Here at WorldsLaziestBusker's invitation

[irishjazz]

Originally Posted by Worldslaziestbusker

The interpretation was available, and you haven't hesitated to poison the well on me in the past. I don't think it is too much to ask of a skeptic to be accurate and precise in their use of language.

I remain perplexed at how noting that we virtually never agree "poisons the well." Isn't it equally possible that I am always wrong? You object to a friendly welcome, you object to a statement of fact, you spin up an adjective into a superlative (although I can follow your logic on this.)

I have almost given up trying to make you happy.

Perhaps when you've finished your debate with WAS you could address the content of the link I provided regarding anecdotes.

What a great memory... that was back in 2011. The relevant interchange:

Me:

I didn't respond because it was an anecdotal story that, while it seems to have great meaning to you, proves nothing. You knew a neo-Nazi Christian convert in a hospital. You felt that other people did not back you up adequately, and attribute that to their religious attitudes which made them sympathetic to a fellow believer.

I have nothing to add to this because it is your story. Like the Buddhist stalker at the beginning of this thread, it sounds pretty screwed up, but it is still just an anecdote.

You:

Written history is mostly based on anecdote. Why is mine invalid because it is mine where pulling something out of a text by AJP Taylor or some other paid historian might be considered valid?

The other Christians did condemn the Nazis, but the Nazi's didn't care because the numbers are enough for them.

I disagree with your statement that 'written history is mostly based on anecdote."

There is a branch of narrative history that is based on anecdote, but history as a whole is based on argument and supporting documentation. One can write a history of WWII based strictly on personal stories- Studs Terkel's "The Good War" for example. But there are also sources: documents outlining strategies and military orders, maps, the records of logistics, casualty counts by location in battle, and so on.

Popular history makes these data points come alive with anecdotes fleshing out the framework of fact with human experience.

But your story was just a story, albeit a well-told story I that I accept as truthful*:

I spent much of my nineteenth year in hospital. A ward-mate (in no way an actual mate) was a neo-Nazi who'd been set on fire in a race fight. While most of his tattoes were burnt off, his visitors were covered in a range of crucifixes, Bible verses and RaHoWa (racial holy war) and, of course, swastikas.

One in particular was good at citing chapter and verse as to why the white man was chosen by god, and held a manifest destiny to rule over all others. The actual words "How can we be wrong? Christianity is the most popular religion in the country" came out of this cretin's mouth.

I was already well clear of my familial faith by that point in my life, but it shook up a number of other patients to hear them say this. While I was as yet unfamiliar with "No True Scotsman" as a logical fallacy, I felt their protestations against the Nazi claiming their support rang a little hollow, since he didn't care that they didn't agree with him, but took succour from their head count alone.

The logic was flawed from soup to nuts: the eisegesis of the Bible, the argument from popularity, thinking that such an in-bred, talentless crowd of losers could ever be considered superior to anyone else, but they had a story and they were sticking to it.

I lost a couple of friends in the hospital by pointing out that I had less in common with them than any Christian, but I tend not to stay in touch with friends made in hospital because of all the bad memories, and some of them die, so no biggie.

There is nothing in here to disagree with. The guy was a racist asshole. Nobody liked him, but you question the commitment of the Christians because, the Nazis also were Christian and claimed them as allies. It is not clear whether the non-Nazis invoked the Nazis were not true Christians, but if they did it was the perfect time to unleash NTS.

Working backwards, your post was in response to my previous statement:

The fact that a villain believes something does not mean that everyone else who professes the same belief is an accomplice. That is a formulation parallel to the ad hominem fallacy.

I did not view your dissatisfaction with the Christians' stated opposition to the Nazis as challenging the validity of the statement above. Just because a Nazi idiot called them allies did not mean they supported him.

To return to the present instance.... If I had told my anecdote without reference to supporting data in the preceding paragraph, it would just be just a story too.

Being anecdotal does not mean something is incorrect, it just makes not quite an argument.

If it makes any difference, I liked the story.

* I hope you don't mind my adding paragraph breaks to enhance readability.

