"Open Letter to the LA Times re Morrissey" - For Britain

Comments

Khadija speaking about Islam as an ideology - so why the white nationalism in the letter? Truly the worst political party in the country. They have no idea who they are or how to sell themselves.


I googled her to see if she existed.
 
V
as ever with Morrissey, if you look deeper, the jury is out. Nothing about him is ever normal.
:rolleyes:

:straightface:

he is pretty normal in the sense he doesnt wear a wig helmet with a patch:handpointright::guardsman::handpointleft:
and filled his self with tattoos at 5o yrs old. He doesnt wear flowery shorts buttoned up
to his neck and thumb so nobody can see them. Now thats not normal:thumbsdown:
getting dozen tattoos and then wanting nobody to see them by wearing stretched out flowery shirts all the time.:bowing:
 
Oh, hey. We've got ourselves an armchair Freud.

You want to believe that Sharia Law is taking over because it's a simple explanation for all the complex problems besetting modern life.
Bulverism

Bulverism is a logical fallacy. The method of Bulverism is to "assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error." The Bulverist assumes a speaker's argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake, attacking the speaker or the speaker's motive. The term Bulverism was coined by C. S. Lewis to poke fun at a very serious error in thinking that, he alleges, recurs often in a variety of religious, political, and philosophical debates.
Similar to Antony Flew's "subject/motive shift", Bulverism is a fallacy of irrelevance. One accuses an argument of being wrong on the basis of the arguer's identity or motive, but these are strictly speaking irrelevant to the argument's validity or truth.



Source of the concept
Lewis wrote about this in a 1941 essay which was later expanded and published in The Socratic Digest under the title "Bulverism". This was reprinted both in Undeceptions and the more recent anthology God in the Dock. He explains the origin of this term:

You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.

In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father—who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third—"Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
 
A
Oh, hey. We've got ourselves an armchair Freud.



Bulverism

Bulverism is a logical fallacy. The method of Bulverism is to "assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error." The Bulverist assumes a speaker's argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake, attacking the speaker or the speaker's motive. The term Bulverism was coined by C. S. Lewis to poke fun at a very serious error in thinking that, he alleges, recurs often in a variety of religious, political, and philosophical debates.
Similar to Antony Flew's "subject/motive shift", Bulverism is a fallacy of irrelevance. One accuses an argument of being wrong on the basis of the arguer's identity or motive, but these are strictly speaking irrelevant to the argument's validity or truth.



Source of the concept
Lewis wrote about this in a 1941 essay which was later expanded and published in The Socratic Digest under the title "Bulverism". This was reprinted both in Undeceptions and the more recent anthology God in the Dock. He explains the origin of this term:

You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.

In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father—who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third—"Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
Nice!
 
Oh, hey. We've got ourselves an armchair Freud.



Bulverism

Bulverism is a logical fallacy. The method of Bulverism is to "assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error." The Bulverist assumes a speaker's argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake, attacking the speaker or the speaker's motive. The term Bulverism was coined by C. S. Lewis to poke fun at a very serious error in thinking that, he alleges, recurs often in a variety of religious, political, and philosophical debates.
Similar to Antony Flew's "subject/motive shift", Bulverism is a fallacy of irrelevance. One accuses an argument of being wrong on the basis of the arguer's identity or motive, but these are strictly speaking irrelevant to the argument's validity or truth.



Source of the concept
Lewis wrote about this in a 1941 essay which was later expanded and published in The Socratic Digest under the title "Bulverism". This was reprinted both in Undeceptions and the more recent anthology God in the Dock. He explains the origin of this term:

You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.

In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father—who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third—"Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism
I wasn't arguing that Reel's argument was wrong because of their psychology, I was arguing that it was wrong & that they may be attracted to that wrong argument because of psychology.
 
Last edited:
A
For Britain are a diverse bunch of cranks & very unlikely to make any impact on British politics but that letter is going to make Morrissey's life worse. They're not treating Islam as an ideology, they're treating it as a race that has to be kept out of or removed from Europe. That's standard fascism.

The Far Right have been trying to soften their image for years, but it's very hard to disguise their core authoritarian ethnic nationalism. It's sad to see so many minorities fall for it just because Islamic terrorism became so baroque.
'Straw man' argument from the get-go.
 
G
It does rather prove their point about Silicon Valley not allowing them to defend their views.

BTW Shortly after it was formed I met a British Pakistani woman who was in For Britain (not the author). Another former muslim. Also a British Pakistani Farage-era UKIP candidate who was beaten up while campaigning

Morrissey has taken a very anti-establishment (and anti-music establishment, and anti-commercial) line in Backing Anne Marie Waters, though she ticks all his boxes. Would people really prefer their rebels to be the ones invited onto the BBC as the "voice of the yoot", lauded by the guardian and NME, and handed biz awards where they can shock the world with what they have been told to say (looking at you, Stormzy)


Well, that's a shame, isn't it? When you're too racist for Twitter...

 

Trending Threads

Top Bottom