posted
I like how Card wrote a scathing response to War Chief and then went: TOPIC CLOSED!
Anyway, his newest WorldWatch is great. But it really creates a sense of hopelessness. I hate to sound so cynical, but this country is doomed. In fact, this belief is one of the main reasons my minor is Spanish, because I'm gonna end up moving to Peru.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I like how Card wrote a scathing response to War Chief and then went: TOPIC CLOSED!
Would you like to sit around in your own house and be insulted by baseless lies? Or would you ask the person to stop?
That thread started out violent and could only get worse. I know this is not the first time OSC has needed to defend himself against vicious lies, and think his closing of the thread was the best move available to him, short of deleting the thread.
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did I come across as sarcastic? I mean, I really liked how OSC threw it down like that. That guy got what he deserved. I hope his ability to enjoy anyhing Card writes is forever lost.
And I am anxiously waiting for your response, Runnigbear. By the time this conversation is over, you will be living in Peru with me.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm torn. Card certainly is convincing. He makes it sound obvious that Bush is right, and we have to finish in Iraq before leaving.
So why doesn't Bush explain it like Card does in the article?
Instead, Bush uses simple rhetoric and "Stay the course" jingoism. People see right through it and we feel like we're being lied to. He may be right, but he's certainly not winning people to his side of thinking. I know that more Democrats would think twice about touting withdrawl from Iraq if they understood why we can't. So why doesn't the Bush administration do that?
It's not gonna be an easy decision on Tuesday. And living in VA, I know my vote WILL count, with the polls between Allen/Webb at about 50/50.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Im enjoying watch the N Korea situation play out through diplomacy after they ACTUALLY tested WMD's and five years ago under the assumptions of WMD's he unleashed the dogs of war.
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC wrote a very nice essay about that issue quite a while back as well. Basically, it pointed out that there was no one else willing to take responsibility for removing Hussein and preventing him from using WMD, whereas with N Korea, China has the ability, motivation and willpower to keep them in check. I'm sure you can find the archives and read OSC's article.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree that this it the "only" issue this election. While it is an issue of great importance, ignoring the mainland to focus on problems abroad is irresponsible. We have huge, major problems at home, and they are being ignored for the almighty "War on terror."
And I disagree that the war on terror is the best thing for us. I don't think that disengagement is the best course of action, but solo engagement that is only provacative and incendiery is the worst possible strategy. If we're only going to make things worse, we might as well stay home.
Everyone always talks about how Iran is full of Pro-American youth waiting for the chance to rise up and support us, and maybe that's true. I've read recent polling data from Iran that says the youth there are by and large just as religious and strict as their parents. But to be honest I don't trust either position. How the hell are you going to trust polling data of all things in a country like Iran? I'd be afraid to tell the truth either way, for fear of reprisal.
We can't blow through the Middle East and topple their governments, then rush back out. And quite frankly, we can't rush in, topple their governments, and stay forever either. We don't have the will, we don't have the money, and we don't have the time.
If we're going to do this, fine, but we need the support of Europe or it'll never work, not without a draft, and once you start floating that word around seriously, you're in trouble.
If we leave Iraq today, they collapse. If we leave before another ten years have gone by, they collapse. And God knows what will come from that. Civil War, infighting, maybe genocide. The entire region will be in turmoil. But what is the alternative? We can't afford, and I mean monetarily, to stay there for another 10 years, especially if we end up needing MORE troops, and not less, for the effort. And especially not if the idiot Republicans keep cutting taxes.
We aren't going to win this one alone, with guns. Until we either get Arab nations on our side, or Europe, or both, sticking around and shooting people is only going to make the situation worse.
I don't much like what I've heard from Democrats either. Because I do think we should get out of there, even if it means a civil war in Iraq, we should pull back to Kuwait, and the Kurdish north, and protect the stable areas that only take a minimum of troops. I don't know what Democrats will do, maybe they'll get us out of their entirely, maybe they'll disengage and things might get worse that way.
But I know one thing, if we keep this up, things will get MUCH worse. I believe pretty much the exact opposite of OSC, the Republicans are driving us into an even more terrible world order than there already is. Airstrikes and boots on the ground aren't going to solve this. And the more we try to solve it that way, the worse it gets. Democrats might not be the best answer, but they're the answer to the present problem. They have two years until the next election to prove that they have answers to our ills, and if they fail, we go in another direction.