[irishjazz]

Originally Posted by Graham O

Here some facts about "Animal Farm" irishjazz.
"Animal Farm is a satire on Soviet totalitarianism, obviously, and it's a very famous book, everybody reads it. But what people don't usually read is the introduction, which talks about censorship in England - and the main reason they don't read it is because it was censored, nicely; it simply wasn't published with the book. It was finally rediscovered about thirty years later and somebody somewhere published it, and now it's available in some modern editions. But in this essay Orwell said, look this book is obviously about Stalinist Russia, however it's not all that different in England. And then he described how things work in England. He said: in England there isn't any commissar around who beats you over the head if you say the wrong thing, but nevertheless the results are not all that different. And then he had a two line description of how the press works in England, which is pretty accurate, in fact. One of the reasons why the results are similar, he said, is because the press is owned by wealthy men who have strong interests in not having certain things said. The other, which he said is equally pertinent, is that if you're a well-eductated person in England - you went to the right prep schools, then to oxford, and now you're a bigshot somewhere - you have simply learned that there are certain things that it is not proper to say" ('Understanding Power', pp. 111-112).

Fair post. I have to admit when I read it I was pretty young, and probably scooted right past the introduction.

Orwell was definitely a socialist who thought Stalin's totalitarian regime gave the pursuit of economic justice a bad name.

FYI... interesting article in Slate about the persecution of Aaron Swartz. You seem to be ahead of me on this issue.

[irishjazz]

Originally Posted by Worldslaziestbusker

I disagree, though your story was particularly weak, based as it was, on speculation rather than facts, as my equivalent anecdote was, in that the neo-Nazis admitted the connection between their racism and their faith.
Anecdote is valid when data is unnecessary.

Sorry, missed this.

I thought the point of the story was not that the neo-Nazis did not claim Christian validation, but that the other Christians were, as a result, complicit.

Of course data is unnecessary when all you are presenting is an anecdote. When data is unnecessary, not even argument is required.

[Worldslaziestbusker]

Originally Posted by irishjazz

Sorry, missed this.

I thought the point of the story was not that the neo-Nazis did not claim Christian validation, but that the other Christians were, as a result, complicit.

Of course data is unnecessary when all you are presenting is an anecdote. When data is unnecessary, not even argument is required.

But you and other members of the SGU forum dismissed the information because it was anencdote, with no apparent understanding of why we turn to data only when the causal relationships are not obvious or explained at length by the objects involved in the causal relationship.
That the other Christians in that situation did not explicitly support the neo-nazi agendas on display, that didn't matter to the neo-nazis because the faith head count was sufficient in their eyes to act as tacit support. They could simply assert that every other Christian was making a mistake in interpretation of scripture, but that they agreed on the fundamental point that God exists. I could criticise their position both in terms of that fundamental point and their interpretation of scripture.
Again, the flaw in treating your enemies enemy on anything other than their merits comes in to play. The arguments the Christians could bring to bear against the neo-nazi's rationalisation of their racism was weaker than my own, so hitching my wagon to their star would be counter productive. More a case of hitching their continent to my dirigible. I don't need the that kind of immovable ballast.


You make a good point about the bones of history as it is practiced by historians, but the plans and maps are not data, either. I guess they would be treated that way if several versions existed and a call had to be made on probabilities, though, and so I will amend a planned future version of the anecdote/data essay.

[irishjazz]

Originally Posted by Worldslaziestbusker

But you and other members of the SGU forum dismissed the information because it was anencdote, with no apparent understanding of why we turn to data only when the causal relationships are not obvious or explained at length by the objects involved in the causal relationship.

I can't speak to what the other members of the SGU did. I originally took it at face value as a story, and only responded when you directly asked me to. I did not dismiss it, I just felt it was not an argument that demanded response. No disrespect was intended.

I do not contend that the neo-Nazis thought they had a Christian basis for their hideous beliefs. I do not think that you needed to adopt the non-Nazi version of Christianity.

I thought the story illuminated your approach and your experience. It stood by itself just fine as statement of principal. It was not an argument, but not every post has to be one.

You make a good point about the bones of history as it is practiced by historians, but the plans and maps are not data, either. I guess they would be treated that way if several versions existed and a call had to be made on probabilities, though, and so I will amend a planned future version of the anecdote/data essay.

There are problems with terminology here perhaps. But thanks.