One thought on “Dr Andrew Cadman: ‘The political class is engaged in a feminist-inspired war on men’”

1. Dear Mike

   Your comment must be awaiting moderation, because I cannot see it yet.

   My own comment, also awaiting moderation, follows.

   John

   66

   @ Fabian Solutions

   Your kind of rhetoric is familiar enough. I have come across hundreds of examples of the same sort of rhetoric ever since I started to take a keen interest in – well – thinking about things, at the age of nine or ten, during the build-up to the 1964 general election that made Harold Wilson Prime Minister. (A school teacher of ours recommended to the class an excellent little book that you appear not to have read, or at least to have understood, called Straight and Crooked Thinking.)

   I could recognise your sort of empty rhetoric for what it was even at that young age, distinguishing it from proper argument. What Dr Cadman bemoans, your rhetoric gloats is winning. It is “progressive”. It is, you assert, “the future”, as though anything that was thus predicable was bound to be good. What Dr Cadman would prefer is, in contrast, “the past”. An idea whose time has come is, you hope we will all assume, a jolly good idea, because (after all) its time has apparently come, without explaining at all why we ought to think anything of the sort, about your particular favourite idea, or novel ideas in general.

   Yours is an example of what somebody called “chronological snobbery”, projected into the future. Not only may we assume that today’s popular beliefs are true, and older beliefs they contradict are false, for no other reason than when the generations that believed those beliefs lived (classical chronological snobbery), we may also (apparently) assume that any beliefs that aren’t yet all that popular that you assert are “the future”, must be better than today’s beliefs, because your beliefs are “the future” (futuristic, or projected, chronological snobbery.) Wow!

   This rhetoric reminds me of the time I was driving home towards the southeast of London from a business meeting along the M62 corridor. Distracted by a conversation with my colleague, I had missed the turning onto the M1, although I was yet to realise this. The traffic conditions on the almost deserted M62 east-bound were far better than I had expected them to be at that time of day, on the M1.

   I was still congratulating myself at having made such good progress on my speedy journey homewards, unimpeded by heavy traffic, when I arrived at the outskirts of Kingston-Upon-Hull, and realised that I was on the wrong blooming road.

   What Dr Cadman deserves from you, is some sort of counter-argument to his argument, as to why the road you prefer is, despite his arguments, a better road to be on than the different road that Dr Cadman would like us to be on. Dr Cadman has shown that he already knows what road we are on, and that we have already made considerable “progress” along it (as you put it).

   A counter-argument, refuting Dr Cadman’s arguments, explaining why the road Dr Cadman opines is the wrong road really is the right road after all, is not something that you have bothered to offer for Dr Cadman’s consideration and ours, Fabian Solutions, is it?

   I could have seen through your empty rhetoric when I was ten. I’m certainly not fooled by it at 61. However, you seem to consider it “progressive” for children nowadays never to be exposed to two contrary views, contended for rationally, and thus developing critical thinking skills. You seem almost delighted for children should never learn to think for themselves, as I had learnt to think for myself before I sat my 11-plus exam, by depriving them of all “social conservative influence.” This calls into question not just your commitment to diversity. It calls into question your commitment to education, rather than mere indoctrination. Shame on you!

   99

   LikeLike

   Reply