Subject:
|
Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 8 Aug 2004 22:20:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1717 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Chris Phillips wrote:
(snip)
| |
Anyone who has read my LUGNET posts has seen countless occasions where I have
retracted my own statements and/or evolved my opinion about one topic or
another.
|
This only indicates that you hadn’t considered all of the ramifications of a
particular issue. Most of the issues I argue I have examined to the Nth degree;
my only hope here is to somehow, through this imperfect medium, to communicate
my views and use those who disagree as a sort of sounding board, to check for
leaks, as it were. I learn a lot, but rarely does that affect my overall
viewpoint.
| |
And unlike George Bush, I try to never make a statement without
backing it up with fact.
|
Well, Chris, how about that very statement for one? How do you know that George
Bush makes statements that he never tries to back up with facts?
| |
If a subsequent post calls my opinion into
question, I clarify what I have said.
I am not sure that you could say the same thing. (How many words have you
personally expended claiming that same-sex marriage will destroy the
institution without any backup
|
I have provided plenty of backup; it’s just that people like you aren’t willing
to listen. If you have a given institution, say marriage, that is defined as
the union of 1 man and 1 woman, and you change that definition to something
other than that, you have, in essence, forever altered that institution, and
thus destroyed it. It ceases to be what it once was. Is this not clear? Now,
you may argue, so what? That is another argument. But to say that I haven’t
defended that and other statements about marriage means that you haven’t been
paying attention.
Now, if you want to change that definition of 1 man and 1 woman, I challenge you
to present to me another definition that doesn’t include any of the
discriminations you have against a 1 man 1 woman definition.
My whole point is that I don’t think it’s possible, and so the issue becomes one
of preference of discriminations. The vast majority of people prefer to
discriminate in the 1 woman 1 man manner. What you aren’t willing to
acknowledge is that any definition will invariably discriminate against
someone’s idea of what marriage should be.
| |
other than endless sidetracking about whether
our society is or is not founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs?) I have seen
many examples where the conservative voices on this board make
unsubstantiated arguments and then shift the subject in apparent attempts to
dodge calls for proof.
|
I think you will find that these apparent dodges are due to miscommunication and
time issues rather than deliberate attempts at obfuscation. As I have said
previously-- my wish is to clarify positions.
| |
I hate generalizations as much as the next guy,
|
Not me. I think generalizations can be very useful at times.
| |
but
I’ve seen it happen quite a few times.
|
I would be interested to see a specific example.
| |
Furthermore, I believe that o-t.d is a place where a number of articulate,
well-informed voices congregate to run in circles with one another. I fear
that this board has become a tarpit that expends all of our energies where
they have the least possible effect. Hence my call to everyone here to take
the message and the honest debating style out beyond our insular community.
John, I encourage you to do the same.
|
To join those articulate, well-informed voices? ;-)
| |
Vigorous debate is the foundation of a
democratic society, and all voices should be heard.
|
Even the ones that aren’t articulate and well-informed. Sorry, I couldn’t
resist acknowledging the backhanded slight:-)
Well, since I barely have time to participate as much as I would like in this
venue, I’d have to demur (assuming you are talking about online discussions).
But again, I’m not really looking to “effect” others. YMMV
| |
| |
| |
I still read LUGNET, and I don’t mean to suggest that anyone should stop
posting here, but this is an important time for us to get the good word out
beyond our small sphere.
|
What is that “good word”? Are you talking about Liberalism in general?
|
I have spent a lot of time over the past four years examining the
neo-conservative takeover of the US government.
|
Have you spent any time considering the shift towards conservativism of the
general populace? “Takeover”? Are we still not a representative democracy?
If not hysterical.
| |
by the
deception and scare tactics that have been used as excuses to erode personal
liberties
|
What personal liberties of yours have been eroded?
| |
and to ignore international law.
|
International law does not and never will trump US law. That is why being a
member in an international body such as the UN is a bad idea.
| |
If Bush/Cheney take the election
in November, I’d move to Canada except they’ll likely invade there next.
|
You are hysterical. What if I could guarantee you that the US wouldn’t invade
Canada (personally, I’d vote to invade Mexico first-- better beaches and
weather:-) or I’d give you $1,000,000 (I’m sure I could find a bookie who would
take 100,000 to 1 odds for my $10 on that) Would you still go?
| |
There has never been a more important time for people to engage in
enlightened debate about the direction our country is taking.
|
Until the next election;-)
| |
The “good word” to which I refer is the Truth. The Truth which the
Bush/Cheney administration seem to hold in contempt, and which the American
People deserve to hear. The only way to find Truth is to shine a light into
dark corners, wherever they might be found. We’ve shone a lot of light (and
thrown a lot of heat) here, so perhaps it is time to take that light out from
underneath the bushel, as it were.
|
I really don’t understand what you are talking about. You really do sound
like a Crusader, with Truth in your pocket. I thought the whole point of being
a Liberal was that there are no absolutes; yet here you are, using religious
language and metaphors, envoking religious ideas in an effort to convert others
to your way of thinking.
I am all for seeking Truth, but I am at least wise enough to know that it won’t
be found in politics.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) ...Or that I maintain an open mind, even when I am already fairly convinced of my viewpoint. Are you so arrogant that you believe it is possible for a human being to achieve total, certain understanding of these issues? (...) Listen to (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) Maybe you mean only as a result of 911, but if not, you both seem to have an odd stance here. My second amendment liberties have been eroded by both sides of the spectrum. Each side has an agenda and neither of them are my freedom. Chris (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) Anyone who has read my LUGNET posts has seen countless occasions where I have retracted my own statements and/or evolved my opinion about one topic or another. And unlike George Bush, I try to never make a statement without backing it up with (...) (20 years ago, 8-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
113 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
