Rimbaud, I am trying to see where you are coming from, but if challenging a premise results in making a generality I don't see how to get past doing so. I could say all sides often engage in rhetoric without substance (which I believe), but I also believe I can make and support a stronger position than this. I think I have good support for saying more than simply “liberals” and “conservatives” equally engage in emotion routed and basal appeals. Reactionary and nationalistic appeals happen all over the world--I have been surprised by its apparent universality, and I do think the lowest level of debate more often comes from the right. This is not to say there are not some great right leaning thinkers, and some bad left leaning thinkers. If I see it on the left (a more indoctrinate than merit based argument), I'll call it out. That is why I can't stand what Bill Press does. The above is my opinion and my assessment of the political styles, talking about differences of styles or more particularly characterizing differences in tendencies to use them, yes, I agree is a generalization. I am not however trying to say liberal thoughts are superior or vice versa, each issue should be judged on its merits. But I have thought about it (rhetorical tendencies) a lot and read lots of press from both sides. It is true it may not get far with Rich, but I am calling it like I see it. If it leads others to think about more deeply what PC really fundamental is (it is not inclusive of 1 political persuasion) or to be more objective towards arguments spouted by those of all political persuasions that is a good result. I do the best I can to be objective and engage in civil debate, but I admit this is a ideal and surely not a result for me or others. Rimbaud, I guess what I am saying by working out this post is I am still thinking about your point but don’t see a way around sometimes making generalities unless I really restrict what I think I can contribute. In other words, talking about generality does not preclude intellectual and civil debate and some times you need to do so to make larger points. I’ll think so more on it though.
Generalities and Specifics co-exist in parallel universes. They are both legitimate. If I say the Rockets shot well in a particular game, it may be true in general (46%) but untrue in specific (say Cato at 19% or Cat at 32%). The problem comes when people identify too much with a label. The labels are functional but not perfect. Does that make a "generalized" comment about Rocket shooting an illegitimate observation? I don't think so. Likewise if I say the Rockets shot well (and Cato was 2 for 11) he better not pat himself on the back.
But you did make a silly remark indicting on a unilateral scale. Don't pretend to play the good guy now. Your comments were asinine. They weren't productive; they were pointless. If I write something like "I've never met or conversed with an intelligent conservative", I haven't added anything to the discussion. I haven't talked about issues of merit, I've merely slandered an entire group in a caustic manner. Hell, it may be my personal experience, but making that comment (which I don't agree w/) should be seen as a reflection of idiocy on my behalf... nothing more. But, it was a cute way to aggravate others on the site. Congratulations trouble maker. Also congratulations #2 on constantly avoiding making an assessment as to finalsbound comment. Somehow I feel that the lack of a republican indictment re: finalsbound idiotic comment is only going to strain relationships on the bbs further. I fear that liberals are going to begin breaking this recent wave of Jeff-led moderation and actually start writing the same idiotic toned comments that conservatives have been spouting lately. In case I fall victim to the disease, I do want to point out that I think that I'm coming down w/ Turret's (sp).
Achebe: Who slammed the door on your fingers? My remark was necessarily unilateral because I was talking about my experience, specifically the experience I have with my Thursday lunch group. My defense was exactly that I was making an observation about my life, this group, and NOT doing a write-up about politics in America. It needs to be understood as such: a limited observation. Why would I want to play up to be the good guy? I am hopelessly outnumbered here! The point was neither asisnine nor pointless just because you disagree with it. The jury is out on how productive it will be. Your example is broad and carucatured mine was specific and autobiographical. Don't misrepresent me, please. I'm chagrined, though, that you think my life is idiotic. That's a good liberal attitude for sure. Nice to meet you too!!! That my observations cause such consternation only proves my point; that I can't help. I didn't know it was my job to convict or defend finalsbound. I saw his comment as a generalization (which has merit albeit limited). Why apologize if I was much more interested in the responses than in the orignal point. That is my prerogative. Are you just another one of those Democrats trying to tell someone else how to live their life? Cheers.... hope something puts you in a better mood! I don't think I will be providing it. I may not be capable.
IF?!?!?!? You shouldn't even bother insinuating you've never insulted the intelligence of the people you've disagreed with.
TV: Huh? The "limited observation" was tied-to the months-old thread when I was commenting about a Thursday lunch group to which I belong. My experience on the BBS here has confirmed that observation. Because I don't "come over to the light," I am considered stupid, evil or both. I don't have angst over not being able to win over persons on debates here-- unlike the Liberals here who want to flush you if they can't get you to agree with them.
Never fear, Brian's vendetta w/ me is here! LOL! Rather than play the game w/ you Brian where I respond 'touché' or even ask for quotes... I think that I'm going to ignore our differences Brian. I'm going to try to surf this wave of Jeff-led appeasement (Jeff that sell-out J/K!!!). If I have insulted you Brian, I apologize. My intent is invariably to get to the truth of the matter in a conversation. Unlike Jeff (which is odd b/c he's the theist and I'm supposed to be the relativist atheist) I actually believe in objectives (must be that hardline fundamentalist upbringing of mine transposed on a philosophical and hard rock science education; I have the personality of a baptist but a different belief system). I am ill apt to acquiesce just to reach some sort of consensus, merely b/c I feel that we all have the tools with which to debate. Differences of opinion, IMO, are fine... I just hope that we're all looking at the same data and are playing by the same rules. On that particular quote: I really do not equate a political belief w/ intelligence. Political beliefs are perhaps more representative of vested interests or personal upbringing/habits than intelligence. Hell, I assume chemistry also plays a role in which sides we choose to align ourselves with... b/c I've met people that voted contrary to their personal interests. Ahhh... who the hell knows.
Your comment was also tied in with the fact that you were supposedly making a limited observation, and not a treatise on American politics, but your own words would seem to dispute that point. Considering your rather condscending method of argument(You're too young to understand how the world really works), I find it humorous that you would point out a slandering of the messenger, since your favored method of argument is too essentially completely dismiss the other side's opinions.
rimmy, Sorry, I just don't think I can bring myself to love igloos. Stupid round houses made out of ice.
TV: "Your comment was also tied in with the fact that you were supposedly making a limited observation, and not a treatise on American politics, but your own words would seem to dispute that point." The quote cited is from a thread 6 or more months ago. I had made an observation and asked a question based on the "limited" experience of a regular lunch group. The current conversation in this thread is taking place NOW and I cerainly have the right to drop the qualifiers from my observation if I see fit and neither you nor anyone else has the right to blur the distinction. That was then, this is now. A lot can happen in half a year. TV: "Considering your rather condscending method of argument(You're too young to understand how the world really works), I find it humorous that you would point out a slandering of the messenger, since your favored method of argument is too essentially completely dismiss the other side's opinions." Anyone who doesn't have a different understanding of how the world works between the ages of 22 and 47 is either a genius or is living a protected life somewhere and there are very few geniuses around. Too many significant events occur when you leave that cocoon of childhood/studenthood to start down your own path. It is telling that you find my position condescending; this is a society with tendencies to disrespect its elders. I don't know how old you are, but do you mine wisdom or take life lessons from an age group 10, 20, or 30 years your junior? For your sake, I hope not. If there is no disagreement, there is no argument. I don't feel like anybody is completely dismissing anybody here. We are just staking out our positions.
