[Reader-list] US : An anti-intellectual society

Wed Dec 26 10:40:29 IST 2012

Good points Z. America bashing sells very well in India, throughout the 
world in fact. But on a forum like this, it helps if our analysis does 
betray nuances.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "BombayZack at hotmail.com" <bombayzack at hotmail.com>
To: "'A. Mani'" <a.mani.cms at gmail.com>; <pragoti_readers at yahoogroups.com>; 
"'sarai list'" <reader-list at sarai.net>; "'The Moderates'" 
<the-moderates at googlegroups.com>; <issuesonline_worldwide at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2012 11:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] US : An anti-intellectual society

>I don't want this to be a flame war, but for goodness sake --
>
> The link you provided actually VALIDATES the point about the sloppiness. 
> You don't see that??  He has been appointed to the committee in the COMING 
> congress.  That's in Jan, 2013.  That's 'will be', not 'is.'
>
> Second, a comment on a Slashdot forum is pretty weak, as sources go. 
> Really.  Your original posting was much more authoritative sounding: 
> America=anti-intellectual -- and here's the proof.  But now that I see 
> your basically forwarding an internet comment I'm amused at how it was 
> able to trigger a reaction in me.  Still, it should have been cited 
> correctly.
>
> Third, your reply --
>
>  > No you are wrong, it is not a case of somebody believing in religion.
>  > He would as well deny funds for people maimed for veterans if it fell 
> within his purview.  'christian science' is clearly 'anti-science' .
>
> -- is flat out wrong.  It took me literally 45 seconds to find an example 
> of him voting to expand medical services for maimed veterans --
> http://votesmart.org/bill/3247/8019/27097/department-of-veterans-affairs-improvement-act-of-2003#.UNp9I_JuKSo
>
> How can you just make up such things???
>
> Plus, don't you see how wrong it is to say "he WOULD..." -- as if you are 
> all-knowing about his behavior?
>
> You've put me in the uncomfortable position of looking like I'm defending 
> Smith.  I'm not.  I'm defending making your case fairly, objectively, 
> accurately.
>
> As I said, there is ample history of anti-intellectualism but your post 
> and reply does a disservice to making that point.
>
> Regards to all,
> z
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: reader-list-bounces at sarai.net [mailto:reader-list-bounces at sarai.net] 
> On Behalf Of A. Mani
> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 6:58 AM
> To: pragoti_readers at yahoogroups.com; sarai list; The Moderates; 
> issuesonline_worldwide at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] US : An anti-intellectual society
>
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:13 AM, BombayZack at hotmail.com 
> <bombayzack at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> There is ample history of anti-intellectualism in American society, but 
>> your post is sloppy and does a disservice.
>>
>> First, Smith is not YET the head of the committee. It's that he 'will 
>> be' -- not 'is'.  If you're so loose with facts that are easy to spot, 
>> who knows what else is going on.
>>
>
> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3338009&cid=42384227
>
>> Second, what exactly are you quoting? It's just basic courtesy, not to 
>> mention more honest, to cite your source.  You mention two wiki links 
>> below.  Does the quote come from both of them; one paragraph from one, 
>> one form the other; or you edited it all together? Who knows!!
>>
>
> Missed the source:
> http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3338009&cid=42384465
>
>
>>
>> Fourth, I'm not defending Smith, but the logic of the text below is 
>> non-existent.  By this argument, everyone has a conflict of interest on, 
>> say, abortion -- because everyone's religious beliefs have some opinion 
>> on it.  So, what, Catholic lawmakers can't serve on Health-related 
>> committees, because they would have a 'conflict of interest'?  Or, only 
>> atheists can be congressmen, because only they wouldn't have such 
>> 'conflicts of interest'??  Ha!  His having a religious belief, even one 
>> which you consider extreme, does not necessarily mean he is an unjust 
>> lawmaker.  To take your example -- surgery: Do you think Smith would deny 
>> funds for maimed veterans needing surgery, just because he himself 
>> chooses to avoid surgery?  No. Judge Smith by his actions, not his 
>> religious beliefs.
>>
>
> No you are wrong, it is not a case of somebody believing in religion.
> He would as well deny funds for people maimed for veterans if it fell 
> within his purview.  'christian science' is clearly 'anti-science' .
> Or ... is he supposed to be a hypocrite of worst order.
>
>
>
> Best
>
> A. Mani
>
>
>
> --
> A. Mani
> CU, ASL, CLC,  AMS, CMS
> http://www.logicamani.in
> http://www.logicamani.co.cc
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with 
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with 
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/> 