A) We lost Mamaj? WHY?
B) Tartarin, please don't give up on the political threads.
C) TImber and Sofia are shining examples on the right of how to differ with others and still be respectful. I know that These two will not go out of their way simply to bash another poster. In fact, I also enjoy the humorous banter these posters are capable of. Perhaps a certain poster's problem lies in his inablity to realize that, serious overtones aside, most of us are here as a form of recreation. If it isn't fun, we are likley to leave. Granted, he tends to talk to himself anyway (the record I 've seen so far was five consecutive posts, four of which I just scroled through), but maybe he needs to try and be nice, occaisionally, yes?
D) Blatham...eh?
Italgato,
One can certainly find fault with Blatham's points, and to a degree they are excessive generalizations. However each does indeed have an element of observable truth. While I'm willing to suspect than in the black depths of his heart he likely assigns to each more credence than they are due, I also recognize there is enough truth here to proceed with an examination of the argument he makes. Certainly that promises to be more interesting than demands for prompt documentation or quibbling about this or that exception or contradiction.
Americans DO project a strong sense of themselves and the presumption that our affairs are necessarily of more interest and import than others. We DO have a traditional view of the uniqueness of our system, our history, and our culture. Our political discourse HAS become increasingly bipolar. While I don't believe our politics are really more polarized than those of (say) Britain or Germany, I do at least think I recognize the phenomenon Blatham is getting at. -- All enough to proceed with a discussion that may be mutually interesting and satisfying. In such a process we may occasionally find a new slant on things and the odd new understanding. Sometimes we may even enlighten the black-hearted bastards themselves. Fault-finding and rock-throwing rarely elicits this result.
I do recognize the accuracy and rigor of much of the material you have presented here. However, this isn't a contest - it is a dialogue. We can all hope we will damp each other's excesses - and our own -, more often than we amplify them.
georgebob1 wrote:this isn't a contest - it is a dialogue. We can all hope we will damp each other's excesses - and our own -, more often than we amplify them.
Precisely. Therefore trying to "win" is counterproductive.
thanks, Butryflynet..............I am speechless for once. And very sad, in tears. This hurts.
Mamajuana affected everyone here, it seems. What a wonderful compliment to her spirit.
Respectful?
Dialogue?
Sharing of Ideas?
Calling the President of the United States a Moron????
That is the real crime here.
The idiots that do that don't want a dialogue, or sharing of ideas and don't want to be respectful.
Bush looks for "toy soldiers"?
Respectful?
Sharing of ideas?
Dialogue?
Steaming Bovine Excrement
Timber says to call a position incongruent with one's one ignorant is a practice of small coin.
I emphatically disagree if the position is an ignorant one which calls our president names and denigrates him personally.
Attack positions and policies- not the man.
Anyone who attacks the man by calling him a moron or saying that he likes to play with toy soldiers is NOT
looking for dialogue, or trying to share ideas or being respectful.
I can dialogue with the best of them.
I only ask that if I make a statment with evidence that it be rebutted in a manner trying to "share ideas" and utilizing "dialogue".
I recognize the tactic. If a poster has you over a barrel, denigrate.
Professor Hobibit, who assumes moral superiority, wrote a post in which he said:
blah. blah, Clinton, blah blah, justice Posner, blah blah, Clinton, blah blah
That is dialogue?
That is sharing of ideas?
That is respectful?
No, that is the pathetic response of someone who does not have the ability to answer in a debate mode and must answer incoherently.
I have a clear conscience. Examine yours first.
Our "neo-conservatives" are neither new nor conservative, but old as Babylon and evil as Hell. IMO
Mr. Blatham tells us that education in the USA is insular.
He doesnt tell us why it is insular.
That is dialogue?
That is sharing of ideas?
That is respectful?
That is tossing dung against a wall to see how much will stick.
Mr. Blatham tells us that Americans have a Myth of specialness.
He doesnt tell us how he came to this conclusion.
Does he mean Americans that live near Vancouver or Americans that live in Florida?
What myth?
What specialness?
That is dialogue?
That is respectful?
That is sharing of ideas?
When Professor Hobibit lost his cool and posted his blah blah post, he indicated that he did not like my posts about Clinton. He did not like my posts that called Clinton a liar, a whoremonger, a sexual-harrasser.
Professor Hobibit has a perfect right to dislike such posts.
But, I do hope that no one on these posts is so naive to think that they can savage President Bush personally without some kind of quid pro quo.
Savage the policies. Savage the ideas. Rebut them. Show why they are wrong.
Is posting items about Clinton's creative use of a cigar in his tryst with Monica respectful? Does it lead to sharing of ideas? Does it promote dialogue?
It does not.
Neither does calling President Bush a moron.
Neither does denigrating his intelligence.
Neither does saying that he plays with tin soldiers.
I challenge those on the left to really begin to utilize dialogue--respectfully--
I challenge those on the left to really begin to share ideas.
I challenge those on the left to really be respectful.
For I must point out to Timber, those slurs are the truly ignorant ones--the unproven disrespectful slurs against the person of the President instead of against his policies and ideas.
Tartarin speaks about the absence of sustained grown up discussion.
