TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Rhetoric

Rhetoric

Just a quick something for you all to think about!

Time and time again it comes up in this forum about such-and-such group said this, such-and-such leader said that, and those words are taken as proof of what these groups/leaders are trying to achieve.

Now let me ask you this...

Do you believe 100% of what any of our politicians tell you? My PM is Tony Blair for God's sake!!! Politicians tend to be the most untrusted people in society by the population. They promise this, promise that, and fail to deliver every time. They tell blatent lies to achieve things the population would not support. We all know this, and I suspect the vast majority of us distrust (or at least take with a pinch of salt!) what politicians tell us. So...

Why do we believe as gospel the words of fundamentalist polticians in Iran or Palestine or wherever more than we believe the words of our own politicians?!

Like I said, something for you to think about!

Our new PM Stephen Harper is actually doing what he said he would.
He's pushing the envelope man!

i'd assume dictators have less reasons to lie, for one.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T i'd assume dictators have less reasons to lie, for one.

Less reason?!?!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Less reason?!?!

There certainly are less opponents!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Less reason?!?!

vocal promises : lies
silent threats : ?

I'm not really sure what you're arguing here. When Ahmadinejad (or any other Middle-Eastern leader of a similar persuasion) says he wants Isreal "wiped off the map", is he using his political nous to play up to the widespread anti-Isreali sentiment within Iran? Without a doubt. When a world leader says something that provocative about a neighbouring nation, should we dismiss it as mere "rhetoric"? I don't think that would be wise.

I agree that we shouldn't be panicking just because some batshit insane dictator somewhere has said something controversial - and we certainly shouldn't be driven to fear or paranoia over such sentiments (this is, afterall, exactly the result they hope to acheive in the first place) - but when you're dealing with people this unhinged, you can't just sit back and hope that they won't follow through on such outrageous threats. Ultimately, to assume that politicians are always disingenuous is no more rational a perspective than to assume that politicians are always telling the truth.

Why do people constantly harp on about Ahmadinejad being insane?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Why do people constantly harp on about Ahmadinejad being insane?

Holocaust denial = instant insanity. Everything else is subsidiary.

Also, all politicians are congenitally insane. Haven't you heard anything by Pink Floyd?

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Holocaust denial = instant insanity. Everything else is subsidiary. Also, all politicians are congenitally insane. Haven't you heard anything by Pink Floyd?

Ok ok my question was off topic and irrelevent...

Why do we take as gospel the word of politicians we oppose, yet distrust the words of our own politicians?

And!

Why is it that when Ahmadinejad says he wants to "wipe Israel off the map" we believe him, yet when he says "we only want civilian nuclear power" we believe he is lying?!

renegade's first post here answers both questions quite well

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Ok ok my question was off topic and irrelevent... Why do we take as gospel the word of politicians we oppose, yet distrust the words of our own politicians?

I don't think it's that clear-cut. When a western politician says "If elected, I will put $500 million into schools!" during the frenzy of an election campaign, then we'd be right to be skeptical - he has something to gain from his lie. When a western politician says "I'm going bomb the shit out of Iraq unless they fulfill a constantly shifting set of demands!" then we may well have less reason to be skeptical - where is the gain to be had if he is being deceitful?

To be distrustful of politicians is certainly a virtue. To automatically dismiss what policians say as a lie (or mere "rhetoric") is, on the other hand, a fairly delusional way of approaching the political process.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley And! Why is it that when Ahmadinejad says he wants to "wipe Israel off the map" we believe him, yet when he says "we only want civilian nuclear power" we believe he is lying?!

Because the consequences if he is lying are far more severe than the consequences if he is telling the truth. If he is only interested in nuclear power (as opposed to nuclear weapons) when credible evidence suggests the contrary, then it is for him to demonstrate the veracity of this claim and we are right to be skeptical in the meantime. It's not a case of believing or disbelieving Ahmadinejad, but rather recognising what the consequences are if we are wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Holocaust denial = instant insanity. Everything else is subsidiary.

Well said. This is exactly why I take his other words much more seriously.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Holocaust denial = instant insanity. Everything else is subsidiary.

You might want to take a look at this:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...926#post6625926

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z You might want to take a look at this: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...926#post6625926

The site you linked in that thread (or rather the Iranian state run newspaper they quoted) seems to have left out a fairly important line from that speech:

quote:

In a speech broadcast live on state television on Wednesday, Ahmadinejad told a crowd in the southern city of Zahedan: "They have fabricated a legend under the name Massacre of the Jews, and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves. "If somebody in their country questions God, nobody says anything, but if somebody denies the myth of the massacre of Jews, the Zionist loudspeakers and the governments in the pay of Zionism will start to scream."

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exe...B69283105BF.htm

I'm not sure what else he could have meant by that?

