On 11/5/06, Doyle Saylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greetings Economists,
On Nov 5, 2006, at 7:14 AM, Louis Proyect wrote:
> When you strip away the rhetoric, like the screen from the Wizard of
> Oz, all you are left with is a single, isolated former activist in
> Ohio whose sole contribution to the American revolution is posting
> apologetics for a regime of women-hating torturers.
>
> Pathetic.
Doyle;
Wikipedia says of pathos:
A common use of pathos in argument is creating a sense of rejection if
the audience doesn't agree. Creating a fear of rejection is in essence,
creating a pathos argument.
Doyle;
The picture painted above by LP of Yoshie does not seem to me accurate.
Yoshie has people who agree and support her. She is active at times.
So this is miss statement of reality to claim pathos or emotional
distance.
In other words I question the emotion structure of what LP says. Now
this is a new sort of Socialist character argument. What I mean is
that Socialist character ought to be permeable so that the movement
grow. The ability to allow room for growth means not trying to isolate
members of the left who are important in our debates. The argument for
social isolation as a Socialist character aspect is what I am driving
at.
As Socialist we are concerned to unite our movement and find ways to
unite the movement. And to do that we must have emotional function to
unite the movement. Therefore, to counter this 'emotional structure' a
Socialist argues for understanding of others to unite with them and
grow the movement.
Some people just go bonkers when they encounter opinions or
information that contradicts their settled views, which they won't
change no matter what.
Some socialists don't have the right temperament for socialism or
politics in general for that matter. The right temperament includes
not going bonkers when someone disagrees with you.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