I would respectfully point out that there is nothing grown-up about calling the President of the United States a moron.
If that is what Tartarin thinks defines "grown-up" he( she?) knows nothing about maturity.
The purpose and function of government by Bush is not to preside over change but to prevent change. By political methods when unavoidable, by violence when convenient.
Italgato,
I invite you to take the time to visit other categories and threads you don't participate in. You'll notice a totally different tone in posts written by some of the same posters you mention, even while disagreeing with each other.
Ever since your arrival in the political category, the "discussion" level has been pretty non-existent. Both sides are guilty of the behavior and also guilty of not restraining themselves and ignoring rather then responding in kind.
I'm sorry, but instigating the response with personal remarks and then complaining when you get what you instigated doesn't hold any empathy with me.
I'm very sorry to see you have returned to this style of posting. Last night a couple of your posts held some promise.
Fool me once, but not twice.
Italgato, You're smart enough to know the difference between dialogue and b.s. Even most of us without advanced degrees understand the difference. It's really not necessary for you to explain to all of us the difference between the two. When you get with the program, you'll begin to understand that your method of dialogue only turns people off. None of us expect 'perfection' in the way we communicate on A2K. We try to carry on with a somewhat casual atmosphere where we have an exchange of ideas and opinions - no more, no less. Most of us are not here to criticize every opinion, because it's not "backed up" with the opinion of experts. That's not what A2K is all about. We try to get some entertainment and knowledge by our participation. Most of us agree to disagree, and sometimes it gets pretty heated, but we always return on other forums and duke it out again, knowing it's not personal. Respect comes from getting to know the participants, and sharing your ideas without attacking others. I have some strong opinion too about religion and politics, but I never tell anybody they don't deserve to have their opinion. All my siblings are christians and republicans. My wife is a buddhist. I'm the only atheist and independent in our family. I respect their ideas and they respect mine, and I love them all.
I'd say he's done worse than nothing for the economy, environment, affirmative action, education and the general welfare of our citizens and those abroad.
Comment by Littlek.
Of course, Littlek may speak his mind.
However, his comment is so absurd and generalized that it does not live up to the objectives of some on these posts.
It does not contribute to dialogue--You can dialogue with such a broad sweeping generalization.
Where would you start?
It does not contribute to sharing of ideas
It is not respectful and is a personal attack on the President.
Italgato wrote:I'd say he's done worse than nothing for the economy, environment, affirmative action, education and the general welfare of our citizens and those abroad.
Comment by Littlek.
Of course, Littlek may speak his mind.
However, his comment is so absurd and generalized that it does not live up to the objectives of some on these posts.
It does not contribute to dialogue--You can dialogue with such a broad sweeping generalization.
Where would you start?
It does not contribute to sharing of ideas[/i]
It is not respectful and is a personal attack on the President.
This is why no one wishes to play with you. You are casting stones(or stanes, if Scottish
) in a glass house. I'm sure littlek is pleased you have generously allowed him to speak his mind, oh omnipotent one. Most of the rest of us (in fact,everyone but your evil twin, who shall not be named, in fear he answers the invocation) would much rather discuss, than sarcastically pound on each other. Even when Timber, or Sofia, or even Kraven and I have disagreed, there wasn't the absolute snidely whiplash tone of animosity that pervades your every post. You are not the absolute authority on everything, as your toen implies you think you are. You are an individual human being like the rest of us. Come off of your high horse before it throws you and wallow in the field with the rest of us.
Of course, Cicerone, I agree- an exchange of ideas and opinions- no more and no less.
And when Professor Hobibit posts the following?
blah, blah, blah, Clinton, blah, blah. justice Posner, blah, blah, Clinton, blah, blah.
Just how do you "exchange ideas and opinions" with something like that.
I must point out Cicerone that there is such a thing as truth and there is such as thing as truth "beyond a reasonable doubt".
I live in this world just as you do.
When I am in a "dialogue" or in an "exchange of ideas" please do not think that, because I wish to be supremely courteous, I am going to allow the statement that the people in the United States will die from starvation because there are so many people here now and not enough food."
Ridiculous?
No- Not Ridiculous. Only thirty years ago, Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be mass starvations in the USA.
I am all for dialogue and exchange of ideas but I would do great harm to my integrity and rationality if I sat by mute when such idiocies were uttered.
If you wish to see exactly what I am talking about, go to Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb where you will find that he prdicted that a half a billion people will starve to death between 1970 and 1980.
Exchange of Ideas and Opinions? Certainly.
Allowing absurdities to crawl across the floor without stepping on them?
No
The original term moron was coined by an American Psychologist in New Jersey during the early part of the 20th century. Clinically they defined a moron as someone who can pass as just about normal, but are mentally very backward. The term Moron was added to the US version of the IQ test to screen out people who looked intelligent but weren't, and was considered to be a person with an IQ between 50-75.
So technically , with an IQ of 91, President George W Bush is not strictly a moron.
Further in George Bush's defence it should also be remembered that as a long term alcoholic and a drug abuser he has almost certainly suffered significant brain damage and was probably not born with such a limited mental capacity.
