I have never said anything different. If you read my posts, the constant theme in them has been that Levant is an extremist, and hence is unreliable.
Ezra Levant Makes Sense
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
I have never said anything different. If you read my posts, the constant theme in them has been that Levant is an extremist, and hence is unreliable.
That's my whole point. You're judging the book not on its own merits but on the author.
So let's say you were reading a book written by a liberal, and he ends up quoting Levant on a point he makes about HRCs. What would you do? Skip the quote? Insist on disagreeing with it no matter what it says? Or judge it on its own merits?
A liberal quoting a right wing extremist? It doesn’t happen, Machjo. And in the rare instance that it does happen, I will look at it and seriously consider it. But it is strictly a hypothetical case, I don’t see that happening. I can see a liberal quoting a conservative, but quoting a right wing extremist? Extremely unlikely.
So you are changing your position now that you're saying that you would in fact take his words on their own merit, rather than treating them as suspect from the start.
I have never said that. I will not take his argument on its merit, his reputation is suspect as far as I am concerned. If somebody else, whom I trust makes the same argument, I will seriously look at it.
It was the same thing with Velikovsky. Whatever ideas he suggested were pretty much ignored. But some of his ideas were suggested by reputable scientists and they were seriously considered.
Reputation is everything. Reputation gets you a hearing.
A liberal quoting a right wing extremist? It doesn’t happen, Machjo. And in the rare instance that it does happen, I will look at it and seriously consider it. But it is strictly a hypothetical case, I don’t see that happening. I can see a liberal quoting a conservative, but quoting a right wing extremist? Extremely unlikely.
So you are changing your position now that you're saying that you would in fact take his words on their own merit, rather than treating them as suspect from the start.
I have never said that. I will not take his argument on its merit, his reputation is suspect as far as I am concerned. If somebody else, whom I trust makes the same argument, I will seriously look at it.
It was the same thing with Velikovsky. Whatever ideas he suggested were pretty much ignored. But some of his ideas were suggested by reputable scientists and they were seriously considered.
Reputation is everything. Reputation gets you a hearing.
Why, certainly. As I said before, there isn’t enough time in the world to read each and every book, one has to use a selection criteria. And the most reasonable criteria is the reputation of the author.
And it is not just me. Has any journalist followed up his theory and written another book, calling for abolition of HRC? Or has any journalist written a book refuting what he says? I doubt it. Sure the press may have reported the book when he wrote it, but after that it has mostly been ignored.
The reason? Levant's reputation as a right wing extremist.
[FONT="][/FONT]
How interesting. Many of the books I've read quote from all over the place. Just read Linguistic Imperialism by Robert Phillipson. His views would likely be sympathised with by the left, yet he quotes the British Council, USAID, Nazis, French government policy, you name it. He quotes from history and recent examples, etc. What kind of narrow-minded books do you read that you can tell right from the get go that a liberal would not quote a right wing extremist. Liberals are that sensorious are they?
Now as for your comment that you would not trust his arguments on their merits. Let's suppose that a qualified researcher, albeit with known right-wing views, should come ups with well-researched statistics on a subject, and a liberal researcher comes up with different statistics. You would judge based on the person's ideological beliefs? Wow!I can't believe that you're even admitting to it.
Let's suppose that a qualified researcher, albeit with known right-wing views, should come ups with well-researched statistics on a subject, and a liberal researcher comes up with different statistics. You would judge based on the person's ideological beliefs? Wow!I can't believe that you're even admitting to it.
This is not the same thing, Machjo. I will see how his research is received by other scientists. In anything to do with science, I look to what the consensus is among the scientists. If scientific consensus is that the right wing scientist is right, I will believe him, if scientists think that he is wrong, I won’t.
A scientist is judged by his peers, I cannot judge a scientist. So the example you have given is totally different.
This is not the same thing, Machjo. I will see how his research is received by other scientists. In anything to do with science, I look to what the consensus is among the scientists. If scientific consensus is that the right wing scientist is right, I will believe him, if scientists think that he is wrong, I won’t.
A scientist is judged by his peers, I cannot judge a scientist. So the example you have given is totally different.
If that's your criterium for deciding which books to red, fine.
Now as for journalists, few journalists cover the subject areas that interest me in English-medium articles; I usually have to order the book and it's usually an expensive one with few pages for the price. Or sometimes it's a subject often covered by journalists in another language. The fact that a subject is not covered by the mainstream media might sometimes be owing to the fact that the mainstream media is trying to appeal to the common people, and so doesn't want to touch on issues that might confuse the common mind.
I'm not saying that's the case with this book, but it's just to say that the fact that it isn't covered in the mainstream English media does not mean that it's not a worthy subject. In fact, few subjects are covered in great depth in the media and most subjects are covered superficially.
Just to take an example, Linguistic Imperialism by Robert Phillipson is a book I've never heard of in the media. Neither have I ever heard of Claude Piron in the common media, nor Francois Grin. That does not mean however that they are not important. Claude Piron was once an interpreter for the UN. Francois Grin wrote an important report at the request of the High Commissioner for Schools in France in 2005 (not available in English), etc. The fact that they are not covered in the media, or at least English-language media, does not mean they are not worthy of reading. It might just be that they go over the heads of most people.
