Yes Liberty, but sharp and forceful argumentation is weakened, not strengthened, by rudeness and incivility; it merely affords your opponent an opportunity to change the subject to your behavior rather than addressing your argument on its merits and offers an avenue of escape for them to end the discussion citing your rudeness. Better to be mercilessly polite while applying the blade of your points and your reason to strip away the obfuscation and lay their vile arguments bare. That hurts your typical peddler of such nasty ideas far more profoundly than name calling or incivility. Rudeness and the like is what they expect. They feed on it.
Dead? Hogwash, more like unnecessary since their entire position has pretty much become the default stance of the party over all. If you don't believe me visit any liberal group and listen to the indignant and outraged shrieking.
I disagree LarryM. I think that rudeness and discourtesy is an impediment to the advancement of one’s ideas. If you make a telling point against a deplorable idea then rudeness and discourtesy serve only as smoke that impedes that success. Your opponent can (and will) seize upon such behavior to cloud the situation. Even absent that situation discourtesy and rudeness swiftly push conversation levels down to emotionalism, insult and hindbrain thinking. It is in these realms that the truly deplorable examples you cite flourish and thrive. Why would you voluntarily cede the advantage to Stalinists or Nazi’s by arguing the way they want you to? Additionally courtesy and manners generally prolong the conversation and make it considerably harder to squirm away from telling lines of argument or facts.
I argue and debate politely not because I necessarily love or even like the person I’m debating with (though I sometimes do) but because I hate their ideas and arguments. The more I hate an idea the more polite I try to be.
We are all ships passing briefly on this ocean of the internet, flying the colors of our competing philosophies. The rude and the crass may be content to rake a deplorable poster with blistering noisy insults, singe the rigging a bit and sail on complacently telling themselves they've done virtuous work. Feh, I am not satisfied with such empty displays. No, I want to come about my opponent; grapple him in iron lines of courtesy to prevent him slipping away and perform a boarding action with logic and debate. I wish to tear up the planks of his delusions; deconstruct the very fabric of his hull to expose the flaws and the dark pits in his ideology to the pitiless light of reason for all to see as he writhes bereft of an excuse to escape or obfuscate and then finally, with the contradictions and vacuity of his position broken open and demolished leave him to sink foolishly beneath the waves without a trace.
I don't know, what if Romney is nominated and then loses!? Will the GOP be eager to nominate his even more moderate clone next time around? Only way I see this working out for him is if some red meat conservative got the nod and did a Mondale.
I'm generally aware of that Tom. But what little I know goes something like "okay we can make a coherent argument that some kind of God exists in square one... therefore all the assertions of *insert faith here* in square two are based on reason and philosophy as well as theology." There's a great deal of fudging done between square one and square to it seems.
Well I'm a half Canadian gay man who is married to an african american hawaiian and I own a Liza Minnelli lunchbox (it sits in the pride of my place on a shelf in the kitchen. Such artifacts are infinitely too precious to actually sully by filling with lunch).
Therefore I feel I have contributed my part to the League's diversity. You're welcome.
A note that it's highly unlikely Obama will be punting Biden for Hillary. At least that's the consensus among the liberal watercoolers. Hillary has a higher touch job with Sec. of State currently than she would have as VP. There is no defection or angst in the base or electorate that she would directly assuage and she has indicated repeatedly she's done with electoral politics so the annointing a successor move would be redundant.
Well yes Michael, but it hammers the nails even more deeply home into the assertion that when making policy that impacts the masses theology should be parked very firmly outside the door. A helpful rule in my mind.
I don't disagree Tom. But I'd hazard that a theology based only on what can be philosophically and logically supported by a theistically probable deity in square one would be a very light weight vehicle indeed. Certainly I agree there likely would be insufficient juice to power a Bible, maybe enough to power a small pamphlet or perhaps a thin booklet?
