Subject:
|
Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 9 Aug 2004 16:58:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1911 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Chris Phillips wrote:
| |
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.
|
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?
| |
Your endless circuitous logic, well
demonstrated in this forum, is ample evidence thereof.
|
More generalities. You know, sometimes I have argued against logic.
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
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,
|
That he reported evidence that was later found to be false is not the same thing
as presenting evidence that you knowingly is false. You have no proof of this
accusation, because there is none.
| |
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.
|
Now I must ask you to provide specific cites for this allegation, because I
reject your assertion.
| |
After much debate, the legislature authorized the invasion of Iraq,
|
Did the president force Congress to vote for war? They had access the exact
same evidence that was presented to the President!
| |
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!
|
They did assume it to be fact; why else did they approve of the invasion in the
first place? Everybody assumed it to be fact!
| |
Furthermore, he never even attempted to prove point #2,
that all diplomatic efforts had failed.
|
SH could have strung Blix along indefinitely. Scum like SH laugh at
diplomats.
| |
Bush is in violation of the very act which authorized his invasion.
|
So you would have advocated an immediate withdrawal after no WMDs were found?
How is Bush in violation?
| |
He has
refused to provide facts to support the premise of the invasion.
|
??? All of Congress saw the facts he used.
| |
And history
is showing that the Truth about Iraq was much different than the crap that
flowed from Bush’s lips.
|
What “Truth”? (and why are you capitalizing this word all the time?) That SH
was just a nice leader and that all was fine in Iraq before we came along?
| |
Clear enough for you? The man is an international outlaw,
|
Then would you advocate him standing trial before the Hague?
| |
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.
|
:)
|
See, now is that a grin, or an evil grin?
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
I’m not sure what that means exactly, but I’ve noticed that you have avoided my
direct challenge twice now....
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Personally, I blame the medium and the time issues. As far as the marriage
issue goes, I honestly don’t know how much more clear I can be. I did leave one
claim hanging, and that was my belief that the destruction of the institution of
marriage would have damaging, social ramifications, but until I get a specific,
alternative definition presented to me which I can attack, I’m not going to
bother.
(snip old stuff)
| |
John :) if :) you :) need :) emoticons :) to :) understand :) when :) I :) am
:) joking :) then :) you :) must :) be :) the :) Vulcan :) robot :) that :)
you :) sound :) like. :)
|
Seriously, Chris, I think you overestimate your ability to convey your mood in
your posts. Everyone does. I have learned that every little byte helps.
(snip)
| |
| |
| |
| |
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?
|
By any chance are you closely related to Scott Arthur? ;-)
Seriously, you are attacking the Bush administration’s policies that you claim
are eroding personal liberties. You gave an example of email and phone
conversations being monitored. If these policies were in place before Bush
came into office, I think it’s disingenuous to blame him for them.
| |
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.
|
With all due respect, I think you might have me confused with someone else
around here!
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
That’s because it deals with very specific definitions, and al-Qaeda does not
conform to the Geneva Convention’s definition of combatants.
| |
Invading a sovereign nation in “preventive war” has never been accepted under
international law, either.
|
So if a brutal dictator were executing his citizens by the 100,000s and you knew
it and you could end it, you wouldn’t because of the sovereignty of his nation?
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
What “international relationships” are you talking about? Are you asserting
that Germany and France and Canada and Mexico and Israel and Denmark (to name a
few) are now our enemies? If that statement isn’t an example of hysteria, I
honestly don’t know what is.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) One aspect of open-mindedness that should perhaps be cleared up is the fact that an open mind need not admit all possibilities. An open mind refrains generally from speaking in non-verifiable absolutes (in the knowledge that nothing can be (...) (20 years ago, 9-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) This is hardly new ground, but alright, here are the specific cites: From George Bush's State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003: Lie #1: "The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to (...) (20 years ago, 10-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
