Moderator's Warning: You all need to knock off the personal attacks and the sniping or infractions will be issued.
Moderator's Warning: You all need to knock off the personal attacks and the sniping or infractions will be issued.
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run
Mace Windu: Then our worst fears have been realized. We must move quickly if the Jedi Order is to survive.
QUOTE=OpportunityCost;1061524260]Nah, just an admission that we dont know his intent. Nor can we get it from him. We have liberal reading of worst intent. Which is rarely how people speak.
His actions are consistant with his words. If his words don't indicate his intent, his actions do.
I didn't create your profile. You did.Who are you to label me and decide what I can and can't believe?
You're saying that on a poltical forum, in a debate between a liberal and a conservative, I have no right to question conservatism which is at the very core of your argument? How is it off topic to question conservatism on a political forum?Next time you whine, crab and bitch about my lean, I will report your post as off topic.
I have distorted nothing, nor have I engaged in circular reasoning. I asked you for an example of that, and you couldn't present it. So don't accuse me of things that I haven't done, unless you can support that accusation. Ok? So...what you're saying is that you're a "nominal conservative". That's a bit different from the description of conservatism according to the people that defined it. That would mean that you reject at least some of the Canon of Conservatism as presented by Russell Kirk, the guy that gave the movement its name, and the guy that Reagan accepted as the voice of conservatism. Fine. Which parts do you reject. I'd like to know since a conservative is usually a person that subscribes to, you know....conservatism. Just clarify your position.Because your distortions and circular reasoning dont apply when you accept the fact that 90% of people dont agree with everything conservative or liberal, they agree with some of each.
No doubt I annoy conservatives, but theres nothing shallow going on here. In fact it's a lot deeper than the usual fare of ad hominem attacks and insults that you find on poltiical forums. It's not an insult to ask you to explain your position on things OC. It appears that you aren't used to having to tell anybody why you believe the things you do. That makes it easy to utter a bunch of nonsense without having to justify anything. But that won't work with me. The black and white, Either/Or is called Bifurcation. That's what happens to ideologues. Those that live by a doctrine find themselves in a black and white world that they can't justify. I'm very aware of that, and the fact that it makes them uncomfortable. But I didn't come here to make life comfortable for conservatives. It's a debate forum and the topic is the SOTU address. I've seen a lot of attacks directed toward that, and of course it comes from conservatives. My question is what justifies conservatism in the first place. They love to attack. How good are they at defending their ideology?Your pigeon holing philosophical sophistry completely ignores that, and frankly the way you approach political discussion is pretty annoying, shallow and vapid. You want everything in black and white---either or, and the world and people just aren't like that.
Now what is there in what I said that would lead you to say such a thing? Probably this: "I asked you about your own falliblity. Knowing the answer to that means that I know the answer to the other.You already agreed that it's possible that you and the conservative ideology could be wrong. Are you now reversing that position? What am I projecting here?" That's not a projection of infallibility OC. That's recognizing a logical conclusion. If you are willing to admit that you are a fallible human being, and recognize that all humans are fallible, then it's logical to conclude that a fallible human being cannot create an infallible idea. Therefore, you have to conclude that conservatism is inherently flawed and prone to error.You're projecting your own belief of your infallibility.
1. All humans are fallible
2. Conservatism is a human idea
conclusion: Conservatism is fallible.
Is there something in that syllogism that you find false? If the premises are true ( and they are)then the conclusion MUST be true. Thats no projection of my infallibility. Saying so is either a misunderstanding of everything that I said, or a refusal to recognize a logical conclusion. OR....it could simply be unwillingness on your part to agree with anything that I have to say, regardless of the logic used to support it. Only you know the answer to that.
No. It isn't. Very often its emotional. And looks to emotionalism to make it's case. It feeds off of long held beliefs with no basis and attempts to legislate those beliefs. It's often operating off the Gut. The "Gut" is the repository of dark and ancient fears. It knows what it knows because it knows how it feels. Intellect is pitted against feeling, on the ground that itis somehow inconsistant with warm emotion. It is pitted agasint character because it is widely believed that intellect stands for cleverness, which transmutes easily into the sly, or the diabolical. If something feels right, it must be treated with the same respect given something that actually IS right. If something isfelt deeply, it must carry the same weight as something that is true. If there are two sides to every argument - or more to the point, if there are people willing to take up two sides to every argument - then both must be right, or at least, equally valid. Dress it up and the Gut is "common sense" which is rarely common, and even more rarely makes sense. It often comes down to assessing what Everybody Knows, even though Everybody might be as false as pink Unicorns to the truth of things.Politics is not always logical.
