|
Grex > Agora56 > #156: Protecting Your Tax Dollars--or Pissing Them Away? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 100 responses total. |
kingjon
|
|
response 75 of 100:
| 
Mar 13 14:23 UTC 2006 |
Exactly what everyone who's ever taken an introductory philosophy or rhetoric
class knows -- that it hurts no one but you if you list your opponent's weakest
arguments and knock them down, and it makes you look better if you state your
opponent's strongest arguments as effectively as possible before you rebut
them.
|
twenex
|
|
response 76 of 100:
|
Mar 13 14:26 UTC 2006 |
Come out with a strong argument, then, for once.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 77 of 100:
|
Mar 13 14:27 UTC 2006 |
You. I did. Saying I didn't only hurts your credibility, especially if I
actually did; *proving* that I didn't, on the other hand, can only enhance it
(unless your proof is faulty).
|
cyklone
|
|
response 78 of 100:
|
Mar 13 14:29 UTC 2006 |
You apparently have me confused with someone who is seeking to score points
in a debate contest. I began by pointing out the false assumptions many were
making about line-item vetos. You came back with a blatantly false "vision"
followed by a number of other points. As I've said, if your aren't willing
to concede the falsity of your so-called weakest arguments, why would I want
to engage any further than that? Unlike you, apparently, my time has a great
deal of value. School's out, junior.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 79 of 100:
|
Mar 13 14:37 UTC 2006 |
I'm not willing to concede what hasn't been proven -- or to "concede" that a
point I never made is false. In particular, you've said that my detailed
response to your points was a "blatantly false 'vision' followed by a number of
other points" 1) If it's "blatantly false," demonstrate it. 2) It wasn't a
"vision," it was a detailed (almost to the point of being line-by-line)
response to *your* points. 3) Even if any one proposed justification for a
policy is false, the truth and relevance of any other *one* justification is
sufficient. If you have an answer, give it. If you don't, say so instead of
saying "I don't have time to instruct you in basic civics" -- if I didn't
understand the basics of how our government works I couldn't have *made* my
points in the first place. That *would* have been blatantly obvious.
|
twenex
|
|
response 80 of 100:
|
Mar 13 14:44 UTC 2006 |
Re: #75. That post assumes that rightwingers are capable of coming to reasoned
conclusions in the first place. If they were, they wouldn't BE rightwingers.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 81 of 100:
|
Mar 13 14:47 UTC 2006 |
I could say the same thing, with exactly as much grounds, about left-wingers.
|
twenex
|
|
response 82 of 100:
|
Mar 13 14:49 UTC 2006 |
Yeah, right.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 83 of 100:
|
Mar 13 14:51 UTC 2006 |
However, I won't and don't, because I have my own well-reasoned conclusions and
would prefer to discuss them in a reasonable manner.
|
twenex
|
|
response 84 of 100:
|
Mar 13 14:51 UTC 2006 |
That's funny.
|
keesan
|
|
response 85 of 100:
|
Mar 13 18:25 UTC 2006 |
Cyklone, if you post insults I stop reading your posts. Insult each other
by email instead, please. Jon's reasoning may be based on assumptions other
people don't agree with, but he is at least polite about it.
|
slynne
|
|
response 86 of 100:
|
Mar 13 20:28 UTC 2006 |
There are plenty of people on the right who know how to make good
arguments. I often find I disagree with them because I disagree with a
premise they have but I cant always find fault with their logic.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 87 of 100:
|
Mar 13 20:41 UTC 2006 |
IMHO the more interesting question is, for how many of them do arguments
matter? Do people actually sit down with some premises and poke around
with them until they figure out what they believe in, or do they start
out with the positions they support and then seek arguments that bolster
that view after the fact?
|
kingjon
|
|
response 88 of 100:
|
Mar 13 20:47 UTC 2006 |
Some combination of the two. You really can't expect people to come up with
principles and then sit around for *years* reasoning through the logical
conclusions, can you?
|
twenex
|
|
response 89 of 100:
|
Mar 13 20:56 UTC 2006 |
Erm, yes. It's called "thinking".
|
mcnally
|
|
response 90 of 100:
|
Mar 13 20:59 UTC 2006 |
Jon's responses are every bit as insulting as cyklone's, in my
opinion, and to boot are filled with the kind of patronizing
certitude that's rarely achieved except by the 19-year-old with a
high view of his own intelligence and a somewhat limited experience
of the world. e.g.: Considering himself a religious scholar
he presumes to speak for all Christians, or to tell Catholics on
Grex what we believe (or even, on a past occasion, offer opinions
on whether we're "real" Catholics.) Considering himself a logician
he lectures other people on the quality of their arguments while
building a framework of unsupported assertions and bizarre assumptions
to support his own positions.
If I haven't bothered to say so before now it's because I find it
rarely achieves anything to pick a personal fight in an on-line
forum, not because I disagree with cyklone's conclusions (which
apply to his publicly stated opinions about Richard, too.) I still
don't think much will come of this line of "discussion" but I guess
I'd rather stake out a position clearly than let others presume to
claim that silence is the same as agreement with their opinions.
|
tod
|
|
response 91 of 100:
|
Mar 13 21:05 UTC 2006 |
I think you should all have a Dreidle-Off
|
remmers
|
|
response 92 of 100:
|
Mar 13 21:21 UTC 2006 |
My silence should be interpreted to mean that I think you *all* suck.
|
jep
|
|
response 93 of 100:
|
Mar 13 21:39 UTC 2006 |
You've got to be able to presume that argument means something, else we
are all just shoving what we believe to be facts at one another and
disagreeing as to what the facts are.
I think we can agree on what most of the facts are. Some of us are
more or less informed about them. In general we can all agree how many
abortions there are per year, or how big the federal deficit is, or
what the minimum wage is, or how many Americans have died in Iraq.
What we are honest about disagreeing on are such things as perspective
and values. Was it worth all of those deaths and all that money to get
rid of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban? Is it better to have a million
abortions, or a million unhappy mothers? Will people really be better
off, or worse off, if the minimum wage goes up $2 per hour? Who would
be the better president, A or B? And why do some of us have such
strong opinions on these things? Those kinds of discussions are
usually interesting. They'er so interesting that I'm just now entering
my 3rd decade of using Picospan to discuss them. (And some people have
been at it even longer.)
|
happyboy
|
|
response 94 of 100:
|
Mar 13 22:31 UTC 2006 |
re92
8D
|
scholar
|
|
response 95 of 100:
|
Mar 13 22:45 UTC 2006 |
I like that everyone's busting kingjon's balls.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 96 of 100:
|
Mar 13 23:39 UTC 2006 |
I like what Mike said. I wish I wrote as purty as him.
|
tod
|
|
response 97 of 100:
|
Mar 14 00:02 UTC 2006 |
I liked the part where they ate eggs.
|
naftee
|
|
response 98 of 100:
|
Mar 14 03:27 UTC 2006 |
i like sexy babes
|
gull
|
|
response 99 of 100:
|
Mar 18 01:43 UTC 2006 |
Seeing as riders, and votes to remove them, are pretty common maneuvers
in Congress, if "exponential progressions" are a serious problem I'm
sure kingjon can point out an example where this has already happened.
|