Once more unto the breach, dear Kevin, once more, or fill the the wall up with our Blogger dead.
I have already posted a couple of times on Analphilosopher's penchant for sloppy political argument. I'm not going to do much writing here - I'll just post two Analphilosopher posts next to each other for comparison:
From Analphilsopher on 4-14, bottom of the Krugman post:
…By writing such shrill, partisan columns, Krugman undermines whatever credibility he would otherwise have. He’s a party hack, not a disinterested seeker after truth (what we philosophers call a veracious inquirer). I wonder what Krugman’s fellow economists think of him. I know that if any philosopher were as partisan as Krugman is, he or she would be roundly condemned. We philosophers take pride in our honesty and fairness. Yes, we have evaluative and interpretive disagreements, often profound, but none of us would ever distort or hide facts that go against our beliefs, and we certainly don’t treat others with the contempt that Krugman displays in every column. He’s a disgrace to academia. He gives economics an even worse name than it had, which is hard to do.
From 4/12:
Liberals have no shame. They're unfulfilled totalitarians. Their only goal, despite their declared concern for the disadvantaged, is power. Think about it. If liberals truly cared about the disadvantaged, as they say they do, they'd dispose of their wealth. There are enough wealthy liberals in this country to feed, clothe, shelter, and medicate every poor person. Don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen. The Kennedys are still wealthy, aren't they? John Kerry is more than happy to take advantage of the Heinz fortune. Liberals insist on forcing others to pay for their hare-brained social-engineering schemes. This suggests that they're driven by envy and spite, not benevolence.
I have already posted on the 4/12 rant against liberals. Comparing the two columns, I am sure that Professor Burgess-Jackson wrote column on the twelfth as an attempt at humor. In light of his opinions expressed in the post of the fourteenth, he couldn’t possible have made the argument of the twelfth with a straight face.
I have already posted a couple of times on Analphilosopher's penchant for sloppy political argument. I'm not going to do much writing here - I'll just post two Analphilosopher posts next to each other for comparison:
From Analphilsopher on 4-14, bottom of the Krugman post:
…By writing such shrill, partisan columns, Krugman undermines whatever credibility he would otherwise have. He’s a party hack, not a disinterested seeker after truth (what we philosophers call a veracious inquirer). I wonder what Krugman’s fellow economists think of him. I know that if any philosopher were as partisan as Krugman is, he or she would be roundly condemned. We philosophers take pride in our honesty and fairness. Yes, we have evaluative and interpretive disagreements, often profound, but none of us would ever distort or hide facts that go against our beliefs, and we certainly don’t treat others with the contempt that Krugman displays in every column. He’s a disgrace to academia. He gives economics an even worse name than it had, which is hard to do.
From 4/12:
Liberals have no shame. They're unfulfilled totalitarians. Their only goal, despite their declared concern for the disadvantaged, is power. Think about it. If liberals truly cared about the disadvantaged, as they say they do, they'd dispose of their wealth. There are enough wealthy liberals in this country to feed, clothe, shelter, and medicate every poor person. Don't hold your breath waiting for this to happen. The Kennedys are still wealthy, aren't they? John Kerry is more than happy to take advantage of the Heinz fortune. Liberals insist on forcing others to pay for their hare-brained social-engineering schemes. This suggests that they're driven by envy and spite, not benevolence.
I have already posted on the 4/12 rant against liberals. Comparing the two columns, I am sure that Professor Burgess-Jackson wrote column on the twelfth as an attempt at humor. In light of his opinions expressed in the post of the fourteenth, he couldn’t possible have made the argument of the twelfth with a straight face.
posted by Anonymous at 4/22/2004 04:06:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home