The positions opposite my own are easy targets. Those in line with mine, aren't rooted in ideological committments rooted in foundationalism. They require a base to rationally justify themselves.Do you expect me to take up a position that is illogical for the sake of being fair and balenced? My interest is in the truth. Since when is truth either fair OR balanced? I subject my own views to the same criticism I direct toward others. The truth has no bias. The framework that I come from permits a rationalist to be characterized as one who is willing to entertain any position and holds all his positions, including his most fundamental standards, goals, and decisions, and his basic philosophical position itself, open to criticism; one who never cuts off an argument by resorting to faith, or irrational commitment to justify some belief that has been under severe critical fire; one who is committed, attached, addicted, to no position. Since I have no position, I have nothing to defend irrationally. I ask questions. Then I examine the answers I get to see if they withstand criticism. If they can't, they're dumped and exposed as bull****. If they can, I accept them.Your inability to criticize only the positions opposite your own is telling that your confirmation bias is alive and well.
Give me an example: Dont just say it. That means nothing. So you don't link people here to the statements made by other liberals unless they voice support for them? Well...we wouldnt want you to stick your neck out and actually say, "thats a stupid ridiculous statement by an ignoramous, and I don't subscribe to that crap at all." would we? I can remember hearing a lot of people complaining that Muslims weren't being vocal enough to direct any criticism at the outrageous acts of terrorists acting in the name of their religion. Their own silence spoke volumes. When Mitt Romney was asked to comment on the words of Rush Limbaugh calling a woman a slut and a prostitute, he didn't distance himself at all. He said, "those aren't the words I would have used". Stuff like that doesn't fly with people, and that stench is now attached to him. You have to call out stupidity when you see it or run the risk of being painted in the same light. If you call yourself a conservative and one of them makes a completely absurd racist, or simply dumb statement, it would serve you and your conservatism to come out and reject those comments. So far the only person I say from the conservatives willing to do that is Joe Scarborough.Liberals make plenty of absolute statements. I dont make it a practice of linking board members to those statements unless and until they voice support for them. To do otherwise would be a dishonest debating technique. You have engaged in it how many times now?
Bolded are the arguments that you are dodging. I asked if you were fallible. You admitted that you could make a mistake. I said Fine, I'll take that as a yes. Then you said I'm putting words into your mouth. You seem to be hung up on the phrase "sacred ground" How about Sacred Cows? It's a metaphore for holding to long held beliefs that you won't give up. But we both know that you could be wrong about things. You could be wrong about liberals. You could be wrong about conservatism. You know that it's fallible. You'd agree with that right? Logically you'd have to, or face the uncomfortable position of dealing with a contradiction. So when I ask if you know that, if you have any interest in the truth, then you know that could involve compromising the long held beliefs or "sacred cows" that you held. Then you object. So you aren't willing to compromise the "sacred ground of your beliefs" after all. Even though they can't be demonstrated as true. Do you see them now as infallible? Based on what? Again I ask you a question: "Are you saying that you are unwilling to challenge those beliefs, by turning your own critical eye toward your own beliefs? That is not an assertion. It ends with a question mark. It's called a question. You say this:"Nearly an entire paragraph of phony assertions." I say, look at that paragraph and point to a single assertion. Everything is a question. I haven't asserted anything. I'm asking you to explain your nominal conservatism to me. I'd like to know what parts of it that you reject. Why is that such a problem?So. Bolded are arguments I havent made, italics are concern trolls. Nearly an entire paragraph of phony assertions.
The answer is no. I don't. That was pretty easy. No dancing. No dodging. I don't hold any religious beliefs. Do you? Questions to a believer, don't indicate a religious belief in the person asking the question OC. Maybe you aren't a believer. I haven't asked you about your religious inclinations. Only your political ones. Apparently you don't subscribe to the Canon of Conservatism as presented by the voice of the Conservative Movement. Or the Manifesto from a Conservative radio personality. I'd like to know what parts you reject. So, you aren't a true believer in conservatism as described by conservatives. Yet you call yourself a conservative and defend somebody like Lee Atwater.Are you saying that you accept Jesus Christ and your lord and savior? LOL You are couching your statements in the same language as religious belief. Ironic.
Last edited by Adagio; 03-02-13 at 10:44 PM.
Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.
In the course of a poltical forum, on a thread devoted to politic's and the questions regarding the SOTU address, delivered by a Democrat, who's also been called a Liberal, a socialist, a Kenyan, among a lot of other things, the question of the legitimacy of those comments from conservatives, brings into question the legitimacy of conservatism itself. You call yourself a conservative. You appear to have a problem with your own self identification.Leans are not the topic of this thread.