Great discussion thread everyone, wonderful job. I'd like to throw a thought in though as an agnostic my own dog in this hunt plays a rather vague roll; theists generally say I'm a functional atheist and thus am an atheist. Many atheists snort that since I won't definitively say there's no God then I'm an effective theist.
One thing I've taken from the post and conversation along with a lot of the debating I've read on the subject for a while is that, as Tom has asserted, there are two squares to this debate that often get muddled.
Square one is the rather clinical and philosophical theist/atheist square. What would God logically be defined as, does this defined God logically and philosophically exist, could this defined God logically and philosophically exist.
If your conclusion in square one is that God exists you move on to square two. God exists therefore... you should do this, you shouldn't do that, you should believe this, you shouldn't believe that. Tom's called it the theology square. Obviously if you come to the conclusion in square one that God doesn't exist square two is pointless.
Theists and Atheists clash furiously in square one, obviously in general neither side can convince the other definitively. The tools of reason and science are of limited value against a being that exists outside the natural laws of the universe. This same nature makes said being pretty hard to positively prove the existence of beyond invocations of faith or personal experience.
My own observation is this: while there are a lot of draws that come out of square one I do note that the theist God that is positively asserted and both philosophically and logically successfully defended (if not definitively defended) is one who is incapable of functioning in square two. The only God theists have been able to persuasively defend the existence of is one who's will, motivations and desires are virtually impossible to determine. As such this God cannot have any "therefore you should's" or "therefore you should not's" attached to him.
My conclusion then, though God may or may not exists his existence is generally functionally irrelevant. Either there is no God or if there is no God who can logically be defended with philosophy and logic who's will and desires can be defined with enough certainty to support a functioning theology. None of the worlds currently operational religions possess a deity who can pass through the rigors of square one and still retain the logical definability sufficient to uphold their demands and assertions in square two.
So the question of whether there is a God is philosophically and intellectually interesting but is meaningless in a practical or functional sense.
I've heard a variation of that joke! In the future airplane crews will consist of a charismatic pilot and a doberman. The pilot is there to greet passengers and sit in the cockpit, the doberman is there to bite the pilot if he tries to touch the controls.
James I'm sympathetic to this line but the whole leveraging the company up to get money with which to pay to themselves fat dividends part sure doesn't smell good to me. I'm thinking it's going to take a lot of explaining to describe how this was adding value to the economy.
Agreed, Obama has certainly lucked out. I'd had a feeling Newt might be significant but I'd actually thought for a scintillating moment (silly me) that he'd somehow run off with the nomination. This eviscerating Romney is surely the next best thing from Obama's perspective.
The optics of this are utterly terrible. Bain parachutes in; re-orgs the company; leverages it to the hilt with debt then disburses those borrowed funds to itself in the form of dividends and flies off to leave a hollowed out corporate shell to implode destroying the company, its' employees jobs and pensions (and screwing with the creditors too). Short of being caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy I don't know it this could look worse for Mitt.
I would say, however, that this is far too early to be very definitive in my mind. Romney will have almost all of a year to make this into a roll your eyes and sigh "this again" subject. Unless it has a heck of a lot more legs than anything I've seen in my meager decade and change of politics watching then I imagine this is going to be old news by election time.
There's no doubt the economy is the 800 lb gorilla in the room. If Obama gets 10 months of uninterrupted job growth the GOP is going to have some serious problems selling their narrative.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Don’t Be a Tellarite”
Yes Liberty, but sharp and forceful argumentation is weakened, not strengthened, by rudeness and incivility; it merely affords your opponent an opportunity to change the subject to your behavior rather than addressing your argument on its merits and offers an avenue of escape for them to end the discussion citing your rudeness. Better to be mercilessly polite while applying the blade of your points and your reason to strip away the obfuscation and lay their vile arguments bare. That hurts your typical peddler of such nasty ideas far more profoundly than name calling or incivility. Rudeness and the like is what they expect. They feed on it.
On “The Future of the GOP”
Dead? Hogwash, more like unnecessary since their entire position has pretty much become the default stance of the party over all. If you don't believe me visit any liberal group and listen to the indignant and outraged shrieking.
