|
What has this to do with Europe as in EU never mind as a continent?
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 9 Feb 18 at 02:01
|
You really do manage to find the most obscure sources to try and justify and support your narrow minded and ignorant views
What's the matter, Briebart got too intellectual for you?
|
|
Ahh read full article now - paranoid rubbish.
|
I think Roger is saying that the meaning of the term "Europe" has varied over the centuries and millennia, being sometimes conceptualised in terms of a single empire, sometimes as two or three rival empires, sometimes as a multitude of nation states, and sometimes into groups of states arranged in more or less cohesive power blocs.
The set up in any particular era is partly determined by the inter-play of the peoples of Europe itself, but very often shaped by external influences - intruders - mongols, vikings, Russians, Ottomons, Americans, etc, or by beneficial cultural influences from anywhere in the world.
The argument in the article appears to be suggesting that Saudi Arabia is currently a bigger ultimate influence than might at first seem apparent.
Have I got the drift right?
|
>> support your narrow minded and ignorant views
The problem with that is the argument cuts both ways.
I'm not saying that you are wrong, just accusing someone of being narrow minded doesn't mean they are wrong.
Have you ever considered that ANY truth claim is by definition exclusive?
And as such could be deemed to be "narrow minded"?
|
>> Have you ever considered that ANY truth claim is by definition exclusive?
>>
>> And as such could be deemed to be "narrow minded"?
>>
It depends on the past history of the source, and the history of the sources and articles they have posted in the past
In this case it's actually very similar to a jihadist or fanatic who find and follow sources repeatedly that are deliberately warped out of context to support their own views. The similarity between a certain poster and a radical cleric are remarkable
|
>> It depends on the past history of the source, and the history of the sources
>> and articles they have posted in the past
>>
So everyone is right until they are wrong, but if you are wrong once you are forever wrong?
|
>> It depends on the past history of the source, and the history of the sources and articles they have posted in the past
No. I wasn't making any judgement of sources, historicity or your actual view.
I was merely stating a fact that ANY truth claim (claim is the key word here), is by definition exclusive.
So to give you an example, if I say "this site has a blue banner"
By definition what I am saying is it cannot have a red banner or any other colour for that matter.
But, I hear you say, it has a red banner, and by that statement you are eliminating the possibility that it is blue.
Now you happen to be right in this example, but the point I am making is about exclusiveness which naturally comes out as "narrow minded".
So to accuse someone of being narrow minded for holding a position is not really saying anything.
Far more useful to say WHY you disagree like someone else in this thread has done.
|
|
One shouldn't necessarily assume that Zero is always wrong. Stopped clocks an' all that.
|
>> You really do manage to find the most obscure sources to try and justify and
>> support your narrow minded and ignorant views
>>
>> What's the matter, Briebart got too intellectual for you?
>>
Are the facts quoted in the article right or wrong?
(Yes, I know a fact cannot, by definition, be wrong, but here it's used as a convenient label for things stated to be true).
If the statements, or even a reasonable portion are in fact acts, it begs the question - is it wrong to see a pattern and draw some conclusions?.
The author is stating his conclusions and just because they do not fit your narrow narrative, it does not automatically make them wrong.
Last edited by: Roger. on Fri 9 Feb 18 at 21:25
|
So I finally read it. And in a fit of madness I copied it into MS Word and then deleted everything not an actual known fact. It shrank enormously and lost all impact or coherence.
Indeed it contains many facts.
In between those facts it contains spurious and erroneous relationships, emotive description, prediction, assumption and unwarranted statements as part of an overall text designed to cause fear.
In fact the conclusions at the end are not the most harmful or appalling part. It is the way that utter fabrication is used to present arguments, those arguments used to validate statements and then those statements summarised as a conclusion.
One could only conceivably see it as a valuable and valid discussion document if one was desperate for the conclusion to be true. Without that wholehearted, unquestioning and blind belief in the conclusions, then the document and its argument crumble.
This is not a document which investigates to arrive at a conclusion, it is a document which starts with a desired conclusion and then sets about trying to argue for it.
I hope and believe that I would still dislike that document and its approach if it was on another subject and presented a conclusion that I supported. I think it would still make my toes curl and my teeth set on edge as if someone scratched their nails across a blackboard.
But in a document with such appalling aims I find it almost unbearably awful.
Only someone of very low intelligence, or someone deeply biased towards that conclusion could possibly give it any credence.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 9 Feb 18 at 22:28
|
>> Only someone of very low intelligence, or someone deeply biased towards that conclusion
>> could possibly give it any credence.
I think this is the point Zero is making about Roger.
|
Car4Play said " to accuse someone of being narrow minded for holding a position is not really saying anything"
And I thought he had a point, so I went past the position and read the document. My assessment was of the document, and who I thought was likely to take it seriously.
I very deliberately said nothing aimed at Roger personally. (or anybody else for that matter).
|
>> The author is stating his conclusions and just because they do not fit your narrow
>> narrative, it does not automatically make them wrong.
The point is you ignore all of the mainstream sources and with great effort find and point out obscure and dubious sources to fit your narrow narative. The fact you can't find mainstream sources proves how narrow your narative is
|
The Strange Death of Europe. - Bromptonaut
