Subject:
|
Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 9 Aug 2004 12:50:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1838 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Chris Phillips wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Chris Phillips wrote:
| |
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.
|
...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?
| |
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.
|
Listen to yourself- you have already considered the issues to the Nth
degree, and you only wish to communicate your views. Which one of us is
being close-minded again?
|
You make it sound as if there is something wrong with coming to a conclusion
about anything. Is it so hard to accept that I can consider a POV and
finally reject it? It is as if your definition of “close-minded” is anyone
who doesn’t see the Truth in your (obviously) correct perspective. Is it
not possible to agree to disagree?
|
We may have to. My definition of close-minded is to be so entrenched in your
own point of view that you do not consider the possibility that any other point
of view could have merit. Your endless circuitous logic, well demonstrated in
this forum, is ample evidence thereof.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
He told me so, but then he wouldn’t explain why.
|
Well, if there is anything that is unhelpful here in this NG, it is sarcasm.
|
Well I hope this helps:
George Bush knowingly lied to the Congress, the American People, and the World
in his State of the Union Address on January 28, 2003 to make his case for the
invasion of Iraq. Numerous “facts” that he stated about Iraqs weapons programs
have been shown to be false, and it has further been shown that his
administration knew these statements were false prior to the address. This is
an impeachable offense.
After much debate, the legislature authorized the invasion of Iraq, contingent
on the president filing a finding within 48 hours of the invasion containing
proof of two facts: (1) that Iraq posessed WMD, and (2) that all diplomatic
avenues had been completely exhausted.
Do you know what Bush’s “finding of proof” was? He quoted back the very
declaration that asked him to provide this proof! He took the assumptions
spelled out by the Senate and quoted them back as if the Senate had concluded
these to be fact! Furthermore, he never even attempted to prove point #2, that
all diplomatic efforts had failed.
Bush is in violation of the very act which authorized his invasion. He has
refused to provide facts to support the premise of the invasion. And history is
showing that the Truth about Iraq was much different than the crap that flowed
from Bush’s lips.
Clear enough for you? The man is an international outlaw, and the American
public will be complicit in his crimes if we don’t throw the bum out of office.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Ah, there it is: “people like me.” John, you don’t even know me.
|
People like you who have claimed that I haven’t backed up my position. Of
course I don’t know you, but that is not to say that I couldn’t predict a lot
of how you feel about politics, though...
| |
| |
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.
|
Oh, alright. Now I understand. Simply to change it means you destroy it.
|
See, now I can’t ascertain whether you are serious or being sarcastic.
|
:)
| |
| |
This still doesn’t explain why that is a bad thing, and why you were so
willing to go around in circles for weeks on end on the topic. As you are
trying to do once again.
|
Why don’t you explain why changing the definition of marriage is a good
thing. Again I defy you to come up with an alternative definition. Nobody
will.
|
See you in November, John.
| |
| |
Don’t even start, John. I’ll come back here in late November and we can
discuss it over a hot toddy.
| |
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.
|
Well I have no time to explain my position to you. But I am sure that once
you examine it to the Nth degree, you will know exactly what I am trying to
say.
| |
| |
I hate generalizations as much as the next guy,
|
Not me. I think generalizations can be very useful at times.
|
Generalizations such as “people like you...” That explains a lot, John.
Thank you for clarifying.
|
See above. You have misunderstood my meaning, Chris.
|
You frequently claim that people have “misunderstood your meaning” without
actually clarifying your meaning. Classic doublespeak.
| |
| |
| |
| |
but I’ve seen it happen quite a few times.
|
I would be interested to see a specific example.
|
Well, not too long ago, I sought to understand how someone could actually
support the Bush administration with all the lies and threats to democracy
they represent. This was the clearest answer I could get:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=23943
(Sorry to single anyone out, but I have better things to do than let John
waste my time in another go-nowhere debate; hence my original post. This
was the first example I could think of enough search terms to find.)
|
Well, instead of considering “all the lies and threats to democracy” the Bush
administration represents, why not laser in on specifics, and then we can
go from the general hysteria of such an accusation to discussing particular
issues in detail.
|
See above.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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:-)
|
If that is how you choose to parse my words, you may take whatever insults
you wish away from this. That was not my intention, but perhaps it is just
an added bonus.
|
I didn’t say that you intentionally insulted me initially (note my
emoticons), but how is one to take the “added bonus” comment?
|
John :) if :) you :) need :) emoticons :) to :) understand :) when :) I :) am :)
joking :) then :) you :) must :) be :) the :) Vulcan :) robot :) that :) you :)
sound :) like. :)
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
Our e-mail and telephone conversations are routinely scanned by the
government, as are the list of books that we purchase or borrow at the
public library.
|
Are you claiming that these actions began at the behest of the Bush
Administration?
|
Are you claiming that they did not?
You have shown a pattern here on o-t.d of “debating” simply by asking questions
and not by adding anything new of your own. Again, this is one reason that this
forum has become a tarpit for enlightened debate.
| |
| |
US citizens and foreign nationals are taken into custody and held
without charges or due process of law for years on end.
|
For one who hates generalities, you use them a lot. Specifics.
| |
These are violations of my rights and yours, even if we personally have not
(to our knowledge) had them violated. Yet.
|
Again, without knowing specifics, I would draw no conclusions.
|
See above.
| |
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
To ignore international standards of conduct is to become a rogue nation.
|
Whose standards would those be? Sudan’s? China’s? North Korea’s? To what
standards are you referring? If ignoring their standards means being a
rogue, then so be it!
|
Hmm... We signed the Geneva Convention, did we not? Yet we have sought in this
“war that is not really a war against terror” to avoid answering to this
long-held norm of conduct.
Invading a sovereign nation in “preventive war” has never been accepted under
international law, either.
| |
| |
That is exactly what the United States has become, and we are going to get
our collective ass kicked by the entire world community if we don’t start
behaving like a civilized people.
|
Again, I have no idea what you are talking about! The entire world community
is going to kick our collective ass? If we don’t behave like civilized
people??? You mean like, “if I don’t like your country, I’ll slaughter your
innocent civilians type civility”? Or the “women are objects in our society”
civility? I could go on and on! Please! We are among the most civilized
people on this planet, and in terms of any society in history wielding
supreme power, the ultimate example of civility!
|
If we don’t restore the international relationships that Bush/Cheney’s
go-it-alone style have shattered, we will unilaterally trigger WWIII, and it
will be Brittain and the US vs. everybody else.
| |
| |
| |
| |
If Bush/Cheney take the election
in November, I’d move to Canada except they’ll likely invade there next.
|
You are hysterical.
|
Or perhaps sarcastic.
|
Ah, so you were kidding?
| |
| |
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?
|
Only if you promise not to go there too.
|
Canada isn’t big enough for the both of us, eh?
| |
| |
| |
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;-)
|
Only if Bush, Inc. somehow manage to win this one.
| |
| |
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.
|
Perhaps not. Nor, apparently will it be gleaned from any interaction with
you, sir. Thank you for wasting my time.
|
Unfortunately, the sediment is mutual. Have fun storming the conservatives.
|
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) Okay, I accept that definition and gladly state that in a lot of areas, I am close-minded. Here is one example: on the topic of adultery, I am close-minded and reject that behavior. Do you have a problem with that? (...) More generalities. You (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) You make it sound as if there is something wrong with coming to a conclusion about anything. Is it so hard to accept that I can consider a POV and finally reject it? It is as if your definition of "close-minded" is anyone who doesn't see the (...) (20 years ago, 9-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
|
|
|
|