This is only a guess ofcourse (since I don't think Ahmadinejad is stupid enough to think it didn't happen at all, you'd truly have to be a fucking idiot to think it didn't occur). He probably thinks the figures (as far as the number of people killed goes) are exagerated or innaccurate or something. I know Urdu, which is heavily derived form Farsi amongst other languages. And I'm sure you've probably read stuff in the area of linguistics. If you translate Urdu to English, especially more literally, the meaning can get quite distorted (things in Urdu are generally expressed in a much more generalized and broad fasion whereas English is far more specific, like most proto-Germanic languages if I remember correctly). Since Urdu is quite similar to Farsi, I'm guessing his doubt about the figures got translates to "myth." That, ofcourse, is just a guess. But I had doubts about him saying eigther of those things in the first place. I mean, he may be a dick, but he's not nuts.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z This is only a guess ofcourse (since I don't think Ahmadinejad is stupid enough to think it didn't happen at all, you'd truly have to be a fucking idiot to think it didn't occur). He probably thinks the figures (as far as the number of people killed goes) are exagerated or innaccurate or something.

Which, so far as I understand it, is no different from other holocaust deniers. I don't think any of them try to argue that no Jews were killed in WW2 (afterall, it's pretty hard to argue against all photographic evidence we have and the continued existence of Auschwitz and other concentration camps) but rather that the number killed falls "only" in the tens of thousands or so, rather than the 6 million figure we have today. The facts in this case, however, are firm: 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis during World War 2. Denial of this is fact, I'm afraid, tantamount to Holocaust denial.

(Besides, even if it could be credibly argued - as you say Ahmadinejad was arguing - that only, say, 10% of that number were actually killed by the Nazis, does that somehow make it any better?)

quote:

I know Urdu, which is heavily derived form Farsi amongst other languages. And I'm sure you've probably read stuff in the area of linguistics. If you translate Urdu to English, especially more literally, the meaning can get quite distorted (things in Urdu are generally expressed in a much more generalized and broad fasion whereas English is far more specific, like most proto-Germanic languages if I remember correctly). Since Urdu is quite similar to Farsi, I'm guessing his doubt about the figures got translates to "myth."

Given the construct of the speech, I'm not sure what other words could be substituted for the word "myth" here while retaining the fecundity of the rest of the quote. Keep in mind that I've quoted an al-Jazeera article (with the headline "Ahmadinejad: Holocaust a myth") here too, hardly a source likely to beat up a story from a pro-western perspective or with any shortage of trained Farsi-translators on hand...

^^ I guess you're right.

EDIT: Although I wouldn't call holocaust revisionism "denial," especially considering most of the "revisonists" I've heard of are Jewish. Note: I don't really know a whole lot about holocaust revisionism to evaluate their arguments/research, mostly becuase I don't really feel the need to research that stuff and don't have doubts about accepted history as far as the holocaust goes.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z This is only a guess ofcourse (since I don't think Ahmadinejad is stupid enough to think it didn't happen at all, you'd truly have to be a fucking idiot to think it didn't occur). He probably thinks the figures (as far as the number of people killed goes) are exagerated or innaccurate or something. I know Urdu, which is heavily derived form Farsi amongst other languages. And I'm sure you've probably read stuff in the area of linguistics. If you translate Urdu to English, especially more literally, the meaning can get quite distorted (things in Urdu are generally expressed in a much more generalized and broad fasion whereas English is far more specific, like most proto-Germanic languages if I remember correctly). Since Urdu is quite similar to Farsi, I'm guessing his doubt about the figures got translates to "myth." That, ofcourse, is just a guess. But I had doubts about him saying eigther of those things in the first place. I mean, he may be a dick, but he's not nuts.

you are rationalizing.

More 'rhetoric' from insane dictators?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2006082...ct_060825100753


I hope so..

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus More 'rhetoric' from insane dictators? http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2006082...ct_060825100753 I hope so..

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus More 'rhetoric' from insane dictators? http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2006082...ct_060825100753 I hope so..

Or...

More 'rhetoric' from a democratically elected President?

Altho seeing as this particular democratically elected President is staunchly anti-America (anti-globalisation), and sits on top of huge oil supplies, I guess that defines him as an "insane dictator" by PNAC's criteria?

e2a: Of course what he says about Israel/Hitler is bullshit but I think it falls in the same category of the rhetoric coming out of Iran: Cocky leaders who oppose PNAC's strategy knowing they can say what they like to piss America off and get away with it with US forces stretched to breaking point...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Or... More 'rhetoric' from a democratically elected President? Altho seeing as this particular democratically elected President is staunchly anti-America (anti-globalisation), and sits on top of huge oil supplies, I guess that defines him as an "insane dictator" by PNAC's criteria?

No, when you start imprisoning the opposition and restricting the press, your a dictator.

I think it's assumed that if a politician or religious leader is saying something, it has no foundation, and is being used to deliver votes or dollars from the uneducated.

I don't think anyone actually 100% believes anything a politician says, even a politician of the party they agree most with (usually agreeing with things they don't agree with just to get agreement for the things they do believe in).

Fact is... politicians are scum. Most of them are lawyers.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.