On Profundity.

A blogger claims to ask ‘profound,’ questions. A blogger whose profundity of insight is expressed by shouting the admission that ‘I KNOW YOU DIDN”T SAY THAT,’ and then going on to argue as if it has been said. A blogger who makes sly accusations – like falsifying reference material – and then, when shown to be wrong, wriggles and twists through so many contortions of argument trying to show that what was wrong, was, in fact, right that many wonder that he doesn’t disappear up his own, erm, South-facing orifice.

I am accused of hypocrisy. Never mind that I always provide references when arguing about matters of fact, never mind that I always state directly, and for the record, my own views on any matter under serious discussion, the profound blogger – let’s call the blogger, ‘ProfoundO,’ – projects his own view of any argument that is not ‘right-thinking,’ then argues against that.

The latest example of a ‘profound’ question was to ask a completely irrelevant question about a Russian military strike on the city of Grozny during a discussion of the latest terrorist attacks on the Moscow Metro by muslim terrorists. The point of the question was not to inform, nor yet to understand, but to elicit a response which could be turned into yet another attempt to show that I am a hypocrite because, as ProfoundO insists, I support violence in some instances while condemning it in others – this while ProfoundO himself dismisses violence by some as of little significance ‘in the greater scheme of things,’ when trying to demonstrate, ( and failing,) partisan support on my part for violence by one group.

The question was whether or not I considered the strike to be a terrorist attack. The only profundity in question was the profundity of ignorance shown in the questioner, ProfoundO. Ignorance of what is an SS21 missile, particularly its capabilities and limitations – it is an artillery weapon with a CEP of 150 metres, you do not shoot it at anything, except an area. Ignorance of Russian military doctrine and tactics and ignorance of why those tactics have developed – ignorance of the Russian mindset and what has made it – no student of the ‘other point of view,’ he. Finally, profound ignorance of what a terrorist act is – both UK – and EU – legal definitions of terrorism specifically exclude State actors from the provisions of relevant law. (There is no agreed UN or other International definition.) Amnesty International in its report on the incident made no mention of terrorism, though it pointed out neglect of the duty to ‘give civilians effective advance warning of its attacks – “unless circumstances do not permit” – in compliance with international humanitarian law.’

The answer to the question would have been, therefore, ‘No’ – exactly the response ProfoundO wanted in order to further his convoluted reasoning in his attempts to brand me a hypocrite – as ProfoundO admitted, to expose inconsistencies in my position, and never mind the fact that when challenged, he is completely unable to do so. The reasons for this response are given above. The attack on Grozny was, by any definition, not a terrorist attack.

Had the question asked whether or not I considered this attack to be an atrocity, the answer would have been entirely different, and I have made my views on soldiers who commit offences quite clear elsewhere. (Lock ‘em up and throw the key away.) Now, if ProfoundO wants to brand me a hypocrite, let him do so. let him show the hypocrisy in my own words. Let him put up, or shut up.

26 thoughts on “On Profundity.”

  1. Jesus, Bravo, you have it bad. You have totally misinterpreted something I said. I asked you on Sipu’s blog how you squared respect for humanity with a mechanistic view of humanity. To call that a ‘profound’ question is not to praise it, but merely to describe it. I asked because I was genuinely interested. You didn’t answer.

    On your ‘terrorism’ blog I asked if you thought Russia had committed terrorist acts against Chechens. Most people would have seen this as a fair and relevant question and answered it in one way or another. Again, I asked because I was genuinely interested. You, of course, being a belligerent advocate of free speech, deleted the question.

    ‘A blogger who makes sly accusations – like falsifying reference material – and then, when shown to be wrong, wriggles and twists …’ – this is simply complete and utter bollocks.

    Ask yourself why I rattle you so badly. It’s not me … it’s you. And it’s rather pathetic.

    A word of advice … in future, when asked a straightforward question, do not project half a ream of your personal garbage onto it. Unless you want to look even more stupid than you do already.

    I am copying this comment in anticipation of its inevitable deletion.

  2. With substantive argument:

    ‘this is simply complete and utter bollocks.’ is not substantive argument.

    When you answer any questions with some sort of reasonable answer, you may demand the same, until then put up or shut up.

    I asked you to substantiete this accusation: ‘Bravo, you tend to link ‘Muslims’ and ‘terrorism’,’


    Also this: ‘The fact is that you do associate Muslims in general with terrorism … you have done so many times.’


    You say,’ ‘and I do substantiate what I say.’ Substantiate those two accusations for starters.


