by its own rules. So Moscow doesn’t feel particularly beholden to the rules either.
-
^^^^ #wudrep OS's posts up there.
Mostly because they aren't tortured plays on words.
-
What worries me more than Corbyn, who I agree with you is smeared, is his communications director, who is a Putin apologist.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/04/demonisation-russia-risks-paving-way-for-war
-
distraction from home politics that the former 'Home Secretary' is currently employing
You appear to be stating that Theresa May is using Douma to 'distract' from home politics. That sort of conspiratorial thinking is manna to Putin. The Kremlin spin is that both Salisbury and Douma were committed by the British government.
Putin has no respect for international law. His sole use for the UN or the OPCW is to exploit their processes for his own ends. His world view is inimical to liberal democracy. Corbyn may be well meaning, but his approach only serves to embolden Putin by delivering him propaganda wins.
Perhaps you could read this:
Or this:
Corbyn and his advisors would be well served to read Timothy Snyder's oeuvre.
-
You appear to be stating that Theresa May is using Douma to 'distract' from home politics.
No, of course I'm not 'stating' that, and of course I don't support Putin or any conspiratorial thinking, but do feel free to engage with the rest of what I wrote rather than just what you think you can poke a hole in.
-
What are you saying then? In what sense is Theresa May using this to distract from home politics?
Military action ('sabre-rattling', 'gunboat diplomacy') will generally have a short-term effect of galvanising public support behind a leader and distracting the public from his/her woes at home. Look at initial support for the Iraq war or how comparatively unpopular Corbyn's measured and considerably more intelligent approach has been on Syria. Rogue states need to be dealt with by as much of a consensus as possible in the international community, not by emphasising fractures and perpetuating the new client war that Syria is threatening to become (although still with a confusing ). And that means diplomacy even with Putin. Sabre-rattling is used by political minnows like Theresa May to distract people from what a weak PM she is. The effect won't last, so there's a danger they'll ratchet it up.
If you read what I wrote, I only engaged you on points you made. You consistently re-engage by playing the man not the ball. Recent responses include 'utter bullsiht'and 'ignorant bollocks'. For one with such a startlingly high estimation of their own capacity for reasoned argument, I find this astonishing.
If you post ignorant bollocks, in this case making silly assumptions about me and what I'm saying (e.g., I seem to support Putin or subscribe to conspiracy theories), that's what you can expect to get back, as, funnily enough, it was actually you who was 'playing the man' (as above, standard tactics, accuse people of what you yourself are doing). Also, this is LFGSS. Discussion culture on here is sometimes not for the faint-hearted. You're either an alias and know that or you're genuinely new and don't.
A very important principle that you need to follow (and I'm mentioning this because you don't) is that of charity in interpretation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
(I once saw this referred to as 'chairtable interpretation' on some web-site, which made my day.)
It's important in every context, but especially in Internet arguments.
And, as I implied earlier, another classic is that people 'react' to a longer post by picking out a small point that may not have been fully formulated (and is often incidental or marginal to the general tenor of the post) but certainly doesn't lead to the interpretation they uncharitably give it, without any acknowledgement of the wider context in which that point is made. This is what you just did.
I don't think you're trolling (or at least not yet), but trolls do it all the time; they at first post things violating the principle of charity that are just annoying enough to get people's backs up bit by bit before they sometimes eventually resort to full flaming (if they last that long without being banned), depending on how much people bite. The aim that trolls pursue with this is often just to make someone write very long posts in reply (which, admittedly, is not very difficult to achieve in my case) and shift the burden of discussion onto them. This is sometimes known as 'mean-mindedness'. It can be employed quite slyly but can likewise be annoying.
I'll put you on ignore for now, because others reading a thread typically find this kind of exchange intensely tedious. Feel free to reciprocate the favour.
-
https://www.citymetric.com/politics/jeremy-corbyn-radical-social-housing-council-housing-labour
Not sure I agree with the author's definition of "radical" but there you go. Some really good policy going on here and good to finally see some acknowledgement that we can't just build our way out of a housing crisis.
-
We could have had a Bank Holiday today if Jeremy Corbyn had already been elected!!!
-
Journalist: “Will Jeremy Corbyn be watching the royal wedding on Saturday?”
Senior Labour source: [pause] “There’s always catch up, isn’t there”
ChasnotRobert
andyfallsoff
deleted
Oliver Schick
h2o
Zebra_Cyclist
NotThamesWater
William.
Haino
spiderpie
Howard
boristrump-
Post a reply
About
That Corbyn fella...
Posted by
@pdlouche
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/15/un-inspectors-not-bombs-peace-syria-jeremy-corbyn