QatzelOk wrote:Smilin' Dave has turned an attempt at comparing Obama with Abe Lincoln into an Ad Hom rant.
Wait... are you sure you know what ad hom actually means? Because you see I've engaged with your argument and as always passed commentary on your style of 'discussion', but I haven't actually said "this is wrong because Qatz said it was true". Is your latest fixation on ad hom's the result of a misunderstanding?
QatzelOk wrote:No it doesn't. That historic "heroes" are product placement doesn't suggest that all history is written in one particular way or that every historic text names its heroes.
You just stated all history is about heroes, ethnicity and product placement... now you want to claim history is not all written in a particular way.
I reiterate: who is the hero, unwritten if you prefer, in the book Zulu Rising. It's probably available at a book store (exerts might even be on Google Books) if you want to go grab it, I'm happy to wait for you to finish it so you can give an answer.
QatzelOk wrote:This is empty ad hom.
In a passage in which you and your style are not mentioned at all? How exactly is it ad hom?
Suddenly my point about posters believing they have been personally attacked when their cherished ideals are disputed in your ad hom discussion seems particularly accurate.
QatzelOk wrote:It's in the use of History (the manner in which it is taught to people or represented in fiction) that heroes are created, and not in the compilation of each and every historical text.
Lets compare this to your earlier statement in another thread of this same sub-forum:
Qatz wrote:They [writers of history] put moral terms (my country, my god, my self interest) in every line.
Apparently the 'compilers' are in on the conspiracy, until you are asked to provide an example of it. Then suddenly we have to pretend your bold statements have nuance which does not appear in the writing.
QatzelOk wrote:No it doesn't.
...Yeah it does. You see you've crafted this conspiracy where big money manipulates all history in order to manipulate us, the public. However your vast conspiracy of totalitarian goals fails to explain examples where history is not being taught in the way you claim. In this case, it seems few actual historians teach that Lincoln was some kind of anti-racist crusader as you claimed.
QatzelOk wrote:You are just trying to apply postmodern literary analysis as a technique for winning an argument.
I'm insulted you think my posts are an incoherent jumble of trendy buzz words which ultimately prove and mean nothing. Unlike yourself I would never stoop to that level <- now that's more like ad hom.
QatzelOk wrote:And manipulation in history occurs because texts are commissioned and paid for by Big Money.
I think you'll find most texts are submitted by their authors to publishers, not commissioned by the publisher. Do show me evidence if you think this is wrong.
QatzelOk wrote:I am not funded by Big Money, and I don't have a money-seeking agenda here on this forum. So your "critical analysis" of my "subtexts" is both inaccurate and inappropriate. Kitsch, even.
Pre-supposing one can only be critical of big money, which is false. If we swap 'money' for 'emotional need to grandstand on a forum', your motivations and techniques are really no different to that of big money. "Big Qatz" has actually demonstrated a far more consistent M.O in fact than the supposed "big money" conspiracy ever did.
How do you earn a living anyway Qatz?