Comments on: Superb (mostly) Response from Lindholm http://www.bernardfinel.com/?p=634 Politics, National Security, Crime and Justice, and Social Commentary Tue, 07 Sep 2010 19:39:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Joshua Foust http://www.bernardfinel.com/?p=634&cpage=1#comment-86 Joshua Foust Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:53:19 +0000 http://www.bernardfinel.com/?p=634#comment-86 No, I understand fully. This isn't about personal attacks. But I don't get how you can square "I am under no obligation to address each and every point everyone makes" with a) your FP essay, which DEMANDED supporters of the war address all 10 of your arguments; or b) your dissatisfaction with Lindholm answering only a few of those arguments in depth. That's more what I was getting at. Also, Jari posted an apology for the retard comment. I hope you take it as water under the bridge, as I did your comment about me "manning up." No, I understand fully. This isn’t about personal attacks. But I don’t get how you can square

“I am under no obligation to address each and every point everyone makes”

with a) your FP essay, which DEMANDED supporters of the war address all 10 of your arguments; or b) your dissatisfaction with Lindholm answering only a few of those arguments in depth.

That’s more what I was getting at. Also, Jari posted an apology for the retard comment. I hope you take it as water under the bridge, as I did your comment about me “manning up.”

]]> By: Bernard Finel http://www.bernardfinel.com/?p=634&cpage=1#comment-84 Bernard Finel Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:36:53 +0000 http://www.bernardfinel.com/?p=634#comment-84 Josh: I don't think you know the meaning of "dismiss out of hand". What I have done on several occasions -- sometimes with salty language -- is address at length what I consider to be flawed arguments. I've gotten a lot of grief about my response to you and my response to Biddle. I devoted 1,500 words to addressing your argument about nuclear risks in South Asia, and I devoted 2,500 words to Biddles apologia for the war in Afghanistan. You may be used to reading blogs that deal with issue in even more depth... please show them to me because I would welcome the opportunity to see anyone on the web who deals with arguments they disagree with in as much depth as I do. I am under no obligation to address each and every point everyone makes, but I do pride myself on the fact that when I do choose to address arguments, I do so in as detailed and systematic manner as anyone writing online. Lastly... I really don't mind having my arguments called "inane" or whatever. I would suggest that people actually take the time to assess whether the argument is indeed inane. I do say some inane things... but frankly, not often. My question about problematizing what a Taliban-Pakistan relationship would look like in the future is hardly inane. There is enough history there to prompt some serious consideration, regardless of what answer you come up with in the end. What I do have a problem with is being called a "retard." Attack my arguments all you want using whatever language you want, but there is no reason to attack the person. Josh: I don’t think you know the meaning of “dismiss out of hand”. What I have done on several occasions — sometimes with salty language — is address at length what I consider to be flawed arguments. I’ve gotten a lot of grief about my response to you and my response to Biddle. I devoted 1,500 words to addressing your argument about nuclear risks in South Asia, and I devoted 2,500 words to Biddles apologia for the war in Afghanistan. You may be used to reading blogs that deal with issue in even more depth… please show them to me because I would welcome the opportunity to see anyone on the web who deals with arguments they disagree with in as much depth as I do.

I am under no obligation to address each and every point everyone makes, but I do pride myself on the fact that when I do choose to address arguments, I do so in as detailed and systematic manner as anyone writing online.

Lastly… I really don’t mind having my arguments called “inane” or whatever. I would suggest that people actually take the time to assess whether the argument is indeed inane. I do say some inane things… but frankly, not often. My question about problematizing what a Taliban-Pakistan relationship would look like in the future is hardly inane. There is enough history there to prompt some serious consideration, regardless of what answer you come up with in the end.

What I do have a problem with is being called a “retard.”

Attack my arguments all you want using whatever language you want, but there is no reason to attack the person.

]]> By: Joshua Foust http://www.bernardfinel.com/?p=634&cpage=1#comment-83 Joshua Foust Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:08:24 +0000 http://www.bernardfinel.com/?p=634#comment-83 No offense, Bernard, but for someone who has made a habit of dismissing arguments out of hand when he finds them ridiculous, your complaint of Jari doing the same rings a bit hollow. No offense, Bernard, but for someone who has made a habit of dismissing arguments out of hand when he finds them ridiculous, your complaint of Jari doing the same rings a bit hollow.

]]>