Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JayUtah
And nary a whisper of protest from you.
But that's not entirely true, and so that's entirely the problem. Brumsen does on occasion take issue with S9/11T people and what they say. He has no problem telling us he thinks they're sometimes overzealous, or underscientific. And he says he hopes to reform them from within, or some such nonsense.
The problem is that by sitting on the fence like that he can convince each camp he is on their side. When S9/11T statements become too hot to handle, he drops them like a hot potato. But if we decide not to listen to them or give them any credibility, then we're just being obstinate and self-absorbed or otherwise improperly dismissive.
Brumsen is the rhetorical chameleon. We can never know his true color, so he has the ability perpetually to say we've got him all wrong. If he would state a belief rather than a disbelief, there might actually be some point to talking to him.
|
Interesting post, Jay.
The thing is: I am not so sure of what I believe and disbelieve either.
However, even though you (and I mean in the plural, not just you personally) are unsure of what it is that I want to defend, it has already been established that I am a conspiracist, so that you have good reason to 'gang up' on me, (Spitfire has perceived that very well) and debunk whatever it is that I might be saying.
(This reminds me of - I believe it was - Turbonium's post in the
Scholars thread, reproducing the official conspiracy theory in a sarcastic tone of voice, after which he was jumped upon (by I forgot who) saying: "and now it's up to you to prove that that's what happened!")
Anyway, as far as I know, this "pernicious method" that I am perceived as employing is a philosophical approach.
The days when Socrates was executed for corrupting Athens' youth by not really pushing any line in particular are not so far behind us as it may sometimes seem.