: I disagree with your comments on homosexuality which you've making, defending, restating, refining for several months now. I said a high percentange. Not all of them.
I would be very happy to discuss these views in detail with you if you would like, that is, if your open minded enough to accept that politically incorrect criticism of the liberal left's cause celebre could be legitimate, I'm objective are you?
: Hank: You should start doing more thinking before you post, Lark, especially in your spats with Stoller. He's been wiping the floor with you lately.
: Lark: Surprise, surprise a pan-strollerist.
: Hank: I've gone at it with Stoller, so what? I'm rooting for the anarchist position, Lark. I'm all for maximum social power, minimum or zero coercion. But I must say that from ringside, round after round has gone to Stoller. So far all you've done is call the Bolsheviks murderous and call Stoller a non-person. You've only succeeded in raising up a moral banner condemning murder. Who can't do that? Who WOULDN'T do that?
What would suggest I say? How has 'round after round' went to Stroller? The fact that I disagree with him and he disagrees with me doesnt mean there's a winner and a loser in the debate, that is the road of triumphalist politics and that way you end up with people championing causes they have been persuaded are wrong simply because they dont want to be seen to be 'surrendering'.
: Lark: Are my posts aggrivating because I have no aspiration to pretensious psuedo-intellectualism or snobbery? Or because I dont put out the same things time and again like some machine or jesuit quoting his favourite biblical quote
: This isn't a real question. It looks like a question, but it's not a straight one so I can't answer it straight. Are these yes/no questions or is this one multiple choice?
I was under the impression you where one of the unobjective Marxists who preaches, simply read Marx all will become clear, you couldn't fail to agree with Marx, in the fashion of a born again Christian.
: With this "question" you're not soliciting the reasons as to why I found your post aggravating, rather you're staking out a position, the position being that you're a straight-talker, a shooter-from-the-hip, and most of all you (unlike Stoller) are not wedded to any particular belief system. You're a "trial and error" socialist who doesn't give a shit about dialectics or class divisions or anything. You're just mad as hell and you ain't gonna take it anymore.
You know that discription sounds....kinda nice....Cheers.
: Leaving aside that your non-weddedness stance is a belief system in itself, I would like to remind you that I didn't say ALL your posts aren't aggravating, just the one you wrote to Frenchy. He asked a question which was pretty much "so why do people come to America?" and you said "because they're dumb" and went on from there.
I know it's a position in itself, it pisses me of that the capitalists of the third way make a mockery of non-partisan political beliefs, I came into that thread a specific point, I thought Frenchy was making characturistically egotistical postures about Americans being a complete class apart from the rest of the world, with the usual look at the wealth argument (what are robber barons all geniuses?), that was the reason for my response.
:Eschewing even redimentary analysis of an important fact (i.e. that America is a deeply indoctrinated country) you chose to skip a very important line of discussion and were satisfied to call 260 million people "dumb."
Well how would you try to converse with Frenchy?
: This plays precisely into Frenchy's conception that Leftists are a bunch of whining, knee-jerk malcontents. If he were to respond by calling you a bigot, I'd agree with him.
Whining, knee-jerk malcontents? bigots? That sounds more like the right to me, never done bitching about their tax and the government on their backs and moaning about other peoples 'business' in a real busy body fashion like advocating decrees on sexual morality, contraception and racism.
: Lark: Let's make it clear, I dont want to fall out over this and I havent tried to be agressive or malicious in this post but I'm not going to temper my views with the kind of convention and 'form' that some people would, like, alright I see no reason for out right malicious behaviour or getting to heated but I dont think this is an academic or British conservative elite club either.
: Calling Americans dumb played perfectly into Frenchy's belief that Leftists are a bunch of whining, knee-jerk malcontents. I objected to it because you missed a chance to set Frenchy straight on an important point, namely the form and function of American education.
Fair enough you still think it's worth trying to set Frenchy straight on anything, I think he's to commited to trendy free market nonsense and socially acceptable hatred.
You think he's never accused socialists of being dumb?
: Your bit with Stoller bit is fine. It's silly that you called me a Stollerist, because if you should know that I have plenty of differences with him and Skinner and Behaviorism. And I have political and rhetorical differences as well . But not one of my issues with Stoller has anything to do with the fact that he makes the effort to substantiate his views with notes and references.
I didnt know you wherent a strollerite.
: And you're right, this is not a conservative British elite debate club. Um, why is this important?
I thought you where trying to suggest I should confine myself to polite conversation disagreement free, the way Barry thinks any good socialist party and society will be run.