You do realise that the scientific community itself can be very politicized, don't you? Linguistic Imperialism by Robert Phillipson is a book I could certainly recommmend in this regard. It deals mainly with what is sometimes referred to as critical applied linguistics, as opposed to professional applied linguistics. The distinction is that professional applied linguists ignore the political context of language policy, whereas critical applied linguists incorporate it into their theories. Critical applied linguistics is a relatively new field, and applied by a minority of ministries of education around the world. But since most applied linguists fall into the category of professional as opposed to critical, those ministries of education that have adopted a more critical approach to language policy are treated as fringe elements by the professionalists in the linguistic field. Ministries of education that have adopted a more critical approach, be it implicitely or explicitely, include the US, the UK, Italy, Hungary (especially Hungary), Poland, and Croatia. Professionalist organizations that have felt on the defensive in this have included the British Council (clearly in an implied conflict with the UK Ministry of Education), USAID, and others.
So do we assume that the scientific field is not influenced by politics. In the end, you have to make your own judgements in some cases, except perhaps in pure sciences only.
Okay.
This is what irks me about your position:
Levant's beliefs, every one of them, even the radical ones he held as a young man, are perfectly legitimate. They are within the realm of normal, every day political discourse. Levant is, as I have said before, a democrat, a good citizen..........he contributes to society in positive ways, and stays within the limits of law and convention.
Yet you condemn him, refuse to carry on an intellectual exploration of his persecution by the government, simply because he disagrees with you.
That is arrogance in the Nth degree.
Not only is it arrogant, it is intolerance.
And it is ignorant..........it reveals a lack of intellectual depth, to be polite.
Exactly what I would expect from a lifetime Liberal.
But, you see, I've read Pierre Trudeau, and even agree with him on some points.........
I'm a right wing extremist, by your definition.....why do you read me??????
Is my campaign against Holocaust deniers suspect because I am a right wing extremist?
it is EXACTLY the same thing.......
My God, Colpie, you openly admit to having read a book written by a Liberal. And not a liberal, but a card-carrying Liberal!? And you agree with him on some points? You actually went out of your way to buy (or borrow) and read a book by someone of a different political leaning and read it... and agreed with parts of it. Shame on you! You're breaking all the stereotypes; that could potentially confuse some people
Then I guess I'm distasteful. I wonder how many people will demand my arrest or execution
Just because I think something is distateful does not mean that I believe that I believe that one ought to be arrested for it. But I'm sure many Christians would not appreciate what you just put up there.
...Mother Theresa wouldn't be afraid to call you a blowhard for speaking without knowing the whole truth.
Last edited:
I'm not saying that's the case with this book, but it's just to say that the fact that it isn't covered in the mainstream English media does not mean that it's not a worthy subject. In fact, few subjects are covered in great depth in the media and most subjects are covered superficially.
Machjo, if media doesn’t think it is a worthy subject, then who decides that it indeed is a worthy subject? In the area of politics and public policy, it is the media (newspapers, television etc.) who decide which is the worthy subject for discussion, action etc.
So if media doesn’t think it is a worthy subject, that is good enough for me. Of course, it is always possible that ten years form now there may be a sea change, there may be consensus for abolishing HRC, and then Levant may be considered to be some kind of visionary, for advocating abolishing of HRC so long ago. But I am willing to take that chance.
Machjo, if media doesn’t think it is a worthy subject, then who decides that it indeed is a worthy subject? In the area of politics and public policy, it is the media (newspapers, television etc.) who decide which is the worthy subject for discussion, action etc.
So if media doesn’t think it is a worthy subject, that is good enough for me. Of course, it is always possible that ten years form now there may be a sea change, there may be consensus for abolishing HRC, and then Levant may be considered to be some kind of visionary, for advocating abolishing of HRC so long ago. But I am willing to take that chance.
Here again you are giving an example which is not applicable to the current case. You are right, I have never heard of linguistic imperialism. That doesn’t mean that it is not a worthy subject, again you are right.
However, it sounds like a very specialized subject, it is something for the experts to debate over, not for the mainstream media to cover. Obscure aspects of science, law, medicine, linguistics etc. are not covered by the media. Media will cover those subjects only when there are breakthroughs, when there are applications which average person can understand.
So I can totally understand what you are saying. However, that does not apply to Levant case. He is not talking of something obscure here. He advocates abolishing HRC, which is nowhere nearly as obscure as linguistic imperialism, or cubism or whatever. The press ignored him, not because the subject is too specialized or too obscure for people to understand (as linguistic imperialism would be), but the press didn’t think it was worthy of discussion, having originated with somebody with the reputation of Levant.
So do we assume that the scientific field is not influenced by politics. In the end, you have to make your own judgements in some cases, except perhaps in pure sciences only.