On “Don’t Be a Tellarite”
I disagree LarryM. I think that rudeness and discourtesy is an impediment to the advancement of one’s ideas. If you make a telling point against a deplorable idea then rudeness and discourtesy serve only as smoke that impedes that success. Your opponent can (and will) seize upon such behavior to cloud the situation. Even absent that situation discourtesy and rudeness swiftly push conversation levels down to emotionalism, insult and hindbrain thinking. It is in these realms that the truly deplorable examples you cite flourish and thrive. Why would you voluntarily cede the advantage to Stalinists or Nazi’s by arguing the way they want you to? Additionally courtesy and manners generally prolong the conversation and make it considerably harder to squirm away from telling lines of argument or facts.
I argue and debate politely not because I necessarily love or even like the person I’m debating with (though I sometimes do) but because I hate their ideas and arguments. The more I hate an idea the more polite I try to be.
We are all ships passing briefly on this ocean of the internet, flying the colors of our competing philosophies. The rude and the crass may be content to rake a deplorable poster with blistering noisy insults, singe the rigging a bit and sail on complacently telling themselves they've done virtuous work. Feh, I am not satisfied with such empty displays. No, I want to come about my opponent; grapple him in iron lines of courtesy to prevent him slipping away and perform a boarding action with logic and debate. I wish to tear up the planks of his delusions; deconstruct the very fabric of his hull to expose the flaws and the dark pits in his ideology to the pitiless light of reason for all to see as he writhes bereft of an excuse to escape or obfuscate and then finally, with the contradictions and vacuity of his position broken open and demolished leave him to sink foolishly beneath the waves without a trace.
I’m polite because that’s how you win.
"
I'm going to hold my breath and try and think of this as kindof a public service announcement.
On “Big Rudder is Big”
Them there is a lot of turning.
On “Diversity & The League of Ordinary Gentlemen”
I'll consider it Ward.
On “The Future of the GOP”
A long string of electoral losses?
On “Diversity & The League of Ordinary Gentlemen”
You're a very insightful and reasoned individual to think so Tod.
On “NYT Blog: Huntsman Out”
I don't know, what if Romney is nominated and then loses!? Will the GOP be eager to nominate his even more moderate clone next time around? Only way I see this working out for him is if some red meat conservative got the nod and did a Mondale.
On “The Burden of Proof”
Maybe more of a "Okay so you believe in God? So what then?" It's like trying to hang a really big clunky picture on the wall with a very small nail.
"
Thanks to you and Still both.
"
I'm generally aware of that Tom. But what little I know goes something like "okay we can make a coherent argument that some kind of God exists in square one... therefore all the assertions of *insert faith here* in square two are based on reason and philosophy as well as theology." There's a great deal of fudging done between square one and square to it seems.
On “Diversity & The League of Ordinary Gentlemen”
Well I'm a half Canadian gay man who is married to an african american hawaiian and I own a Liza Minnelli lunchbox (it sits in the pride of my place on a shelf in the kitchen. Such artifacts are infinitely too precious to actually sully by filling with lunch).
Therefore I feel I have contributed my part to the League's diversity. You're welcome.
On “NYT Blog: Huntsman Out”
Perhaps it will allow the not-Romney vote to gel a bit faster.
"
A note that it's highly unlikely Obama will be punting Biden for Hillary. At least that's the consensus among the liberal watercoolers. Hillary has a higher touch job with Sec. of State currently than she would have as VP. There is no defection or angst in the base or electorate that she would directly assuage and she has indicated repeatedly she's done with electoral politics so the annointing a successor move would be redundant.
On “The Burden of Proof”
Why thanks! I thought it was clever when I picked it.
"
Well yes Michael, but it hammers the nails even more deeply home into the assertion that when making policy that impacts the masses theology should be parked very firmly outside the door. A helpful rule in my mind.
"
Lapsed implies that I was a Deist at some point Christopher which is a background I lack.
