Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Charleslb Vs DDO conservatives (Howard Zinn!)

JohnJohnSHTOOKAH
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2011 4:12:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sooooo there was a recent thread Charleslb had posted out regarding the "intolerance of conservatives". I found the whole thing to be very entertaining and I am just dumbfounded that a single guy was willing to just take on like 5-6 passionate conservatives at once. Any who its no suprise, what do you expect. You post an entire short story claiming that a particular group of people based on their ideology you probably don't even know are intolerant theyyy probably are going to be pretty ticked off..

But getting to the point, I was going through the conversations going back and forth, back and forth, till I noticed a little mini conversation going on about the great Howard Zinn. Now it was in this conversation that it was established by two rather conservative individuals that Mr.Zinn's work is useless to in debates and should be completely nullified. Or in other words his work is by some means invalid and illegitimate.

Now I will admit, I am a freedom-hating liberal who greatly admires Howard Zinn and his astounding book " The Peoples History of the United States". As well as I am someone whom has used his work as sources for debate! ( So double whammy)

With that said, I take issue with these particular claims that were made about professor Zinn's work. It was earlier in the thread when they stated he was a revisionist. To which I would say... So what?!?!

They didn't argue that his work was fictitious and there for should be considered invalid. They claimed precisely because he was a revisionist and was a historian who didn't fallow the traditional overly optimistic teachings of the United States's history, that his work and his own name should be considered illegitimate within the realm of debate.

I think this is absolutely ridiculous. To be blacklisting based on ideology... And Its a two way street, I'm well aware. The same goes for John Stossel. Yes he annoys the crap out of me, and yeah I think he over exaggerates his claims but you won't see me attempting to black list his name from political discussion.

Anyways that's what I felt like sharing with you peeps on DDO.
Food for thought
Ska > Whatever your favorite genre of music is
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2011 4:38:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If there is one thing that I've learned from studying history independly, is that when the winners tell history, they often look through rose colored glasses. When losers tell history, they often look through pitch black glasses.

The only time you get accurate history is when...

A) you document everything while events are occuring (so all angles get represented), but don't select what is "correct history".

and

B) after enough time has passed that people view the past events as "a different time" they can be the most accurate unbiased people to go through the data to see what is accurate and what is cherry pick, spotlighted, bias.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2011 8:21:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/21/2011 4:12:16 PM, JohnJohnSHTOOKAH wrote:
... But getting to the point, I was going through the conversations going back and forth, back and forth, till I noticed a little mini conversation going on about the great Howard Zinn...

You make some good points here. And, in my admittedly biased opinion (nothing inherently wrong with biases, by the way; the truth, after all, is not a neutral quantity found in the middle of the road, it's a particular bias, the correct one; and yes, throwing all humility to the wind, the truth is a quantity located on the axiologically, ethically, spiritually, and sociopolitically left side of the road, thus and so it is that being a leftist = having an enlightened bias and being on the side of the truth) the favorite intellectuals of libertarians don't even amount to a pimple on the a** of Howard Zinn. Now try to get that image out of your minds, libertarians!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2011 8:33:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Charleslb, I could take that post and just swap "left" and "right," "Howard Zinn" with "John Stossel," and "liberal" and "libertarian," and it would have the exact same argumentative value: absolutely nothing.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2011 8:39:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/21/2011 8:33:13 PM, mongeese wrote:
Charleslb, I could take that post and just swap "left" and "right," "Howard Zinn" with "John Stossel," and "liberal" and "libertarian," and it would have the exact same argumentative value: absolutely nothing.

Yo, mongeese, check out my new post in the religion section. It's my shortest post yet! That is, if the multi-verse theory is correct I'm sure that there's some universe where this is true.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2011 10:16:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think there was some mutual agreement in the other thread. I observed that liberals are by nature intolerant, and there was no disagreement. Conservatives are by nature tolerant; they want to engage and debate. The Left thrives on hatred and exclusion. charleslb agreed and said that's the way it should be.

Zinn, of course, is a consummate liar. He writes a "history" book and leaves out anything positive about the US -- no mention of the Gettysburg address, or great inventions, or the Space Program. Acknowledging anything good about the US would be tolerating opposing evidence, and opposing ideas or facts cannot be tolerated. charleslb jumps in again to affirm that the Left is completely justified in lying, because the truth is no better than any other bias.

We have agreement.
JohnJohnSHTOOKAH
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2011 12:18:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/21/2011 10:16:19 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I think there was some mutual agreement in the other thread. I observed that liberals are by nature intolerant, and there was no disagreement. Conservatives are by nature tolerant; they want to engage and debate. The Left thrives on hatred and exclusion. charleslb agreed and said that's the way it should be.

Zinn, of course, is a consummate liar. He writes a "history" book and leaves out anything positive about the US -- no mention of the Gettysburg address, or great inventions, or the Space Program. Acknowledging anything good about the US would be tolerating opposing evidence, and opposing ideas or facts cannot be tolerated. charleslb jumps in again to affirm that the Left is completely justified in lying, because the truth is no better than any other bias.

We have agreement.

