Re the Yglesias quote, I don't see why being against legal abortions is anti-libertarian -- however you feel about it, it's ultimately about competing interests. Similarly with immigration -- if it's OK for libertarians to accept the concept of a nation (and thus the drawing of boundaries and the distinction between citizens and non-citizens), then why shouldn't it be OK for them to argue for stronger border control?
Well, I for one enjoyed the rewrites. Gave me some good phrases to use in future arguments. Maybe you just need a bracketed note to say that the original had been improved upon...
I read Jonathan Edwards in high school, and that is about as purely unscholarly hard-core advocacy as you can get.
I bet when you read this in school, there was some discussion about the author's background, rhetorical strategies, social context, etc., rather than "hey, here's a great sermon to read, take it to heart!". Pretty much any work can justifiably be taught if it's being read critically. The question is really about polemical works that are read uncritically. If Nickled and Dimed is being taught without any discussion of Ehrenreich's POV, then I don't think it's unreasonable to be unhappy about that.
I've seen this Lewis quote before, but I don't agree with it -- it's easy enough to imagine a historical Jesus whose actual statements stopped short of claiming special divinity, leaving that assertion to be made by his hagiographers. Or alternately, a Jesus who said many wise things but who got carried away by his own popularity and confidence. Lewis' statement holds up only if one demands that Jesus actually said what he is said to have said and that the claim of divinity is more important than anything else he said.
But isn't "getting re-elected" the underlying rationale for blaming the Tea Party as well? The only way they could have had enough influence to affect the debt ceiling process is via the threat of not supporting the current congresspeople in the next election, no?
I suppose, although it was more assertion than argument. Anyway, I guess I don't need to spend any more time defending a comment that I didn't make and don't agree with. I'm just always curious about the underlying conventions governing the discussions in a blog like this -- my first reaction to ED's accusation of "trolling" was that it seemed like simple PC enforcement that didn't really belong here, but I guess it's not quite that simple.
Rufus, I don't disagree with that, but as your aside indicates, the original post wasn't anything more than a "yay!", so calling foul on the "yuck" comment seemed unjustified for a blog like this.
So is the rule you have in mind something like "content-free agreement is OK, but disagreement must be defended"? It's a reasonable convention if enforced equitably.
I expect more from regular commenters than “yuck”.
You mean, like "Man that’s a great pic"?
Seems to me that the issue is not AD's comments but his/her opinion. It's understandable to expect more of a defense from someone who's challenging the prevailing consensus than from someone who's supporting it, but might as well be up front about it.
Stanley Milgram. Just read an interesting article in my alumni mag about the SPE - a couple of the people they interviewed cast some doubt on the standard interpretation. One of the jailers said he went into it actively trying to push the envelope. One of the prisoners felt that Milgram was doing his best to incite bad treatment, that it didn't just occur organically. Not that these are more authoritative than other opinions, but i hadn't been aware of their existence.
Along these lines, I'd distinguish between ideological commitments that convince you that you know the answers versus those that convince you that you know the rules that will generally lead to the right answers. I think people who have any strong political opinions that they'd characterize as more than just a preference have to be one sort of ideologue or the other.
Jeez, this is a touchy place. Isn't Art Deco just saying the same thing BSK said, in response to Burt's "Rosa Parks wanting to sit in the first available seat because she was tired and then getting hassled for it"?
Supposedly one of the advantages of Google+ is that it allows you to create different "circles" of friends and control what gets shared with which groups, without too much effort.
It occurred to me right after I posted that that a lot of police/medical/military fiction could probably qualify. Although I might quibble about "thanks to" meaning something different than "without obstruction from" or even "with some support from".
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Flaws and Shortcomings of Ron Paul”
Re the Yglesias quote, I don't see why being against legal abortions is anti-libertarian -- however you feel about it, it's ultimately about competing interests. Similarly with immigration -- if it's OK for libertarians to accept the concept of a nation (and thus the drawing of boundaries and the distinction between citizens and non-citizens), then why shouldn't it be OK for them to argue for stronger border control?
On “Bloody Madness”
Because that way when people make typos and such, they'll have a convenient target to redirect the blame from themselves.
:)
On “The Washington Post has discovered a shocking truth: when it comes to climate change, Republicans are less than convinced”
I think MFarmer was talking to J Stewart, not Jaybird, if that's the reason for your WTFing.
"
Well, I for one enjoyed the rewrites. Gave me some good phrases to use in future arguments. Maybe you just need a bracketed note to say that the original had been improved upon...