But not giving them the chance will be disastrous.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: Also at issue, for me, is the frightening tactics of the current administration with regard to our civil freedoms here in America. More specifically, I think a very quiet war has been waged against free speech in this country. The efforts (starting with right-wing leadership and disseminating down to the man on the street) by the right to silence, discredit, and smear people with opposing views since George W. Bush took office have been disturbing in the extreme.
I'm not going to go so far as to say the President is personally responsible for what is happening -- because I just don't know that. I don't think I would want to believe that. But definitely there has been an organized effort to control information and restrict free speech in this country.
And it disturbs me almost as much as the terrorist threat.
In what way? I'd like to hear a single example concerning how ANYONE who wished to criticize the President and this administration to the point of treason and beyond has been restricted in any way. I know that CNN has felt it was their "journalistic obligation" to show American troops getting killed by snipers in Iraq. I know that the New York Tines felt it was necessary to publish details of the tactics used to fight terrorism. I know that the media has beatified Cindy Sheehan despite the fact that she is a HUGE fan of Hugo Chavez, a president whose stated desire is the downfall of America. I know that all I hear constantly is the call to surrender, and the undermining critism of our standing president, and the encouragement of the enemies who are killing our troops. But YOU are worried about our "civil liberties" more than further attacks on our soil.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yeah, if you want to criticize feminists, abortionists, environmentalists and Darwinists, then sure, your speech is restricted. But if you want to slander the religious, conservatives, creationists, or you want to produce pornography and corrupt our society with gangster rap, Satanic Black metal, and video games where the goal is to kill innocent people and cops, then, well, that's what the founding fathers had in mind when the wrote the contitution and bill of rights.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RunningBear: I have proof that free speech is being restricted!
I am in High School.
Bleh.
Well, your speech should be limited. High school students (and college students, for the most part) just get diarrhea of the mouth when the start talking politics. Young people have such poorly formed opinions, but they are so loud with them.
(I'm a 25 year old college student who spent some years in the Army, including a tour in Iraq. I have some definite experience with enduring a bunch of punk-ass 18 year olds who think they have the world figured out.)
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
P.S., I don't really think your speech should be limited. But --and this may not apply to you-- I hate when people spout off their stupid opinions as fact and then label solid criticism of what they had to say as "infringment upon their rights." I think that is what TL was think about when he was talking about his eroding civil liberties. Something like when Cindy Sheenhan spouts her garbage, and when Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter deftly destroyes her position with strong argumentation, the reaction is "you can't say that! She lost a son!"
It's the equivilent of a murderer pleading not guilty, and the jury finding him guilty, and the murderer says, "You can't say I'm guilty! That's infringing on my freedom of speech." The only difference is that it actually works for Cindy Sheehan (and Muslims, and abortionists, and Darwinists, and athiests, and on an on...)
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, what that is this: you think that when someone can completely deconstruct your argument, it means he's closed-minded. Sorry, but you got it backwards buddy. I'll engage you 100 percent. But don't think I'm gonna change my mind without some solid reasoning. If you can provide that, you might be surprised at how open-minded I am. But the main flaw I've noticed with persons on the other side (of which I was once a member, until my open mind allowed me to be convinced)is that they are unfortunately basing their arguments on a foundation of sand.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And as for me not being able to have a serious conversation about the topic, I think I've demonstrated my ability sufficiently.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: Based on your comments in this thread, I don't for one second believe that you are logically capable of deconstructing *any* argument.
Ok, that implies that you ARE capable of deconstructing my argument. Well, go for it.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, I'm actually a nice guy. I don't really like insults, so lets try to stay away from that. I will not attack you (by saying things like "I don't think you are capable" or anything like that). I will adress your words only.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TL: What argument have you made?
Here you go:
"In what way? I'd like to hear a single example concerning how ANYONE who wished to criticize the President and this administration to the point of treason and beyond has been restricted in any way. I know that CNN has felt it was their "journalistic obligation" to show American troops getting killed by snipers in Iraq. I know that the New York Tines felt it was necessary to publish details of the tactics used to fight terrorism. I know that the media has beatified Cindy Sheehan despite the fact that she is a HUGE fan of Hugo Chavez, a president whose stated desire is the downfall of America. I know that all I hear constantly is the call to surrender, and the undermining critism of our standing president, and the encouragement of the enemies who are killing our troops. But YOU are worried about our "civil liberties" more than further attacks on our soil."
