| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > It is pertinent to highlight that an individual may not have a belief on an
> > issue, but may still question that of others. Or do you disagree with that?
>
> I do not. I think it is potentially very valuable. But that depends on the
> way in which it conducted, like all issues of debate style. If you throw out
> questions that seem disingenuous, people think that you're sniping.
>
> > > Just like the fact that when you claim Larry's, or my (or anyone's who
> > > disagrees with you) opinion is subjective, that doesn't make it especially • so.
> > > Right?
> >
> > Wrong. It is very easy to be objective - I try to be. Bring anger /
> > bitterness / contempt to a debate breeds subjectivity. Do you think
> > subjectivity is a good think?
> >
> > Subjective - influenced by or based on personal beliefs or feelings, rather
> > than based on facts
>
> I agree with the definition above. And I think, in general -- where
> appropriate/possible, objectivity is a good thing. But then, in the case of
> what society should strive to provide, and at what cost, how can you claim
> objectivity? Obviously, you think the majority should dictate theft from the
> people to help some subset of the people because it's the right thing to
> do...by the nature of this very idea, it is subjective.
"theft"?
> I'm not opposed to
> your claim that others have subjective opinions, I'm opposed to your claim of
> objectivity on matters where the continuum of objectivity<-->subjectivity
> doesn't mean anything.
If others have opinions which are based on emotion, rather than reason, it
does not assist understanding. One should have a reasoned argument, not just
gut feelings. To call taxation “theft” is not helpful.
>
> How do you know when one brings anger/bitterness/contempt to the debate? Do
> you think it is impossible to have those feelings sometimes and debate
> objectively?
Oh yes. However, if you allow yourself to be tainted by bitterness - it
dilutes the argument. Remember all the anger MS had for MM a while back. He
made some good points, but did anyone have respect for his method?
>
> > > Have you ever thought Larry had a valid political
> > > opinion? What was it?
> >
> > There have been times I agree with Larry. I don't think he doubts this either.
>
> I phrased that poorly. I have no doubt that you actually agree with Larry
> about 99% of stuff. (e.g. It's easy to agree that in general, people shouldn't
> kill one another.) What I really meant was, can you cite an instance in which
> you disagreed with Larry (on specifics, or in general) and then because of the
> argument presented, changed your mind at least in part?
>
> If you claim to listen to what others say, and test your own belief structures
> against that, but can't cite any instances in which you actually changed,
Without answering your point specifically, is it not possible that that I
have not changed because I still have the same values? As far as I am
concerned, this started when Larry spammed this group with some LP party
dogma - and I think I described as "bizarre". I still think it is "bizarre".
I still think that education should be based on ability to learn. I still
think that healthcare should be based on need. The prospect of paying less
tax has not led me to change - thankfully.
Getting back to your point, I think I once said the LP gaining power would
result in slavery - was I not shown to be wrong on this?
> and
> then have the bravado to call the rest of us (or some subset thereof) too
> pigheaded to debate properly because our opinions can't change, I think that's
> the height of hipocracy. I can cite changes that my stances have taken because
> of debates in general and because of .debate in particular.
I never claimed to be perfect Chris. I am not that conceited. Hypocrisy
aside, are you saying I am wrong?
>
> Further, it doesn't seem at all -- from your communications here, that you
> actually do seek to understand the points of others. You make derogatory
> comments about my distaste for democracy, and in particular taxation
> (thievery),
Do you really think it adds to the debate by calling taxation “theft”?
> but there is no indication that you attempted to see it from my
> side of things. Maybe you did. But how would I know that? (I'm just using
> this as one example.)
(being subjective)
My problem with your outlook, is that I _view_ it to be selfish and full of
contempt for our fellow man. When I see somebody on the "dole", I see wasted
potential. What do you see? Do you not see a guy/gal on the fiddle, wasting
your hard earned $$ on booze and fags?
Scott A
>
> Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Uselessness of .debate
|
| (...) I do not. I think it is potentially very valuable. But that depends on the way in which it conducted, like all issues of debate style. If you throw out questions that seem disingenuous, people think that you're sniping. (...) so. (...) I agree (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.general)
|
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