On “Friday Afternoon Open Thread”
The food in this restaurant is terrible! And such small portions!
On “Why Don’t Liberals Care About Foreign Policy?”
Curses, blew the end tag...
"
Big deal. Ryan gave me a thousand. I figure that'll keep me on the leaderboard for a while, until the point inflation gets out of control.
"
Conscription is to slavery as taxation is to theft.
On “Scott Sumner on Past Mistakes”
The problem is that people are raising the alarm about stuff all the time -- it's only in retrospect that we can see who was right.
On “Individualism & Society”
Wow, whichever port that was, Erik's totally gonna have to close it.
On “Dear President Obama: Please indoctrinate my child.”
I bet when you read this in school, there was some discussion about the author's background, rhetorical strategies, social context, etc., rather than "hey, here's a great sermon to read, take it to heart!". Pretty much any work can justifiably be taught if it's being read critically. The question is really about polemical works that are read uncritically. If Nickled and Dimed is being taught without any discussion of Ehrenreich's POV, then I don't think it's unreasonable to be unhappy about that.
On “Self-Referential Post”
And now that you've posted this comment here, guess what search string will now wind up in the LoOG stats...
On “Rick Perry’s Christian America”
I've seen this Lewis quote before, but I don't agree with it -- it's easy enough to imagine a historical Jesus whose actual statements stopped short of claiming special divinity, leaving that assertion to be made by his hagiographers. Or alternately, a Jesus who said many wise things but who got carried away by his own popularity and confidence. Lewis' statement holds up only if one demands that Jesus actually said what he is said to have said and that the claim of divinity is more important than anything else he said.
On “Drew Westen: “What Happened to Obama?””
But isn't "getting re-elected" the underlying rationale for blaming the Tea Party as well? The only way they could have had enough influence to affect the debt ceiling process is via the threat of not supporting the current congresspeople in the next election, no?
On “Picture of the day”
I suppose, although it was more assertion than argument. Anyway, I guess I don't need to spend any more time defending a comment that I didn't make and don't agree with. I'm just always curious about the underlying conventions governing the discussions in a blog like this -- my first reaction to ED's accusation of "trolling" was that it seemed like simple PC enforcement that didn't really belong here, but I guess it's not quite that simple.
"
Rufus, I don't disagree with that, but as your aside indicates, the original post wasn't anything more than a "yay!", so calling foul on the "yuck" comment seemed unjustified for a blog like this.
"
So is the rule you have in mind something like "content-free agreement is OK, but disagreement must be defended"? It's a reasonable convention if enforced equitably.
"
Is AD's point that obscure? Here's a BHL post by Fernando Teson that's in the same vicinity.
"
You mean, like "Man that’s a great pic"?
Seems to me that the issue is not AD's comments but his/her opinion. It's understandable to expect more of a defense from someone who's challenging the prevailing consensus than from someone who's supporting it, but might as well be up front about it.
On “Breivik’s Cold Logic”
Stanley Milgram. Just read an interesting article in my alumni mag about the SPE - a couple of the people they interviewed cast some doubt on the standard interpretation. One of the jailers said he went into it actively trying to push the envelope. One of the prisoners felt that Milgram was doing his best to incite bad treatment, that it didn't just occur organically. Not that these are more authoritative than other opinions, but i hadn't been aware of their existence.
On “Bad prices, public spending, and poverty”
Much cheaper than flights to Somalia!
On “A Defense of Pragmatism”
Along these lines, I'd distinguish between ideological commitments that convince you that you know the answers versus those that convince you that you know the rules that will generally lead to the right answers. I think people who have any strong political opinions that they'd characterize as more than just a preference have to be one sort of ideologue or the other.
On “In Which I Return To Dangerous Territory About Which I Am Admittedly Ignorant”
Jeez, this is a touchy place. Isn't Art Deco just saying the same thing BSK said, in response to Burt's "Rosa Parks wanting to sit in the first available seat because she was tired and then getting hassled for it"?
On “Occasional Notes: Allaying Fears Edition”
Supposedly one of the advantages of Google+ is that it allows you to create different "circles" of friends and control what gets shared with which groups, without too much effort.
On “Harry Potter and the Ministry of Magic”
It occurred to me right after I posted that that a lot of police/medical/military fiction could probably qualify. Although I might quibble about "thanks to" meaning something different than "without obstruction from" or even "with some support from".
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.