You are already losing this contest.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
unfortunately, I can't hang around right now. I'll be back in a few hours though, so I'll address whatever is brought up then. I know you all are waiting anxiously!!!
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
So why doesn't Bush explain it like Card does in the article?
I was thinking the EXACT same thing earlier.
Frankly, because it doesn't fit into the 10 second soundbyte that is the current standard for political discourse in this country.
I don't know how right OSC is, quite a bit of it sounds plausible. I have trouble believing that there is no plan for Iraq, which is one the more frequently leveled criticisms of the war on terror. The presidency is not one man. Bush has some very smart people working for him whose entire jobs and careers are dedicated to looking at this problem from a myraid of aspects. The frequently given impression of Bush as some dummy who just sits in the White House practicing saying, "Stay the course" in the mirror is way offbase IMO.
So in more direct response to the question, I have trouble imagining any politician explaining to the American public the nuances of what we are trying to accomplish over there. I consider it a military operation and announcing that plan to the world (which does include the enemy) seems foolhardy. On the other hand, I think the public has a right to hear, in broad terms, what the objectives are from the horses mouth.
One other point is that I think OSC mentioned before engaging Iraq that it was the wrong choice for a target. He would have chosen Syria I believe. However, this article does support a certain consistancy in his view of U.S. policy in the War on Terror spanning a couple years.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
The FCC fined, without restraining (which would be illegal) Howard Stern for indecency, not for political speech. This has been happening since the FCC was founded, and isn't a Bush policy. Clear Channel, a private company, then decided to remove him from their stations.
Disney, a private company, decided not to distribute a movie. Fahrenheit 9/11 eventually found another distributor, and was screened throughout the nation.
A serious allegation, but it hasn't been proven. It's also technically an allegation of the administration lying, not an allegation of censorship.
Censorship is when the state, with police power, restrains someone from speaking. It isn't censorship when a corporation decides not to broadcast someone's work. Hint: The difference involves guns.
The complaints about restriction of academic freedom are of a different type, arguing that various organizations (primarily news media and universities) have a special moral duty to not restrict speech that originates out of their mission to educate. It's not illegal for, say, a private university to refuse to hire right-wing professors. It's just immoral.
There are plenty of bad things to accuse the Bush administration of, but censorship isn't one of them.
Posts: 170 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RunningBear: I have proof that free speech is being restricted!
I am in High School.
Bleh.
Well, your speech should be limited. High school students (and college students, for the most part) just get diarrhea of the mouth when the start talking politics. Young people have such poorly formed opinions, but they are so loud with them.
(I'm a 25 year old college student who spent some years in the Army, including a tour in Iraq. I have some definite experience with enduring a bunch of punk-ass 18 year olds who think they have the world figured out.)
Well, aren't you the fascist to be...
And no, I will not rescind that statement, for that is precisely how one moves into that frame of mind. Removing a group's right to speak because you disagree with them.
Before you remove their right to speak I recommend that you consider all that you are saying. What you just wrote is what I would consider "diarrhea of the mouth", but I will not stop you from saying it. In fact, I would defend that right with my life, and I may very well, I ship out next summer. Yet, you would remove another's right to speak under the same circumstance.
Am I a "stupid" teenager? I am 18...
I received a 99 on the ASVAB, how about you? My lowest line score was 142... how about you?
I got a 1970 on the SAT when I was so sick I could not stand...
If you consider intelligence criteria for speech, who ought to be speaking?
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Card keeps saying it's the best run war ever. Lowest number of civilian casualties, lowest number of American casualties (when compared with anything else on this scale).
Why is the general sentiment of the media (even coming from conservatives)...that this has been a "poorly run" war, if it's pretty clear that it hasn't been, and is actually the best, as Card states?
Is 1600 no longer the highest score on the SAT? What's going on with the world?
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Launchywiggin: Is 1600 no longer the highest score on the SAT? What's going on with the world?
