A question about Fawn Brodie

[_LifeOnaPlate]

What is known: Joseph Smith was a prattling con man

What LOAP wants to accept as objective: Pieces that ignore joes bad side and hold up the "good things he did", mostly involving silly events relating to Mormonism.

Instead of dissembling, acting difficult, impeding a mutual understanding, and in general, acting the fool, I suggest simply pointing out where you outlined a "pattern of objectivity." Or keep acting a prat. Your call.

Yah, good luck on getting a conclusion that shatters LOAP's loose knowledge concerning objectivity.

Well, a loose knowledge may be better than a confidently ignorant one. I am still waiting for your "pattern of objectivity."

Wow, are you that dense? Chomsky and the aforementioned citations I gave did not do this for me? Please read again (if you ever did) the articles I posted.

So Chomsky's essay in the main, then, is taken to be your pattern of objectivity? (I note you outlined nothing, you provided a few references.) I bookmarked the essay, but haven't yet read it. Could you provide a very brief synopsis or perhaps a notable quote from Chomsky's piece that may give me an idea of your "pattern of objectivity"?

[_Lamanite]

This is so Bush League.

Name one Historical book that is completely objective. Please, I'm begging you to throw out a title.

Lamanite

I read Walter Isaacson's Benjamin Franklin: An American Life (Simon & Schuster (2003)) last year, it did not come across as bias.. There were several unflattering things about Franklin, so tell me why it is bias?

I thought it was brilliant. As was his bio of Einstein.

But if you're so naïve as to think that our life experiences, our worldview, our religious ideas or lack thereof, our political philosophy (especially in a Franklin bio), play no roll whatsoever in the creation of a book, you're mistaken. These things will always color the way an individual will interpret information or facts. Always. We may be able to limit these effects to a degree, but we cannot escape them.

I think your wrong.

Silly Rabbit!

Lamanite

[_Lamanite]

This is so Bush League.

Do you read your posts before hitting submit?

LMAO! Go get a hug from someone and then embrace the fact that your hella Bush League. In fact, instead of being half baked like me...pick up a bong and get fully baked. It might help with your condition.

Please provide the pattern post haste Captain Crunch!

Lamanite

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I'm 3 pages into Chomsky and can't help but suspect you just picked the article due to the title rather than the actual contents. It doesn't present a "pattern of objectivity." If anything, it argues (by example) exactly what I have been detailing in this thread. Chomsky begins by saying:

If it is plausible that ideology will in general serve as a mask for self-interest, then it is a natural presumption that intellectuals, in interpreting history or formulating policy, will tend to adopt an elitist position, condemning popular movements and mass participation in decision-making, and emphasizing rather the necessity for supervision by those who possess the knowledge and understanding that is required (so they claim) to manage society and control social change.

Indeed, the paper goes on to argue that "privileged elites" manifest opposition, or "antagonism," to mass movements whose potential to bring about social change (using examples like the Bolsheviks, Communism, etc.). This opposition is based on the possible loss of control by said elites if the mass movement gets a following. Using a specific case in American history as an example, then, Chomsky shows how ideology can permeate the work of historians- even those who think they are "objective."


So what on earth am I supposed to read this Chomsky thing for? How does it outline your "pattern of objectivity" that differs in any way from my own views on objectivity? Again, it almost seems you just saw a title and thought it would pertain.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

LMAO! Go get a hug from someone and then embrace the fact that your hella Bush League. In fact, instead of being half baked like me...pick up a bong and get fully baked. It might help with your condition.

Please provide the pattern post haste Captain Crunch!

Lamanite

Oddly his "pattern" hasn't appeared yet. It certainly isn't evident from the Chomsky piece he posted and he hasn't personally outlined it. I went into great detain on some of my views in this post:

viewtopic.php?p=212511#p212511

but it seems merc didn't quite grasp it because he answered with a paper (not discussing objectivity directly, mind you) and expected it to be a response. Now I have taken a considerable amount of time in this exchange only to be insulted, and to have my time generally wasted by a lack of honest exchange and the delivering of sources not actually arguing what merc believes they argue, apparently. It was as though I asked what time it was and he answered "purple."