.Im saying that this forum is very specific on content
I have yet to have a Moderater tell me that conservatism was off limits as far as discussion goes.
You didn't. But neither have to told me what parts of conservatism you reject, despite my asking you that very thing. As for Kirk, if he's not the most respected authority on Conservatism, which is noted by the Heritage Foundation, and Mr. Conservative, Ronald Reagan himself, then maybe you can tell me who is? Who are these authorities on conservatism? It seems to me that while calling yourself a conservative, you can't articulate the things that make you a conservative.LOL. Where did I say I agreed with everything Reagan said? As I said you present arguments not made. Also, you present Kirk as the only authority on Conservatism? Also faulty logic as he cant be.
I already did. It's in the comment that you quoted. "It's a debate forum and the topic is the SOTU address. I've seen a lot of attacks directed toward that, and of course it comes from conservatives. My question is what justifies conservatism in the first place? The arguments against the SOTU are from conservatives. Those argument's are based on the idea that they conflict with conservative ideology. Fine. What is that ideology based on? Maybe the arguments aren't legitimate.Remind me...whats the thread title again?
I have been testing them. That's what this entire back and forth has been about. You call yourself a conservative. That IS foundationalist thinking. I'm not arguing "like" an ideologue. I'm arguing "with" one.The reverse is also true. You also assume my beliefs before testing them, conclusion reached without foundation. You argue like a ideologue.
I did. "Very often its emotional. And looks to emotionalism to make it's case." That is the point of that comment. It was stated at the very beginning of the comment. Did you miss it?blah blah blah, make a point.
What I offer is a critique of conservatism. If conservatives choose to criticize the SOTU, then I choose to criticize conservatism itself.Obviously that bugs you. But if you're going to criticize it, what is the basis for the criticism? If it conflicts with the foundationalism of conservatism, why should that foundationalist view be taken as logically valid? That's going to effect the view of the SOTU address.You have nothing to defend because you offer nothing relating to this thread. Try that first and we can see what you have to defend.
No. I don't. They decide on that. I ask them why? It's like a person that calls himself a Christian, but then tells me that he doesn't believe in the doctrine of Christianity or the Divinity of Jesus which is what it's all about. Like saying, I'm a nominal Christian. I like calling myself a Christian, I just don't believe in it. I believe in this and maybe that...but not this or that. I cherry pick my religion, my politics. I'm sort of a conservative, or sort of a christian, but don't pin me down to actually being what I claim to be. If you reject Kirk and his 6 Canon's of Conservatism, or his 10 Principles of Conservatism...then why can't you say what parts you reject? Are you a part time conservative? A nominal conservative? You just call yourself a conservative. What you're saying is that has no meaning to it. You call yourself that, but when questioned about fundamental conservative beliefs, you deny holding them.The question would be if I, myself offered up such comments. You seem to decide what others do and dont believe a lot. That doesnt appear to be so logical and rational.
I'm afraid that isn't true. You've been asked repeatedly what it is your conservatism believes. You won't go there. There is a basis to conservatism. A foundational principle. Do you disagree with that? There is a reason you call yourself a conservative. You tell me that I have preconceived notions about all of this. I understand and have read what those prinicples and canons are, by people that have defined the movement that goes by that name. Has that been redefined? By who? I'm sure that Reagan was a conservative, and he subscribed to the writings of Kirk, who subscribed to the writing of Burke. What's changed? Perhaps you do simply "lean" conservative without going all the way? Does that mean that something stops you from going all the way? Do you have a liberal streak in you that stands in the way?You havent bothered to find out what I think on any issue, you have pre-supposed my beliefs and ran with your preconcieved notions
Kirk described six basic “canons” or principles of conservatism:
1. A divine intent, as well as personal conscience, rules society;
2. Traditional life is filled with variety and mystery while most radical systems are characterized by a narrowing uniformity;
3. Civilized society requires orders and classes;
4. Property and freedom are inseparably connected;
5. Man must control his will and his appetite, knowing that he is governed more by emotion than by reason; and
6. Society must alter slowly.
Is there something there you reject?
Is conservatism an open ended issue, or a closed system with limitations? What I'm doing here is not setting verbal traps, but more accurately...logical questions. They present contradictions that we all have to deal with, IF we want to maintain our claim that we are rational humans. Most of us accept the Laws of Non-Contradiction. They've been with us since Aristotle. The law of non-contradiction is one of the most obvious laws of logic, but one of the most frequently denied. It states that for any two propositions, if they contradict each other, they cannot both be true. Whenever I argue with people about the law of non-contradiction, they almost always resort to equivocation to get around it, but two statements can only contradict each other if they are talking about the same thing at the same time and in the same sense. Take the following two statements for example:Then when backtracked you frame the argument with limitations rather than open ended issues.Thats not wanting to find out, thats setting verbal traps
1.I'm in Vermont
2.I'm not in Vermont
Maybe I'm in Vermont but on the phone with somebody in Chicago, so I'm kind of in two places at the same time. That's equivication. Obviously I'm not physically in both places at the same time.