The SAT now has three sections instead of two (essentially by incorporating a modified version of the old TSWE and scoring it like the old sections), for a total of 2400 points.
posted
2400 is the new high score. I never took the SAT's because I dropped out of high school when I was 15. But since you asked, Running bear. I also got a 99 on the asvab, I don't remember what my line scores were, though I think my highest was about 139. (This was after five years absence from any form of schooling, mind you.) At any rate, tests don't test intelligence, they test your ability to test. I believe that because I often do better on tests than people who I know are smarter than me. Anyway, you shouldn't have gotten in such a huff about that post; if you read my very next post you would have seen that I really didn't mean it. I know some very smart high schoolers who would probably put our country in a better place than most of our current leaders if they were running the show. Unfortunately, the political process seems to weed out our best and brightest. So lets be friends again, RunningBear.
I wish I had the energy to devote myself to pointless debates, but I don't. I'll just comment briefly on what you have to say TL, by saying that liberalism has this sort of self-perpetuating nature. I know this will sound elitist, but it really sometimes takes something like fighting a war, a complete removal from the vicious cycle that most of us get here in this media saturated society to get a clear look at things. You are obviously very smart. Probably smarter than me. But like I said about a foundation of sand; that is what your arguments have. It is alomst certainly all you've ever been taught. I really don't think I have the skill or ability to explain it to you. Maybe if you read some of the right books, starting with C.S. Lewis' apologies for some basis in critical introsection and then Slouching Torwards Gommorah by Robert Bork for a precise, albeit somewhat cynical, description of the hows and whys of the current state of things.
Also helpful would be Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe and Darwin on Trial by Phillip Johnson. I believe that excising the mythology of evolution from ones mind is one of the more crucial steps torward understanding.
Now of course I don't expect you to do any of that, but because I am nearly certain that, aside from perhaps the Lewis, you have never read any of those books (by virtue of the opinions you hold), it may help you to realize that it is the mile-wide gulf between our different perspectives that prevent us from ever convincing each other. I apologize for not adressing you point by point, as you did for me (and good job, too). Suffice it to say that I know that no matter how well I present my arguments, your rhetoric would provide for you an equally strong response. For that is what this is, an exercise in Rhetoric. Modern day sophists, we are, and meanwhile, our country is being lost.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
TL, you need to be a bit more careful about taking a patronizing, superior tone - it is good to speak as if you might actually be wrong.
The Left started warning about what MIGHT happen under the Patriot Act right from the start. Then they started talking as if the bad things HAD happened. They skipped the step where you actually find evidence that the Patriot Act has been misused.
It is a perfect example of groupthink. What might be suddenly is and since "everyone knows it" then no proof is needed. Thus Bush stands condemned by people who believe in the groupthink ("why do all the media ..." etc.) without his actually having to DO anything besides the actions envisioned by the Patriot Act or established by ample precedents from previous presidents of both parties.
Your examples all came from sources that are part of the pack
Launchy, the media pundits are human. They live surrounded by the constant clamor that the war is badly run. They are not alert to history, unless you count being able to remember as far back as 1998, which few of them can do. They aren't even TRYING to compare this war with previous ones.
But I love the fact that you consider it a serious argument that because everybody else agrees on a stupid idea, it must be smart after all <grin>.
Posts: 2005 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
AAARGH OK I'm gonna do it. I'm gonna respond to you point by point. I guess I owe it to you, you did the same for me. I might skip a few, so I apologize in advance. Here goes:
quote:Originally posted by TL:
Okay, I’m going to respond to all of this for one reason, and one reason only. I’m going to do exactly what I don’t want to waste my time doing, and try to talk to you. Even though I know it will be futile, and frustrating, and go nowhere.
Why would you assume that?
quote:Because I know if I don’t (and oh man, I really, really don’t want to waste my time) you will interpret my silence as some kind of insane victory.
Why would I do that?
quote:(When the reality is, I just don’t want to do it because this is just going to be so tiresome.) (But I’ll do it.) And I know I won’t be surprised by how open your mind is based on the shockingly one-sided and tired and (mostly) wrong points you’ve made in this thread so far.
Mr. Card pointed out what is wrong with this.
quote: But hey -- everybody’s wrong sometimes. Maybe I’m wrong right now. And if so, I'll apologize. If it seems that I'm being rude to you, please understand that I'm reacting to the rude and flippant tone of your posts.