Machjo, sure scientific field can sometimes be influenced by politics. Scientists are human beings and subject to the same weaknesses, same foibles as anybody else. However, to me, the only way to decide if something is scientifically correct is to look at scientific consensus. There are no guarantees that the consensus is right. Indeed, it has proved to be wrong on occasion.
However, the alternative is for me to learn all the scientific disciplines, to learn them in great detail, to become an expert in all of them before I can judge if a particular scientist is right or not. That clearly is unrealistic. Short of that scientific consensus is the only reasonable alternative.
Thus, I have great respect and admiration for Stephen Hawking, I think he probably is right in what he is saying. And why do I say that? Because scientific consensus says so. I have read his positions in popular astronomy books and what he is saying sounds sensible to me. However, I don’t understand the math involved behind his theories. So I cannot make a firsthand judgment. Failing that, I rely on scientific consensus, which thinks that he probably is right.
So yes, scientific consensus can be wrong, and has been wrong on occasion. However, short of becoming an expert in every field of science, that is the only reasonable way to judge the scientific merits of somebody’s theories, in my opinion.
Machjo, sure scientific field can sometimes be influenced by politics. Scientists are human beings and subject to the same weaknesses, same foibles as anybody else. However, to me, the only way to decide if something is scientifically correct is to look at scientific consensus. There are no guarantees that the consensus is right. Indeed, it has proved to be wrong on occasion.
However, the alternative is for me to learn all the scientific disciplines, to learn them in great detail, to become an expert in all of them before I can judge if a particular scientist is right or not. That clearly is unrealistic. Short of that scientific consensus is the only reasonable alternative.
Thus, I have great respect and admiration for Stephen Hawking, I think he probably is right in what he is saying. And why do I say that? Because scientific consensus says so. I have read his positions in popular astronomy books and what he is saying sounds sensible to me. However, I don’t understand the math involved behind his theories. So I cannot make a firsthand judgment. Failing that, I rely on scientific consensus, which thinks that he probably is right.
So yes, scientific consensus can be wrong, and has been wrong on occasion. However, short of becoming an expert in every field of science, that is the only reasonable way to judge the scientific merits of somebody’s theories, in my opinion.
Levant's beliefs, every one of them, even the radical ones he held as a young man, are perfectly legitimate.
Colpy, legitimate? How?
They are within the realm of normal, every day political discourse.
Levant has the right to hold those positions and the right to express them. But they are hardly in the realm of normal, every day political discourse. How many others are advocating privatization of CPP, or dismantling of universal health care? I wouldn’t call that normal political discourse.
Levant is, as I have said before, a democrat, a good citizen..........he contributes to society in positive ways, and stays within the limits of law and convention.
He may be a democrat and a good citizen for all I know (personally I don’t know him at all). Also, I assume he stays within limit of law and convention. But contribute to the society in positive ways? I have my doubts about that. Now, it may be that he gives to charities, helps old ladies cross the street, rescues an animal in distress, I don’t’ know. But no way he contributes to the discourse in positive ways, with his views that CPP should be privatized, or that health care should be privatized.
Yet you condemn him, refuse to carry on an intellectual exploration of his persecution by the government, simply because he disagrees with you.
No, I condemn him because he has extremist views. I don’t condemn conservatives, even though I disagree with them.
I'm a right wing extremist, by your definition.....why do you read me??????
Do you call yourself a right wing extremist? If you advocated privatization of CPP, dismantling of universal health care, I don’t think I would read you either. While you (or Levant) have the right to express such views, there is nothing that says I should take them seriously.
Is my campaign against Holocaust deniers suspect because I am a right wing extremist?
It would be suspect if you were a right wing extremist. If Zundle conducts a campaign against holocaust deniers, who would believe him?
Colpy, legitimate? How?
They are within the realm of normal, every day political discourse.
Levant has the right to hold those positions and the right to express them. But they are hardly in the realm of normal, every day political discourse. How many others are advocating privatization of CPP, or dismantling of universal health care? I wouldn’t call that normal political discourse.
Levant is, as I have said before, a democrat, a good citizen..........he contributes to society in positive ways, and stays within the limits of law and convention.
He may be a democrat and a good citizen for all I know (personally I don’t know him at all). Also, I assume he stays within limit of law and convention. But contribute to the society in positive ways? I have my doubts about that. Now, it may be that he gives to charities, helps old ladies cross the street, rescues an animal in distress, I don’t’ know. But no way he contributes to the discourse in positive ways, with his views that CPP should be privatized, or that health care should be privatized.
Yet you condemn him, refuse to carry on an intellectual exploration of his persecution by the government, simply because he disagrees with you.
No, I condemn him because he has extremist views. I don’t condemn conservatives, even though I disagree with them.
I'm a right wing extremist, by your definition.....why do you read me??????
Do you call yourself a right wing extremist? If you advocated privatization of CPP, dismantling of universal health care, I don’t think I would read you either. While you (or Levant) have the right to express such views, there is nothing that says I should take them seriously.
Is my campaign against Holocaust deniers suspect because I am a right wing extremist?
It would be suspect if you were a right wing extremist. If Zundle conducts a campaign against holocaust deniers, who would believe him?