Total Posts:82|Showing Posts:61-82|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Rand Paul Is the True Threat

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 7:14:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Yo, "libertarian" lew, I'm still waiting for a post of substance.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 6,963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 7:18:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I think Rand Paul will just decrease the violence inherent in the system, so I don't see a problem with him. He's not as cool as his father, but he's still pretty cool. In one sentence, why is he a threat?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 8:11:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/12/2013 7:18:23 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I think Rand Paul will just decrease the violence inherent in the system, so I don't see a problem with him. He's not as cool as his father, but he's still pretty cool. In one sentence, why is he a threat?

Take a couple of minutes to read the OP. There, that was one sentence. I'm developing a headache (speaking literally and not sarcastically) and don't feel like rehashing, ergo I simply refer you to the OP.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
OberHerr
Posts: 12,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 8:24:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/12/2013 8:11:37 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 7:18:23 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I think Rand Paul will just decrease the violence inherent in the system, so I don't see a problem with him. He's not as cool as his father, but he's still pretty cool. In one sentence, why is he a threat?

Take a couple of minutes to read the OP. There, that was one sentence. I'm developing a headache (speaking literally and not sarcastically) and don't feel like rehashing, ergo I simply refer you to the OP.

All you said was he was a libertarian...and thats bad.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 1:56:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/12/2013 8:24:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/12/2013 8:11:37 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 7:18:23 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I think Rand Paul will just decrease the violence inherent in the system, so I don't see a problem with him. He's not as cool as his father, but he's still pretty cool. In one sentence, why is he a threat?

Take a couple of minutes to read the OP. There, that was one sentence. I'm developing a headache (speaking literally and not sarcastically) and don't feel like rehashing, ergo I simply refer you to the OP.

All you said was he was a libertarian...and thats bad.

I said a good deal more than that, but apparently your proneness to reactive devaluation kicked in and prevented you from processing my points.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 7:20:49 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/13/2013 1:56:00 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 8:24:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/12/2013 8:11:37 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 7:18:23 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I think Rand Paul will just decrease the violence inherent in the system, so I don't see a problem with him. He's not as cool as his father, but he's still pretty cool. In one sentence, why is he a threat?

Take a couple of minutes to read the OP. There, that was one sentence. I'm developing a headache (speaking literally and not sarcastically) and don't feel like rehashing, ergo I simply refer you to the OP.

All you said was he was a libertarian...and thats bad.


I said a good deal more than that, but apparently your proneness to reactive devaluation kicked in and prevented you from processing my points.

He's right, you went on to explain how libertarian ism is a threat, not the individual, making your thread title misleading, and once I saw your typical mantra on the vile capitalist scum that degrade society I stopped reading. On top of that, a lot of what you write is filler space and I could probably effectively and objectively summarize your 7,000 characters in one-two paragraphs made up of about 1,000 characters.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 5:00:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/13/2013 7:20:49 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/13/2013 1:56:00 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 8:24:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/12/2013 8:11:37 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 7:18:23 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I think Rand Paul will just decrease the violence inherent in the system, so I don't see a problem with him. He's not as cool as his father, but he's still pretty cool. In one sentence, why is he a threat?

Take a couple of minutes to read the OP. There, that was one sentence. I'm developing a headache (speaking literally and not sarcastically) and don't feel like rehashing, ergo I simply refer you to the OP.

All you said was he was a libertarian...and thats bad.


I said a good deal more than that, but apparently your proneness to reactive devaluation kicked in and prevented you from processing my points.

He's right, you went on to explain how libertarian ism is a threat, not the individual, making your thread title misleading, and once I saw your typical mantra on the vile capitalist scum that degrade society I stopped reading. On top of that, a lot of what you write is filler space and I could probably effectively and objectively summarize your 7,000 characters in one-two paragraphs made up of about 1,000 characters.

So, you would downplay the relevance of his libertarianism?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 5:10:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/13/2013 1:56:00 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 8:24:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/12/2013 8:11:37 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 7:18:23 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I think Rand Paul will just decrease the violence inherent in the system, so I don't see a problem with him. He's not as cool as his father, but he's still pretty cool. In one sentence, why is he a threat?