I don't think I was being rude (okay, maybe I was, but it WAS kind of tongue in cheek. Hard to express that over the internet. Look at the responses to my very first post!)
quote: Of course I might be misinterpreting some things. If so, please clarify.
Down the rabbit hole we go!
quote:In what way? I'd like to hear a single example concerning how ANYONE who wished to criticize the President and this administration to the point of treason and beyond has been restricted in any way.
and on and on... I got some much appreciated help on this one already.
quote:
quote:I know that CNN has felt it was their "journalistic obligation" to show American troops getting killed by snipers in Iraq. I know that the New York Tines felt it was necessary to publish details of the tactics used to fight terrorism. I know that the media has beatified Cindy Sheehan despite the fact that she is a HUGE fan of Hugo Chavez, a president whose stated desire is the downfall of America.
Oh, I think I see the connection you’re trying to make. Are you trying to give examples to disprove the idea that there has been censorship in this country?
No I'm not. I'm trying to do THIS:
quote:
quote:I know that all I hear constantly is the call to surrender, and the undermining critism of our standing president, and the encouragement of the enemies who are killing our troops. But YOU are worried about our "civil liberties" more than further attacks on our soil.
No. I didn’t say more. I said almost as much. Which -- and I assumed you (and anybody reading, really) would understand this -- means that I’m more worried about further attacks on our soil than I am about our civil liberties.
I am trying to show that if there is any form of censorship, it is moving in the opposite direction
quote:
quote:”civil liberties”
Why put civil liberties in quotation marks? It seems to indicate a contemptuous attitude towards the concept of our civil liberties. Am I misreading you there? Or are you indicating a contemptuous attitude toward my view of the importance of civil liberties? I think they’re important. And that is worthy of your scorn? Help me out here.
I put it in quotations becasue I was expressing my disdain for what is considered "civil liberties" by our one-party media, such as "the government is listening in on terrorists phone calls. What if they're listening to mine?" And "the government is holding enemy combatants without trial! What if they hold ME without trial?" Give me a break. Go to Afghanastan, get captured by soldiers on a battleground, and then get a civil trial? As eagle eyed as the media is about all these infringments on our "civil liberties," do you think anyone is going to get arrested and held without trial or have their phones tapped for no reason and then the government acts on it?
quote:
quote: Well, yeah, if you want to criticize feminists, abortionists, environmentalists and Darwinists, then sure, your speech is restricted.
How so? Restricted by whom?
By teachers, administrators, peers, the ACLU, judges...
quote:
quote:But if you want to slander the religious, conservatives, creationists, or you want to produce pornography and corrupt our society with gangster rap, Satanic Black metal, and video games where the goal is to kill innocent people and cops, then, well, that's what the founding fathers had in mind when the wrote the contitution and bill of rights.
Define slander, in this context, please. Could you give some examples of such slander being protected as free speech? As far as I know, slander is always illegal.
Well, so is treason, but that hasn't been prosecuted since the fifties. I don't need to define slander for you, there are plenty of online dictionaries available. I meant slander in the way it is defined.
quote:
quote: Well, your speech should be limited. High school students (and college students, for the most part) just get diarrhea of the mouth when the start talking politics. Young people have such poorly formed opinions, but they are so loud with them.
(I'm a 25 year old college student who spent some years in the Army, including a tour in Iraq. I have some definite experience with enduring a bunch of punk-ass 18 year olds who think they have the world figured out.)
This is just an outrageously ill-considered statement.
Yeah, I know. It was supposed to be. If you give it equal weight with my other arguments, then were going to have lots of problems. It seems that neither you nor Running Bear read my next post. Thats a common mistake, people don't like to take in something that ruins an easy target, I guess.
quote:
quote:P.S., I don't really think your speech should be limited. But --and this may not apply to you-- I hate when people spout off their stupid opinions as fact and then label solid criticism of what they had to say as "infringment upon their rights." I think that is what TL was think about when he was talking about his eroding civil liberties.
Certainly it is not what I was thinking about.
So what were you thinking about? The "civil liberties" I mentioned earlier?
quote:
quote:Something like when Cindy Sheenhan spouts her garbage, and when Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter deftly destroyes her position with strong argumentation, the reaction is "you can't say that! She lost a son!"