"
I don't disagree Tom. But I'd hazard that a theology based only on what can be philosophically and logically supported by a theistically probable deity in square one would be a very light weight vehicle indeed. Certainly I agree there likely would be insufficient juice to power a Bible, maybe enough to power a small pamphlet or perhaps a thin booklet?
"
Great discussion thread everyone, wonderful job. I'd like to throw a thought in though as an agnostic my own dog in this hunt plays a rather vague roll; theists generally say I'm a functional atheist and thus am an atheist. Many atheists snort that since I won't definitively say there's no God then I'm an effective theist.
One thing I've taken from the post and conversation along with a lot of the debating I've read on the subject for a while is that, as Tom has asserted, there are two squares to this debate that often get muddled.
Square one is the rather clinical and philosophical theist/atheist square. What would God logically be defined as, does this defined God logically and philosophically exist, could this defined God logically and philosophically exist.
If your conclusion in square one is that God exists you move on to square two. God exists therefore... you should do this, you shouldn't do that, you should believe this, you shouldn't believe that. Tom's called it the theology square. Obviously if you come to the conclusion in square one that God doesn't exist square two is pointless.
Theists and Atheists clash furiously in square one, obviously in general neither side can convince the other definitively. The tools of reason and science are of limited value against a being that exists outside the natural laws of the universe. This same nature makes said being pretty hard to positively prove the existence of beyond invocations of faith or personal experience.
My own observation is this: while there are a lot of draws that come out of square one I do note that the theist God that is positively asserted and both philosophically and logically successfully defended (if not definitively defended) is one who is incapable of functioning in square two. The only God theists have been able to persuasively defend the existence of is one who's will, motivations and desires are virtually impossible to determine. As such this God cannot have any "therefore you should's" or "therefore you should not's" attached to him.
My conclusion then, though God may or may not exists his existence is generally functionally irrelevant. Either there is no God or if there is no God who can logically be defended with philosophy and logic who's will and desires can be defined with enough certainty to support a functioning theology. None of the worlds currently operational religions possess a deity who can pass through the rigors of square one and still retain the logical definability sufficient to uphold their demands and assertions in square two.
So the question of whether there is a God is philosophically and intellectually interesting but is meaningless in a practical or functional sense.
On “The Pink Police State isn’t Pink, it’s Green. And it’s an Insurance Company.”
I've heard a variation of that joke! In the future airplane crews will consist of a charismatic pilot and a doberman. The pilot is there to greet passengers and sit in the cockpit, the doberman is there to bite the pilot if he tries to touch the controls.
"
Congrats!
On “Bain: Makes a Man Take Things Over”
James I'm sympathetic to this line but the whole leveraging the company up to get money with which to pay to themselves fat dividends part sure doesn't smell good to me. I'm thinking it's going to take a lot of explaining to describe how this was adding value to the economy.
"
Quite so, Tom. To say nothing of the fact that the President's record is a book that's still being written. That can go either way for him.
"
Agreed, Obama has certainly lucked out. I'd had a feeling Newt might be significant but I'd actually thought for a scintillating moment (silly me) that he'd somehow run off with the nomination. This eviscerating Romney is surely the next best thing from Obama's perspective.
The optics of this are utterly terrible. Bain parachutes in; re-orgs the company; leverages it to the hilt with debt then disburses those borrowed funds to itself in the form of dividends and flies off to leave a hollowed out corporate shell to implode destroying the company, its' employees jobs and pensions (and screwing with the creditors too). Short of being caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy I don't know it this could look worse for Mitt.
I would say, however, that this is far too early to be very definitive in my mind. Romney will have almost all of a year to make this into a roll your eyes and sigh "this again" subject. Unless it has a heck of a lot more legs than anything I've seen in my meager decade and change of politics watching then I imagine this is going to be old news by election time.
There's no doubt the economy is the 800 lb gorilla in the room. If Obama gets 10 months of uninterrupted job growth the GOP is going to have some serious problems selling their narrative.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.