Oliver Stone: "Putin is a great leader for his country."

[John Cotter]

2 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

We can choose to keep an open mind to what others have to say. We can weigh and evaluate what they put forth and decide for ourselves what to think.  We can agree to disagree.  We can put someone on ignore if we don't want to read what they write.  

 

Exactly.

These self-styled brilliant researchers seem to lack confidence in their findings. Otherwise, they wouldn’t feel threatened by alternative views or by the supposed inability of their readers to judge for themselves which views make the most sense.

[James DiEugenio]

I just have to ask:

How many people here have read John's 900 page book en toto?

Especially curious about those who trash it who have not read it.

Greg Parker admits he has not read the whole book.

So I would like to ask if Jonathan had read the whole book and if Jeremy has read the whole book?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

15 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The moderators should do more than limit their role to dealing with name-calling and the like.

All it should take, in most cases, would be a bit of gentle prodding. If someone makes a claim for which they don't appear to have provided sufficient evidence, or if someone claims certainty when their evidence doesn't appear to justify certainty, the moderators should point it out.

 

Okay Jeremy, I'm up for the job.

Now, if anybody sees that someone is making a claim for which there is insufficient evidence, just let me know. If you are right, I will tell the person he needs more evidence.

Problem solved.

 

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

James DiEugenio writes:

Quote

Especially curious about those who trash it who have not read it. ... So I would like to ask if Jonathan had read the whole book and if Jeremy has read the whole book?

No, I haven't read the whole book. I've read the first few dozen pages, and parts of the rest of it, to see what Armstrong has to say about particular topics.

I'm not sure how anyone can read the whole thing from beginning to end. It's an unreadable mess. It jumps from place to place for no obvious reason; it has 'notes' stuck between paragraphs of unrelated text; it has boldface, italics and underlining applied seemingly at random. It isn't so much a finished book as a set of rough notes.

How much of an allegedly non-fiction book does one need to read to get a fair impression of its relation to reality? In the case of Armstrong's 900-page tome, I'd say it's the first 14 pages. By page 14, Armstrong has put forward a major element of his theory as a proven fact while supplying virtually zero evidence to support it:

Quote

As early as page 14, it will be obvious to even a half-alert reader that the 'Harvey and Lee' theory is the product not of solid evidence and argument but of wishful thinking. All but the most credulous conspiracy theorists, who surely make up Harvey and Lee’s target audience, would be wondering how many more evidence-free inventions were lurking in the remaining 900-odd pages.

(http://22november1963.org.uk/john-armstrong-harvey-and-lee-theory)

As far as "trashing" goes, I concentrated on criticising the ideas, not the book, when (and because) those ideas were very heavily promoted on this forum. Very heavily indeed! Thank [insert name of preferred deity] that those days appear to be over. I've done the same to the late Mr Lifton's equally ludicrous ideas when he promoted them here. If anyone were to actively promote, say, the claim that Greer shot JFK, which is about as well-grounded as Armstrong's and Lifton's claims, I'd probably get to work on that, too, if I had time.

This sort of stuff (doppelgangers, body-snatchers, mobile photo-alteration vans in Dealey Plaza, etc) is harmful, because it is liable to make the rest of us look like fantasists. If you think a particular theory is not only faulty but actively harmful, you're justified in questioning it, surely?

Armstrong's theory is essentially the lone-nut theory coated with a thick, glutinous layer of paranoia, which is why most of those who "trash" it are also critics of the lone-nut theory. If casual readers see stuff like that promoted and not questioned, what are they going to think about those who don't question it?

-----

By the way, those of a delicate disposition may like to know that the humourous and satirical posts at ROKC have been moved from the 'Debunked' section to a separate area:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f6-humor-satire

[Matt Allison]

 

[John Cotter]

21 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

 

If this is true, it's almost as bad as the genocide of indigenous Americans on which the USA is founded. The mistreatment of ethnic Russians by the Ukrainian government and the mistreatment of Russian speakers by the Latvian government, among other matters, all need to be investigated by the relevant commission(s) of enquiry.

[Matt Allison]

10 hours ago, John Cotter said:

If this is true, it's almost as bad as the genocide of indigenous Americans on which the USA is founded. The mistreatment of ethnic Russians by the Ukrainian government and the mistreatment of Russian speakers by the Latvian government, among other matters, all need to be investigated by the relevant commission(s) of enquiry.

lol, ok, guy.

Can this ridiculous thread please be moved to a different part of the RF? Maybe make a new place for stuff like this? Something like "Russian Apologists and America Haters"?

 

[John Cotter]

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

lol, ok, guy.

Can this ridiculous thread please be moved to a different part of the RF? Maybe make a new place for stuff like this? Something like "Russian Apologists and America Haters"?

 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29129-note-to-sandy/?do=findComment&comment=501533

 

[Michael Griffith]

What would we say if someone made one, some, or all of the following statements?

     "Iran's mullahs are great leaders for their country."

     "Kim Jon Un is a great leader for his country."

     "Bashar Assad is a great leader for his country."

We would wonder about the person's grip on reality, and rightfully so. 

No, I haven't been following this thread. I'm surprised it's still going. I hope the reason for this is that people have been piling on with condemnations of Stone's embarrassing statement. 

 

[Bob Ness]

On 5/18/2023 at 3:52 AM, John Cotter said:

If this is true, it's almost as bad as the genocide of indigenous Americans on which the USA is founded. The mistreatment of ethnic Russians by the Ukrainian government and the mistreatment of Russian speakers by the Latvian government, among other matters, all need to be investigated by the relevant commission(s) of enquiry.

Your "what-about" was swift and sure! Nicely done!

[John Cotter]

1 hour ago, Bob Ness said:

Your "what-about" was swift and sure! Nicely done!

Thank you, Bob.

The Oxford Dictionary definition of “whataboutery” is: “the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.”

https://uk.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=mcafee&type=E211IE1451G0&p=whataboutery+meaning

But what about when you agree that the thing criticised is wrong before “making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue”?

[Bob Ness]

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

But what about ....

Stellar!! Hahaha!