  3. Let me see if I have this straight. You are telling me that I think you’re a hypocrite, and challenging me to put up or shut up. But I wasn’t speaking in the first place. You’re referring back to what YOU projected onto a simple question I asked you weeks ago.


  4. Bravo, ‘A blogger who makes sly accusations – like falsifying reference material – and then, when shown to be wrong, wriggles and twists’ is not substantive argument … it is waffle or, to put it another way, complete and utter bollocks.

    If you think I’m going to trawl the collected comments of Bravo22C to ‘substantiate’ something or other just because you got out of bed on the wrong side, you are sadly mistaken. I suggest that you chill out.

  5. ‘You are telling me that I think you’re a hypocrite, and challenging me to put up or shut up,’

    The wriggling starts. I am not telling you what you think about anything. On one of the vegan supporter of criminal violence’s posts you called me a hypocrite, directly.

    SStick to this post. Substantiate the statements you made, or retract them.

  6. ‘If you think I’m going to trawl the collected comments of Bravo22C to ’substantiate’ something or other just because you got out of bed on the wrong side, you are sadly mistaken. I suggest that you chill out.’

    So, there you have it. ProfoundO makes profound statements without any supporting argument. Let the wriggling begin. Chuckle, chuckle.

  7. Christ, he’s started chuckling again, and dragging up ancient MyT history. One encounters some odd people on the Internet.

    This post is probably the most contrived and gratuitous attempt to start a fight that I’ve seen yet.

    Tough shit, old chap … it won’t work. Chuckle on.

  8. I’m with Rainer, wind your necks in you two or get back to kiddie corner where you seem to belong. This is a grown up site for grown up people. Now kiss and make up or pi** off.

  9. Rainer, OMG, it is somewhat typical of blog psychology that the attackee in such cases as this (a stupid, unprovoked ad-hominem attack) is seem as being ‘as bad as’ the attacker if he makes any comment whatsoever.

    So, OMG, piss off yourself.

  10. Hey, Rainer, OMG – sorry guys, but the DNMT rules allow them to argue if they want to, within the ToS. Nobody is going to order anyone off my blog site. Read the Site Policy.


  11. ‘(a stupid, unprovoked ad-hominem attack)’ ‘So, OMG, piss off yourself.’

    Invective, but no substantive argument. Oh the profundity of ProfoundO.’

    Why am I not at all surprised.

  12. Thank you for your support Bearsy, I’ll always wear it.
    And as for the other two net tarts, my message stands, go back to la la land and at least I used two asterisks as in pi** off in case children were on this site, oh, I forgot, there are two kiddies here with us today so play on children, see if you can use some stronger words en clair.

  13. I am supporting no-one, I am opposing no-one. Just sticking to the rules, which are as clear as daylight. Here’s a quote from an earlier post “Yet Another Reminder from Management”

    The rules of DNMT are different from those of MyT

    Opinions expressed by Authors do not reflect the opinions of DNMT management – management is neutral.

    Authors are responsible for the content of their posts and the comments appearing in them – management will not intervene unless Site Policy or WordPress ToS are infringed.

    DNMT welcomes posts with a diversity of styles, opinions, moral philosophies, attitudes and humour, none of which will be allowed to exclude any other.

    If you don’t like the topic or style of a post, censor it with your silence – unless you’re prepared for a robust discussion, and possibly having your comments deleted.

    If you don’t like a comment on your post, remove it – unless you’re looking forward to a robust discussion.

    So let them get on with it and ignore it. If you feel like complaining about it, write a post of your own on the subject.



  14. Bearsey
    Fair do’s mate, I had not read the rules and it wont be the first time I’ve put my foot in it for that, nor the last I guess. So to Brendano and bravo22c I extend my apology for sticking my hooter in between two members who were operating within the rules, sorry If it got a bit personal guys, It was not done with malice just my weird talent for seeing a conclusion and jumping to it.

  15. Conclusions.

    This post made a number of allegations. (Main post refers.)
    No substantive evidence was produced to refute any of the allegations.
    No substantive evidence was produced to support any of the false statements referred to in the allegations.
    Insult and disparagement were employed to coneal lack of substantive argument; Comments # 1, 4, 5 and 8 refer, as well as # 12 directed at a nother blogger.

    Since no substantive arguments were made to refute the allegations, and no substantive evidence produced to support the false statements referred to in the allegations, the allegations are shown to be well-founded, and the falsity of the statements referred to in the allegations is established.

    This post is now closed.

  16. Technical note for Bravo – to close a post, remove the check mark against the “Allow Comments” box on the “Edit Post” page. Existing comments will remain, but the Comments box will disappear. Like this –

Comments are closed.