Oh COME ON ROY.. You gotta be kidding me..
"I think there was some mutual agreement in the other thread. I observed that liberals are by nature intolerant, and there was no disagreement. Conservatives are by nature tolerant; they want to engage and debate. "

...
Ska > Whatever your favorite genre of music is
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2011 10:35:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
John, No I'm not kidding. Show some evidence that leftists are tolerant. The don't just hate conservatives, libertarians, Christians, the rich, white men, and business people, they believe that all people they hate should not have a voice in public affairs. The ban speaker and faculty that doesn't agree, they won't debate, and so forth. I ave the long list, and no one disagreed. charleslb agreed, saying that not all intolerance is bad.

Abby Hoffman's "Rules for Radicals" spells out the doctrine of intolerance explicitly, but Leftists do not need to read the book. It is a natural part of the ideology. "Kill Bush" signs were so ordinary that the liberal press didn't both to report them. Intolerance is accepted leftist behavior.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2011 10:43:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/22/2011 10:35:11 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
John, No I'm not kidding. Show some evidence that leftists are tolerant. The don't just hate conservatives, libertarians, Christians, the rich, white men, and business people, they believe that all people they hate should not have a voice in public affairs. The ban speaker and faculty that doesn't agree, they won't debate, and so forth. I ave the long list, and no one disagreed. charleslb agreed, saying that not all intolerance is bad.

Abby Hoffman's "Rules for Radicals" spells out the doctrine of intolerance explicitly, but Leftists do not need to read the book. It is a natural part of the ideology. "Kill Bush" signs were so ordinary that the liberal press didn't both to report them. Intolerance is accepted leftist behavior.

Don't you think that many conservatives fall under the same boat? After all, take conservapedia as an example. Conservaedia is a conservative-bias encylopedia which filters out any editors that disagree with them.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2011 10:57:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conservapedia counterbalances maybe some liberal blog somewhere (certainly not Huffington or Kos or something on that scale though), but there's no way in hell it counterbalances university tendencies.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2011 11:04:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/22/2011 10:57:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Conservapedia counterbalances maybe some liberal blog somewhere (certainly not Huffington or Kos or something on that scale though), but there's no way in hell it counterbalances university tendencies.

My main claim is that it is an example of conservatives blocking intercourse. I don't deny that liberals are intolerant, but intolerance occurs on both sides of the spectrum: both conservatives and liberals.

The truth is, in the real world, most people don't want to debate politics. Say a conservative comment in a liberal rally and people will boo you. Say a liberal comment in a conservative rally and people will boo you.

Also, conservative think tanks acts as a good counterbalance to academia's liberal bias. In truth, counterbalancing everything is a hard task, especially since not all sides deserve a good share of balance (should the sun revolving around the earth receive the same balance as the earth revolving around the sun)
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/22/2011 11:07:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/22/2011 11:04:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 7/22/2011 10:57:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Conservapedia counterbalances maybe some liberal blog somewhere (certainly not Huffington or Kos or something on that scale though), but there's no way in hell it counterbalances university tendencies.

My main claim is that it is an example of conservatives blocking intercourse. I don't deny that liberals are intolerant, but intolerance occurs on both sides of the spectrum: both conservatives and liberals.

The truth is, in the real world, most people don't want to debate politics. Say a conservative comment in a liberal rally and people will boo you. Say a liberal comment in a conservative rally and people will boo you.

Also, conservative think tanks acts as a good counterbalance to academia's liberal bias.
Lolworthy. They don't have that much counterbalance after the liberal think tanks

In truth, counterbalancing everything is a hard task
Remember, I'm not advocating a Fairness Doctrine here (though I do support the abolition of tax funding for academia), nor is Roy, I'm just rebutting stuff that doesn't make sense and Roy is saying that the left manages a lot more intolerance :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2011 3:21:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/21/2011 10:16:19 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I think there was some mutual agreement in the other thread. I observed that liberals are by nature intolerant, and there was no disagreement. Conservatives are by nature tolerant; they want to engage and debate. The Left thrives on hatred and exclusion. charleslb agreed and said that's the way it should be.

Zinn, of course, is a consummate liar. He writes a "history" book and leaves out anything positive about the US -- no mention of the Gettysburg address, or great inventions, or the Space Program. Acknowledging anything good about the US would be tolerating opposing evidence, and opposing ideas or facts cannot be tolerated. charleslb jumps in again to affirm that the Left is completely justified in lying, because the truth is no better than any other bias.

We have agreement.

Zinn openly admitted as much, and made it clear he had an agenda. Howard Zinn should be villified as a distortionist of history, and a manipulator of people. Anyone who gives a wit about history should shun him and berate every piece of garbage that he produced (which was everything that he produced).

The really offending thing is that there are many inner city schools that use that piece of sh!t book "The People's History of the United States" as a text for teaching history. By the way, i read the book, and burned the book as an outrageous mangling of a presentation.

It is offensive to anyone who is interested in history, and understanding a context of history, but it is also quite validating to the hate America crowd, of which the OP is happy to live in. Go live in your ugly world, but leave history to those who have at least an ounce of integrity.

Zinn fully what Stalin practiced and was illustrated in the book 1982 - 'Who controls the past owns the future", and Zinn, and his mind numbed followers on the far left care nothing about the truth, but only their agenda. The US being the largest capitalist force on the planet is target #1 for him and his toadies.