Subject:
|
Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 9 Aug 2004 18:06:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1781 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
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?
|
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
known with absolute certainty) or from passing final judgments (in the knowledge
that we seldom have access to all data relevant to a judgment).
I mention this because it seems that you’re trying to maneuver Chris into a
position of saying “I reject your stance on this issue” in the hope that you can
achieve a “gotcha” moment. This is similar to previous debates in which you’ve
made a host of intolerant assertions only to cry “Intolerance” when someone
mentions that your intolerance is objectionable.
An open mind can reject claims if those claims are substantially identical to
claims previous shown to be false. John Edward (the “necroloquator,” not to be
confused with our next Vice President) claims to speak with the dead. His
claims are substantially identical to the previously debunked claims of George
Anderson, James van Praagh, and a host of others; therefore John Edward’s claims
need not be specifically addressed until he demonstrates a difference between
his dead-speak and that of his peers.
| |
| |
Your endless circuitous logic, well
demonstrated in this forum, is ample evidence thereof.
|
More generalities. You know, sometimes I have argued against logic.
|
But you’ve used logic to argue that point. Let’s say that I claim to be the
current incarnation of the Christian God. By your arguments, you *must* accept
that my claim is as logically strong as the claim that Jesus Christ was the son
of God, because you have no logical means of refuting my assertion. You may not
believe by claim, but you cannot refute it.
| |
| |
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.
|
Then let’s rephrase the assertion: George Bush told the American people, the
Congress, and the world that he knew with great confidence that Saddam possessed
weapons of mass destruction, including the now-infamous “sixteen words.” The
information that led Dubya to make this claim has since been conclusively shown
to be false. Therefore, either Dubya made his claims in full awareness of the
falsehood of his position, or he failed in his duty to verify his facts before
murdering ~1,000 US personnel and 20 or 30 times that number of innocent Iraqi
citizens. Either way he is guilty of an inexcusable failure in his duty as
President.
| |
| |
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!
|
This was another example of the Republican tactic of “demand a vote before the
information can be reviewed” and then “lord it over everyone until the end of
time.” The same tactic was used re: the 2001 Patriot Act and the Medicare
Reform Bill. In any case, if you’re so willing to condemn the legislators, then
surely you’re willing to fault the President most strongly of all? After he’s
out of office, we can work to oust everyone who fails to recant on the Iraq war
vote, one at time.
| |
SH could have strung Blix along indefinitely. Scum like SH laugh at
diplomats.
|
Uh, Dubya laughed at diplomats prior to ordering the murder of civilians. Is he
“scum” like SH?
| |
| |
Clear enough for you? The man is an international outlaw,
|
Then would you advocate him standing trial before the Hague?
|
Bush? Absolutely! And send Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and for that matter
Kissinger while we’re at it. What a silly question!
| |
| |
| |
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....
|
Chris’ choice not to answer isn’t really central, because you yourself have
refused to answer the corresponding question in numerous previous debates.
However, the answer is this: Updating the definition of marriage to eliminate
its discriminatory prohbitions against same-sex marriage would be a good thing
because doing so would uphold the Constitutional doctrine of Equal Protection
Under The Law. Currently the only arguments against gay marriage are:
1. It’s against God’s will. Tough apples, God. Get out of the US Government.
2. It’s against the will of the people. Too bad. The will of the people is
trumped by enacted law. The will of some people also embraced public lynching
not so long ago.
3. It will destroy the definition of marriage. It will eliminate a
now-obsolete prohibition in an institution whose present form is in any case
hardly the immutable tradition that its apologists would like it to be.
4. It will lead to human-to-animal marriages. Will it? Demonstrate clearly
that this will be the case and also that there will be no legal remedy to
mitigate this purportedly inevitable result.
Do you have any others? Set ‘em up, I’ll knock ‘em down.
| |
| |
| |
Are you claiming that these actions began at the behest of the Bush
Administration?
|
Are you claiming that they did not?
|
|
Reluctantly, I must support you in this claim. The idiocy of the Patriot act
was begun under Clinton’s administration. However, the current monstrosity was
alledgely drafted in the space of a few days and was far too intricate and
convoluted for a responsible majority congress to allow it to be put to vote,
but that’s what you get when people govern to and from fear.
Repeal the act now, in its entirety, regardless of which party brought it to the
table.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
