Do you think that your reading is the *only* conclusion to be drawn from Oliva's post? In other words, are you claiming that Oliva is being disingenuous, incoherent, or just reckless? If is is possible to read Oliva's post differently than you do (which seems likely; it is a difficult thing to prove that denying your conclusion is tantamount to logical incoherence), and that reading is more charitable, then it is incumbent upon you to grant that charity. If not, however, then your critique stands.
"and that reading is more charitable, then it is incumbent upon you to grant that charity."
Stephen, I gave this a *very likely* reading. And since we are talking about the sort of rhetoric which has, in the past, led people to fly a plane into an IRS building and blow up a Fed building in Oklahoma, it is, I think, incumbent upon Oliva to guard much more carefully against such a reading.
Gene,
ReplyDeleteDo you think that your reading is the *only* conclusion to be drawn from Oliva's post? In other words, are you claiming that Oliva is being disingenuous, incoherent, or just reckless? If is is possible to read Oliva's post differently than you do (which seems likely; it is a difficult thing to prove that denying your conclusion is tantamount to logical incoherence), and that reading is more charitable, then it is incumbent upon you to grant that charity. If not, however, then your critique stands.
"and that reading is more charitable, then it is incumbent upon you to grant that charity."
ReplyDeleteStephen, I gave this a *very likely* reading. And since we are talking about the sort of rhetoric which has, in the past, led people to fly a plane into an IRS building and blow up a Fed building in Oklahoma, it is, I think, incumbent upon Oliva to guard much more carefully against such a reading.