[_Mercury]

I think what both lamanite and LOAP are forgetting is the factor of scale we are talking about here. Joseph Smith raped 14 year old girls by influencing their fathers. Benjamin Franklin helped found an eventual superpower

Lets not forget the subject matter of Fawn Brodie and how many enemies she created by being one of the first within Mormonism to bring out facts that even if a quarter of them were true there would be no doubt about joes real character.

[_rcrocket]

I think what both lamanite and LOAP are forgetting is the factor of scale we are talking about here. Joseph Smith raped 14 year old girls by influencing their fathers. Benjamin Franklin helped found an eventual superpower

Lets not forget the subject matter of Fawn Brodie and how many enemies she created by being one of the first within Mormonism to bring out facts that even if a quarter of them were true there would be no doubt about joes real character.

Brodie wasn't very original about "bringing out facts." Remember, she relied according to her own account primarily upon secondary sources in the New York Public Library and the Salt Lake Public Library.

She is instead known for applying new theories to the facts, and writing well, and publishing a best-seller.

Do you possess the book?

[_Lamanite]

I think what both lamanite and LOAP are forgetting is the factor of scale we are talking about here. Joseph Smith raped 14 year old girls by influencing their fathers. Benjamin Franklin helped found an eventual superpower

Lets not forget the subject matter of Fawn Brodie and how many enemies she created by being one of the first within Mormonism to bring out facts that even if a quarter of them were true there would be no doubt about joes real character.

At least you're consistent. I do like your swagger though. It's kinda like:

"What do ya mean, funny? Let me understand this cause, I don't know maybe it's me, I'm a little screwed up maybe, but I'm funny how? I mean, funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh... I'm here to fuckin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?"

Yeah man, you're funny!

Lamanite

[Guest]

I think what both lamanite and LOAP are forgetting is the factor of scale we are talking about here. Joseph Smith raped 14 year old girls by influencing their fathers. Benjamin Franklin helped found an eventual superpower

Lets not forget the subject matter of Fawn Brodie and how many enemies she created by being one of the first within Mormonism to bring out facts that even if a quarter of them were true there would be no doubt about joes real character.

I'm not forgetting any "factor of scale," unless this is a scale you are just now introducing into a discussion originally about the nature of objectivity, which you still haven't defined.In that case, it isn't an issue of memory but of shifting goalposts and acting the ass. [By the way, aside from the "rape" allegation, you also note there were 14 year old girls, plural. How many and what were their names?]

But this tantrum you have thrown still doesn't get you off the hook for referring me to an article that doesn't contain what you supposedly think it does, nor for refusing to provide your definition for a "pattern of objectivity" while accusing us of not getting it.

Merc, this is the lamest of the lame, I have to admit. When backed into a corner you will shout "rape!" Seriously? What utter nonsense, smoke, mirrors, and futile insults rather than discussion.

Still waiting for that "pattern" you spoke of. I suspect you have already run the victory flag up the pole, though.

[_TAK]

I thought it was brilliant. As was his bio of Einstein.

But if you're so naïve as to think that our life experiences, our worldview, our religious ideas or lack thereof, our political philosophy (especially in a Franklin bio), play no roll whatsoever in the creation of a book, you're mistaken. These things will always color the way an individual will interpret information or facts. Always. We may be able to limit these effects to a degree, but we cannot escape them.

I think your wrong.

Silly Rabbit!

Lamanite

Nonsense..

Wiki:
Bias is a term used to describe a tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology or result, especially when the tendency interferes with the ability to be impartial, unprejudiced, or objective.[1] The term biased is used to describe an action, judgment, or other outcome influenced by a prejudged perspective. It is also used to refer to a person or body of people whose actions or judgments exhibit bias.

You have not shown where Isaacson showed a "tendency or preference towards a particular perspective, ideology"..

You are way over-reaching the term .. Your premise implys that everybody is incapable of conveying any accurate information. That notion may be useful to those who wish to cover their eyes and ears to anything that challenges them however.