I don’t think you understand the real reaction. Because the real reaction (at least, MY real reaction) is not “you can’t say that because she lost a son!” The real reaction is “Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter are political propagandists for the far-right, and their arguments are very thin, and very easy for non-biased people to see through. And their arguments are based on nothing more than “our team is always right, and their team is always wrong”. You don’t have to agree with Cindy Sheehan (I don’t) to be disgusted by the antics of the likes of those two clowns.
I don't know who tells you what your opinions should be, but if you watch Bill O'reilly yourself and read Ann Coulter yourself and form your own opinions, you may realize that they are very smart people whose opinions deserve to be respectfully analyzed. Dismissing their arguments and calling them clowns reveals how one-sidedly (sidedly?) and shallowly you have examined the issues.
quote:
quote:It's the equivilent of a murderer pleading not guilty, and the jury finding him guilty, and the murderer says, "You can't say I'm guilty! That's infringing on my freedom of speech." The only difference is that it actually works for Cindy Sheehan (and Muslims, and abortionists, and Darwinists, and athiests, and on an on...)
Re-darn-diculous. Just a terrible analogy on every level.
How? whats wrong with it? It may be simplistic, and admittidly, analogies are not my strong point, but I still think it works. What's wrong with it? I know there are some flaws, but there some strong correlations. I just came up with it on the spot, by the way, so don't be TOO hard on me.
quote: ...That doesn’t happen very often though -- because usually, disagreements between two people don’t end with one person completely deconstructing the other person’s argument. They usually end with two people looking at the same data and coming to different conclusions. It’s hard to “deconstruct” a political opinion. I like to believe that good people can honestly disagree about things such as wars, and political policies, and social issues, without one of them being laid waste by the vast intellect of his opponent.
Exactly right. Like I said earlier, we're talking about rhetorical arguments here, for the most part. But there is a such thing as right and wrong, and that is what we are hopefully striving for.
quote:Now of course I don't expect you to do any of that, but because I am nearly certain that, aside from perhaps the Lewis, you have never read any of those books (by virtue of the opinions you hold), it may help you to realize that it is the mile-wide gulf between our different perspectives that prevent us from ever convincing each other. I apologize for not adressing you point by point, as you did for me (and good job, too). Suffice it to say that I know that no matter how well I present my arguments, your rhetoric would provide for you an equally strong response. For that is what this is, an exercise in Rhetoric. Modern day sophists, we are, and meanwhile, our country is being lost.
I don't think you have heard me. I think you heard what you wanted to hear.
quote:TL, you need to be a bit more careful about taking a patronizing, superior tone - it is good to speak as if you might actually be wrong.
I acknowledged all along that I might actually be wrong, and I was concerned about my tone, because I was writing from an angry place at being baited into a partisan argument, which is not what I'm interested in -- and did my best to apologize for my tone. But when someone fills your mouth with words you didn't say, and responds to arguments you never made, and claims some kind of intellectual victory over you without really having first heard your actual viewpoint, it's frustrating.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope that helps. I did hear what you had to say,I don't think I put any words in your mouth, and I never claimed any kind of victory. Who is putting words in whose mouth now?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And how about this: I used to feel very strongly about a lot of things. For instance, when I was 15, I though Soundgarden was the greatest thing had ever existed in the history of existence. Then for a few years I felt that way about Rush. Now I think that honor goes to Yes. I don't expect my feelings on Yes are going to remain forever, and I don't think that my feelings on politics and ideolgy will either. I just hope that, like the progression from Nirvana to Soundgarden to Rush to Yes to probably Dream Theater, my opinions on what is best get better.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, ok. By the way, saying you are losing is not claiming vistory. Besides, I really don't view this as a contest, even though thats what I called it.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
You seem eager to paint me as a rhetoric-filled ignorant liberal. I take it as personally insulting when you say stuff like "I don't know who tells you what to think, but...."
I'm not eager to do that at all. You keep doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. As for you not considering yourself a liberal, all I can say is that this is not the first time I've been in a nearly identical type of argument. You guys(sorry) all sound the same. You always make the same points.
By the way, I do this for practice, really. Practice for the real world when it actually makes a differnce sometimes. Don't take anything personally, I beg of you.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