The law of non-contradiction is important because it’s how we tell the truth from a lie. Without it, there’s no such thing as a lie. A lie is that which contradicts the truth.
Russell Kirk gave the Conservative Movement it name. He created the Canon for conservatives.
I'm a conservative because I subscribe to Kirks Canon
I'm a conservative but I don't subscribe to Kirks Canon.
So what does it mean to say I'm a Conservative? What defines Conservatism and who defines it? There are a lot of members of the Republican Caucus that say they are Conservatives. And if they don't hold these stated values and postions, they are primaried by those claiming to be MORE conservative, or tell people that they were a "severely conservative Governor" in order to appeal to those that subscribe to a doctrine. What makes a person a conservative?
You said before that you don't regard Kirk as THE voice of conservatism. Does that mean that you reject his Canon or at least part of it? It would seem to me, that if Kirk regarded it as Canon (sounds very Ecclesiastical to me) rejecting part of it, rejects it as it's laid out in its entirety. If you only take part of it, then you aren't accepting the Canon as it's written.
Well that's a very interesting concept for debating things. Observe the answers of others...and that's it. Don't bother to ask any questions regarding their answers? They're not permissable. And asking these questions somehow means that I'm not "open minded" enough to view these beliefs without questioning why they might believe such things which are totally relevant to an issue? When I ask what this belief is based on, I'm the one that isn't open minded?? Maybe their belief is false or somehow in error. That's possible since we both know they're fallible and prone to error. You would agree on that right? Maybe by examining those "beliefs" and how they relate to the issue, they'll get closer to the Truth which should be the most important factor, shouldn't it? They don't own the truth or have any monopoly on it. It's not something you can possess. They believe something, and if they aren't willing to examine that, I attribute that to a belief system of some sort and you say that means my opinion is already made? My opinion is formed by the other persons willingness or unwillingness, to find the truth. And unless you can tell me that you possess it, you must know that if the truth has any meaning to you, examining your own fallible pre-conceptions is where the problem is. NOT as you say, my lack of an open mind. An open mind worthy of calling itself such, would have no problems with examining their own beliefs. So just how open minded are you?address the issues and observe the answers of other instead of jumping in and stereotyping others because you aren't open minded enough to view the beliefs of others before attributing a belief system to them because your opinion is already made.
Well, mine have to do with the fact that neither I, nor anybody that I know would talk to anybody about how to use dog-whistles to appeal to a racist. Why would anybody want to appeal to racism? That's a racist position to hold.Nah, what I did was listened to the entire taped conversation in its entirety and drew conclusions. They were just different from yours, which you ridiculed, how open minded and logical of you.
Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.
And NOTHING youv'e written here so far has gone "over my head". It's not possible, your'e a liberal.
Generic self massaging egocentric hypocritical rhetoric may pass for intellectual discussion at politico, but not here. Or maybe not, maybe thats why they banned you. Who knows, who cares.
Youv'e already backed down from my direct challenges 3 times to respond to a earlier post. I suspect it's a character issue, but one things clear. You'll tap out 5k words of totally irrelevent superficial drek eventually and not say a thing.
Like most everything that you post here, you'd be wrong.think in your case they probably made a exception.
You're a hate monger Fenton. You have nothing to add here beyond your own hate. That's boring.And NOTHING youv'e written here so far has gone "over my head". It's not possible, your'e a liberal.
Obviously you care, or you wouldn't continue the baiting.Generic self massaging egocentric hypocritical rhetoric may pass for intellectual discussion at politico, but not here. Or maybe not, maybe thats why they banned you. Who knows, who cares.
Your talking points are boring. It's evidence that you can't think for yourself, and that doesn't equip you to deal with reasoned debate. Dueling talking points is a waste of time.. So...it comes down to my talking points are better than your talking points. Say's who? Says me! Well...isn't that productive? You've already illustrated clearly, the depth of your own hate. That kind of hate is irrational. Why would I, or anybody entertain an irrational person like you? You have no credibility.Youv'e already backed down from my direct challenges 3 times to respond to a earlier post. I suspect it's a character issue, but one things clear. You'll tap out 5k words of totally irrelevent superficial drek eventually and not say a thing.
Extremism: A threat at home, a threat abroad.