A response to Is Huck Finn Racist?:
Eight years later, Hawn disparages Rob again
Let the "Huck Finn" debate resume...!
>> I note that you, at the time of writing, hadn't yet learned much about civility and proper argumentation. <<
And yet, I still know more about it than you do. You started our debate with condescending remarks and I see you still favor them.
Too bad you didn't respond like Alex Krislov did when he came across this page. His response was a cheery "tip o' the hat to you" for compiling the debate. I guess that's why he was in charge of the LitForum: because he knew how to be civil.
>> I cite only one example, leaving aside perhaps dozens that would serve as well: Near the end of the page, you state that your opponents considered the question to be sophomoric. <<
No, I state that you implied it, which is a different matter. An implication is in the eye of the beholder and can't be proved directly.
>> In fact, your opponents considered the question to be of large importance but your arguments and style to be sophomoric, and they stated that view a number of times. <<
They stated it but never showed or proved it, which says more about them than it does about me.
As for you, you considered the question to be "pernicious," which I quoted you as saying. Check your dictionary, chum, because pernicious isn't close to "large importance" in meaning. Further, you stated you had "managed to beat back the barbarian," which implied the subject was barbaric—i.e., not worthy of civilized, high-level discourse.
These plus your comments about the lowering of academic standards and my being a sophomore are enough for me to infer you considered the debate sophomoric. In fact, any subject a "sophomore" debates could be called "sophomoric" by definition. Sophomoric is what a sophomore does.
As for your condescending opinions about my abilities, I've refuted every one of your arguments and the lot of you hasn't touched one of mine. You lost the argument then and you're still losing it.
Hawn insults what he can't debate
>> I am chagrinned to discover that I was wrong about 'facing a Master's candidate,' since you assert that you'd already taken your Masters. <<
I'm confident I described my background during the debate as well as in the compiled posting. I think you were either too self-absorbed to pay attention to what I said or too embarrassed to admit your oversight. Perhaps a little of both.
>> I am embarrassed that I had, by so much, under-estimated the decline in standards. <<
I'm embarrassed at your ignorance of the standards at the University of Chicago—its continued elite rankings and so forth. But then, you probably don't have two master's degrees like I do. I can't expect you to understand these "advanced" topics.
>> If the style and substance of your thesis resembled in any way your presentation of your Huck Finn arguments, I can only conclude that your review board must have had exceptionally low barriers to admittance. <<
That would be your way of saying that, eight years later, you still can't address a single one of my arguments. Your inability to debate the merits of my case is noted.
MBAs generally don't do theses. My Library School thesis was an academic study, not an intellectual debate, so rest assured it was different in style and substance. I didn't need to kick anyone's butt in my thesis as I did in our "Huck Finn" debate.
>> Can I ask how a person of your supposed sensibility can issue, and even sign with your real name (I presume), the racist propaganda called "Peace Party?" <<
"Racist propaganda"? What leads you to make that asinine assertion? Have you read anything other than my site's home page?
You can ask, but since you've made up a charge that has no basis in reality, I won't waste time answering it now. Other than to say PEACE PARTY isn't racist propaganda. Your mistake, once again.
Hawn thinks PECHANGA.net is a casino...or something
>> And at the behest of gambling operators, to boot? <<
Wow, where did you get that one from? Because the site is hosted by Pechanga.Net? I guess you're ignorant of the fact that Pechanga.Net is a news source, not a "gambling operator." I guess you didn't bother to check Pechanga.Net before making your ignorant assertion.
Thanks for confirming my estimation of your "reasoning" abilities. To you a "gambling operator" is equivalent to a news source about gambling. And hosting my site is equivalent to directing the content of my site. Your "thinking" here is as faulty as your other pitiful attempts.
(Has anyone given you even one master's degree? Let's talk about their standards or lack thereof.)
Incidentally, there would be nothing wrong if a "gambling operator" were funding PEACE PARTY, as long as I maintained my editorial independence. Gaming is a legitimate industry like any other. How it's revitalized Indian communities—how they're using the money to help themselves and others—is well-documented.
And by the way, "Indian" was once a racial category, but now it's a sociopolitical category. People who are predominantly white, black, or Hispanic by "blood" are considered Indians. Go to The Essential Facts About Indians Today and begin educating yourself about the basic facts.
>> And, yes, this is an 'ad homonym attack, because you then and now, by the evidence of the page, fully and richly deserve it. <<
Great. Not only do you use ad hominem attacks now—although you can't spell "hominem," perhaps because you're not as educated as I am—but you admit using them then. It's nice to see proof of who's the sophomore and who isn't.
>> I surely do wish (as I said then) we (Margaret, Diana, John and I, among others) could have debated the question directly with Beth, rather than through your unreliable and malformed mediation. <<
You have no idea whether I relayed her arguments reliably or not. In the places where I quoted her, her positions are consistent with mine.
I wish you could've debated the question, period. Instead, you mostly ducked my points and engaged in ad hominem attacks instead. Too bad for you. Your inability to address my arguments with anything other than attacks will be on display permanently. When future generations of Hawns come across your comments, I hope they won't be too embarrassed by your intellectual shortcomings.
. . .
All material © copyright its original owners, except where noted.
Original text and pictures © copyright 2007 by Robert Schmidt.
Copyrighted material is posted under the Fair Use provision of the Copyright Act,
which allows copying for nonprofit educational uses including criticism and commentary.
Comments sent to the publisher become the property of Blue Corn Comics
and may be used in other postings without permission.