Subject:
|
Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian anymore...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:01:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
540 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> I think we can agree that wackos come in all favors.
I agree 100%. But the problem is that conservatives in general (and,
honestly, you in particular, in OT.debate at least) tend to castigate
liberal commentators for doing exactly the same things for which
conservative commentators are lauded.
> I am not for silencing criticism, but I think that insults are not necessary.
> How about *constuctive* criticism-- that's what I'd like.
Again, I agree, but none--and I mean none--of the conservative pundits
(Limbaugh, Robertson, Falwell, Buchannan, et al) offers any kind of
constructive criticism, and they are very content merely to insult liberals
for being liberals. That's hardly fostering a fertile ground for debate,
and it's exactly the kind of tactic for which you criticize liberals!
> I don't watch TV, much less own cable, so I don't know what the deal is at
> Fox.
In a nutshell, the Fox News Network alleges itself to be a bastion of, to
use their phrase, "fair and balanced" reporting on current events. In
reality, the commentary invariably favors the conservative perspective.
I'm also amazed to learn that you don't watch tv. If that's the case,
then how do you feel justified in calling the media "liberal?" It sounds as
if you're passing a judgment without first-hand experience. Or worse,
you're basing your judgment on the opinions of others instead of forming
your own.
> > As for the other conservative commentators, I'll address Limbaugh
> > specifically because he's the, shall we say, biggest target.
>
> You know, he lost a lot of weight, so easy on the fat jokes;-)
Has he? I wasn't aware of that, but good for him--it's certainly not
healthy to carry around an extra 100 pounds or so! But in the past he's
made some personally vicious attacks, calling Chelsea Clinton the Whitehouse
dog, for example, so I don't feel too bad about striking him with the same
sword.
> > The entirety of the Republican Platform is based on emotional appeal to
> > ideology, from its mandate of pro-religion school vouchers to its
> > Christian-based antiabortion agenda to its rabid anti-civil-rights policies
> > to its "Christian-morality"-driven judge appointments.
>
> So what? At least they are basing their emotion on *ideas*, rather than on
> reaction *against* them.
But that's not a supportable position. The burning of witches was based
on ideas, as were the pogroms. I have the idea that I would be helping you
if I filled your gas tank with soft serve ice cream. Does that make my
practice valid or commendable? It is essential to base one's ideas on
verifiable facts rather than ineffable ideology.
> I'd like to hear some of [liberals] *ideas* (not really, but you get my
> point), not their bile against ideas, in an attempt to influence masses by
> right of their social position.
That is *exactly* what Limbaugh and Falwell and Robertson do every single
day! Why do you condemn liberals for doing the same thing?
> They are simply political hacks.
The same can be said of Falwell, Limbaugh, Robertson, and most notably Bush.
> > You have a real problem staying on-point. Let's discuss your statement in
> > several parts:
> > Q. Does Hussein's defiance of treaty count as a diplomatic failure?
> > A. Not really; diplomacy was never tried.
>
> What? What do you call an unconditional ceasefire from Desert Storm?
> Diplomacy saved his keister.
Then that sounds like a point in favor of my argument.
> > UN weapons inspectors don't count [as diplomacy],
> > since they were basically a post-war enforcement brigade, not to mention
> > frequent spies on behalf of the US.
>
> Well, I lay the blame squarely on the UN. They simply choose to ignore the
> problem.
That may be the case, but then it must also be admitted that the US failed
to undertake a diplomatic effort and instead sought a unilateral
accomplishment of its own agenda regardless of international consensus.
> > Q. Should we have taken out Hussein during Desert Storm?
> > A. Morally? Maybe so, but only if we were willing to admit that the US
> > role of weapons supplier to Iraq would have to have been explained.
>
> They were the lesser of 2 evils at the time. Kind of an unfair assessment.
But the other of two "evils" [Iran] was also supplied with weapons by the
US. Is that some kind of diplomatic bet-hedging?
> > > And give me a break, Dave! The use of the term "moronic" was meant as an
> > > insult, and a politically-INcorrect one at that.
> >
> > Well, so what?
>
> Only that it was my whole point. It was a cheap shot, and I was commenting on
> how I am tired of cheap shots that are devoid of substance.
Once again I agree. But the problem is that Republican demagogues,
specifically Limbaugh, Falwell, and Robertson, take cheap, baseless shots
all the time and are praised for their anti-liberal convictions as a result.
For clarity's sake, my "so what" question was intended as a direct
dismissal of the "politically-INcorrect" label. Political correctness is
reactionary at best and hideously divisive at worst, so you won't find me
defending it.
> > Can you show me an instance where pure force solved a conflict and
> > maintained the subsequent peace?
>
> Japan and Germany, 1945. Today, they are our allies. What better example?
They're both terrible examples, given the second part of my question. Are
you asserting that the only reason Japan and Germany remain our allies is
because we maintain the active threat of force against them?
> lol, I have a feeling that your perception of me is a lot worse than I may
> deserve. I am actually quite a tolerant person.
I accept that you may be quite different face-to-face from how you appear
in ot.debate, and I hope you believe the same of me. My views are very much
the same, but my aggressiveness in arguing them is someone less forceful in
the real world.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Not embarassed to be a Canadian anymore...
|
| (...) I think we can agree that wackos come in all favors. (...) I am not for silencing criticism, but I think that insults are not necessary. How about *constuctive* criticism-- that's what I'd like. (...) I don't watch TV, much less own cable, so (...) (22 years ago, 26-Nov-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
51 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
