Another reason to do two things: (1). Do NOT automatically raise education spending for a while until: (2) A full, comprehensive financial audit is done in each school district and public/private university in the nation, to find out where all the money is going/wasted. (And in Colorado, and any other state[s] who have such a ridiculous amendment in their state Constitution: (3). Repeal any law or amendment that forces full funding of any department of government. )
Leiter: “At some point these acts of brazen viciousness are going to lead to a renewed philosophical interest in the question of when acts of political violence are morally justified.”
The full quote, FWIW: “At some point these acts of brazen viciousness are going to lead to a renewed philosophical interest in the question of when acts of political violence are morally justified, an issue that has, oddly, not been widely addressed in political philosophy since Locke.” Here’s Taranto: “Leiter doesn’t even advocate violence; he merely says that ‘at some point’ (not imminently!) there will be ‘renewed philosophical interest in the question.'”
In general I’d say that you’d have to be either willfully stupid or willfully dishonest to read Leiter’s post as “advocating” violence in Wisconsin or other places. I suppose it’s possible that the people linked above are just completely ignorant of philosophical discussion and the role it plays in the world as well. In a bit by Althouse you don’t cite, where she said, “Leiter is…inclined to approve of the impulse toward violence on the left and willing to mobilize the discipline of philosophy to generate rhetoric to support its political goals. It’s quite disgusting.” it becomes clear that she’s either deeply unsearious, more than a bit dishonest, or perhaps was a bit tipsy when she wrote it. (Leiter is able to “mobilize the discipline of philosophy” so as to “generate rhetoric” that supports violence? I’m afraid this shows that Althouse doesn’t know much about the discipline or about philosophy. That, at least, is by far the most generous reading one can give.) Between the ignorance and the logical flights of fancy (i.e., suggesting that discussing when political violence might be justified implies advocating violence _against persons_ and the like) it’s clear that the linked commenters are ignorant or else selling a line of goods to people they consider fools, fools who seem all to willing to buy.
Golly, Bumper, that _is_ a devastating reply! I guess that suggesting that philosophers might discuss when violence is justified _really is_ to advocate personal violence against individuals. It’s true that I don’t remember the name for the logical operation that’s used in this inference, but I’m sure you’ll supply it for us.
Matt’s response confirms that his side has run out of argument and is down to insistence, their supply of the latter being unlimited. First stage of grief confirmed, cap’n.
All that may be missing is a Hitler reference, a racism reference, a sexism reference , an “end-of-the-world” type reference, etc.–or some combination of such.
WTF is up with this comment thread? Philosophical debates cover all sorts of normally abhorrent behavior (a classic – when it is appropriate to kill and eat your friends). These are hypotheticals.
Good lord, people, seriously! Ceci n’est pas une pipe.
It’s the disingenuous distancing of himself from the process. Had he written “I’ve been following the news and that got me to thinking about the matter and I discovered to my surprise that the subject has not been discussed since Locke.” That would be one thing. See, he’s not even thinking about the philosophy of the matter. But if those durned Republicans don’t stop this nonsense, some one will. Not him, of course. And some one will shoot a Republican. And he’ll go tsk tsk.
13 Comments
Another reason to do two things:
(1). Do NOT automatically raise education spending for a while until:
(2) A full, comprehensive financial audit is done in each school district and public/private university in the nation, to find out where all the money is going/wasted.
(And in Colorado, and any other state[s] who have such a ridiculous amendment in their state Constitution:
(3). Repeal any law or amendment that forces full funding of any department of government. )
He met that he did not advocate violence against Democrats.
Leiter is a master of the weasel word. Did he learn that from Jesuits, law school, or (gasp!) a Jesuit law school?
Leiter is a pathetic liar.
Leiter: “At some point these acts of brazen viciousness are going to lead to a renewed philosophical interest in the question of when acts of political violence are morally justified.”
The full quote, FWIW: “At some point these acts of brazen viciousness are going to lead to a renewed philosophical interest in the question of when acts of political violence are morally justified, an issue that has, oddly, not been widely addressed in political philosophy since Locke.” Here’s Taranto: “Leiter doesn’t even advocate violence; he merely says that ‘at some point’ (not imminently!) there will be ‘renewed philosophical interest in the question.'”
In general I’d say that you’d have to be either willfully stupid or willfully dishonest to read Leiter’s post as “advocating” violence in Wisconsin or other places. I suppose it’s possible that the people linked above are just completely ignorant of philosophical discussion and the role it plays in the world as well. In a bit by Althouse you don’t cite, where she said, “Leiter is…inclined to approve of the impulse toward violence on the left and willing to mobilize the discipline of philosophy to generate rhetoric to support its political goals. It’s quite disgusting.” it becomes clear that she’s either deeply unsearious, more than a bit dishonest, or perhaps was a bit tipsy when she wrote it. (Leiter is able to “mobilize the discipline of philosophy” so as to “generate rhetoric” that supports violence? I’m afraid this shows that Althouse doesn’t know much about the discipline or about philosophy. That, at least, is by far the most generous reading one can give.) Between the ignorance and the logical flights of fancy (i.e., suggesting that discussing when political violence might be justified implies advocating violence _against persons_ and the like) it’s clear that the linked commenters are ignorant or else selling a line of goods to people they consider fools, fools who seem all to willing to buy.
The Matt doth protest too much, methinks.
I agree with Bumper.
Golly, Bumper, that _is_ a devastating reply! I guess that suggesting that philosophers might discuss when violence is justified _really is_ to advocate personal violence against individuals. It’s true that I don’t remember the name for the logical operation that’s used in this inference, but I’m sure you’ll supply it for us.
Matt’s response confirms that his side has run out of argument and is down to insistence, their supply of the latter being unlimited. First stage of grief confirmed, cap’n.
All that may be missing is a Hitler reference, a racism reference, a sexism reference , an “end-of-the-world” type reference, etc.–or some combination of such.
WTF is up with this comment thread? Philosophical debates cover all sorts of normally abhorrent behavior (a classic – when it is appropriate to kill and eat your friends). These are hypotheticals.
Good lord, people, seriously! Ceci n’est pas une pipe.
It’s the disingenuous distancing of himself from the process. Had he written “I’ve been following the news and that got me to thinking about the matter and I discovered to my surprise that the subject has not been discussed since Locke.” That would be one thing. See, he’s not even thinking about the philosophy of the matter. But if those durned Republicans don’t stop this nonsense, some one will. Not him, of course. And some one will shoot a Republican. And he’ll go tsk tsk.
Bob