tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9045565.post114603177577557178..comments2023-09-30T03:57:11.799-05:00Comments on ahistoricality: It's for Science!Ahistoricalityhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04004964192885891003noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9045565.post-1146298205686263992006-04-29T03:10:00.000-05:002006-04-29T03:10:00.000-05:00"In-group humor", if that's what it is, probably h..."In-group humor", if that's what it is, probably has no place on the open web, especially if citation by a member of the "out-group" is likely to cause resentment. This is identity politics gone to seed and gotten pitiful. I would expect you to challenge me, if I cited an anti-Judaism polemic as worthy of serious attention.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9045565.post-1146292555522998512006-04-29T01:35:00.000-05:002006-04-29T01:35:00.000-05:00(You've never heard of humor which was more approp...(You've never heard of humor which was more appropriate in-group than out-group?)<BR/><BR/>Good for you, Ralph.Ahistoricalityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04004964192885891003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9045565.post-1146288737938207622006-04-29T00:32:00.000-05:002006-04-29T00:32:00.000-05:00I have no interest in spending time on polemics th...I have no interest in spending time on polemics that are inherently superficial and have no intention of collecting references to them, either. I cited the "dumb satirical animations" in good will and only those that had already been cited by faithful Jews. I do not cite polemics against Judaism, in large part, because I have no confidence whatsoever that their authors have ever taken the time to study the tradition with any seriousness. Satires are not fielded as serious; polemics are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9045565.post-1146131949364363512006-04-27T04:59:00.000-05:002006-04-27T04:59:00.000-05:00And yet you had no problem "celebrating" Passover ...And yet you had no problem "celebrating" Passover by linking to dumb satirical animations.<BR/><BR/>Exactly what argument are you making here? That it's impolite of me to take note of what I find interesting? That I should ignore evidence which raises interesting questions about modern society, not to mention world history, because it's "partisan"? <BR/><BR/>If you actually have evidence and arguments to offer in refutation, feel free.Ahistoricalityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04004964192885891003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9045565.post-1146129495735814122006-04-27T04:18:00.000-05:002006-04-27T04:18:00.000-05:00I don't find that kind of hegelian move very helpf...I don't find that kind of hegelian move very helpful. I keep thinking something like what my reaction be if I found a list of anti-Muslim or anti-Judaism attacks on the net. Would I want to archive it? I think not. I've never had the slightest interest in accumulating lists of what is wrong with Judaism or what is wrong with Islam. And I certainly have no interest in somebody else's obviously hostile and partisan rants about them, much less grant such rants the status of profound truth, only to array against it other profound truth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9045565.post-1146082470904435942006-04-26T15:14:00.000-05:002006-04-26T15:14:00.000-05:00Someone once said that the opposite of a profound ...<A HREF="http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Bohr_Niels.html" REL="nofollow">Someone once said</A> that the opposite of a profound truth is usually another profound truth....<BR/><BR/>There is a bit of conflation of historically contingent and theological issues there: "Christianity" is not necessarily the sum of its bad history.Ahistoricalityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04004964192885891003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9045565.post-1146049939693152772006-04-26T06:12:00.000-05:002006-04-26T06:12:00.000-05:00One could argue exactly the reverse of every one o...One could argue exactly the reverse of every one of those attacks on Christianity and be at least as correct as they are. Probably more so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com