Take a couple of minutes to read the OP. There, that was one sentence. I'm developing a headache (speaking literally and not sarcastically) and don't feel like rehashing, ergo I simply refer you to the OP.

All you said was he was a libertarian...and thats bad.


I said a good deal more than that, but apparently your proneness to reactive devaluation kicked in and prevented you from processing my points.

Alright, let me take a moment to explain the concept of reactive devaluation and how I'm applying it here. Essentially, because you (and your fellow conservatives/"libertarians) view me as an ideological adversary, as an advocate of stereotypical, Soviet-style, statist socialism your prejudice preconditions you to respond by skeptically and staunchly discounting and rejecting anything that I propose. Whether it's the moderate idea of regulating the unhealthy obsession of corporations with overaccumulating capital, or the more radical proposal of totally restructuring society for a more equitable distribution of wealth and well-being, you're biased against it from the get-go because I'm the enemy. Well, dear conservatives/"libertarians", there's really no denying that you've quite ad hominemly assigned a certain identity to me, crammed me into a stereotype that essentially has you beholding me as the fell foe of your philosophy, and so of course your natural knee-jerk reaction is to evaluate my ideas as intellectually incompetent and insidious, and to harden your minds against any arguments to the contrary.

Of course the term reactive devaluation is usually used by students of and specialists in conflict resolution and applied to the tendency of parties to reject the potentially constructive proposals of their counterpart on the other side of the negotiating table merely because these proposals originate from an adversary. The merit of a proposal or idea is, it seems, a good deal more difficult to recognize when it's being put forward by someone you view negatively. I certainly can anecdotally confirm this, as I've been on the receiving end of this particular cognitive bias here at our beloved DDO time and again.

Mm-hmm, although my conservative and "libertarian" critics and opponents would understandably prefer to think that it's my personality, style of writing, or the lameness and lousiness of my point of view that accounts for their hostility, it's indeed most frequently their own quite palpable bias toward devaluing and denigrating my ideas based solely on the fact that they're socialistic in nature. And yes, reactive devaluation is something that people with a reactionary rightist mindset are more prone to, so it's hardly surprising that so many conservatives and right-libertarians exhibit this specific cognitive shortcoming and routinely bring our discussions to an impasse.

Now then, the obvious way to overcome reactive devaluation and its tendency to bring political debates to an unproductive deadlock is of course for the individuals unconsciously succumbing to it to cultivate self-analysis and awareness. But, alas, many rightists don't really seemed inclined toward deep and honest introspection and self-criticism; rather, they have a partisan mentality that acts as a psychic force shield against criticism. Nevertheless, I live in hope, that one day at least a few of my haters will identify the bias underlying their animus, will repent, and will begin to give my views a more fair and open-minded hearing.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2013 7:06:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/13/2013 5:00:18 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/13/2013 7:20:49 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/13/2013 1:56:00 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 8:24:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/12/2013 8:11:37 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 7:18:23 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I think Rand Paul will just decrease the violence inherent in the system, so I don't see a problem with him. He's not as cool as his father, but he's still pretty cool. In one sentence, why is he a threat?

Take a couple of minutes to read the OP. There, that was one sentence. I'm developing a headache (speaking literally and not sarcastically) and don't feel like rehashing, ergo I simply refer you to the OP.

All you said was he was a libertarian...and thats bad.


I said a good deal more than that, but apparently your proneness to reactive devaluation kicked in and prevented you from processing my points.

He's right, you went on to explain how libertarian ism is a threat, not the individual, making your thread title misleading, and once I saw your typical mantra on the vile capitalist scum that degrade society I stopped reading. On top of that, a lot of what you write is filler space and I could probably effectively and objectively summarize your 7,000 characters in one-two paragraphs made up of about 1,000 characters.

So, you would downplay the relevance of his libertarianism?

Since I don't think ideology says that much about one's personality or intelligence, yes. The proposition that somehow one ideology is inherently inferior to another is simply fallacious propaganda. An ideology is not superior or inferior to another, you can only win an argument based on how you justify your ideology, not by your ideology in itself. If liberalism was inherently better than conservatism, wouldn't all liberals also be better? Or wouldn't a liberal be able to win a debate by simply saying "I'm a liberal"?
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 2:36:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/13/2013 7:06:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/13/2013 5:00:18 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/13/2013 7:20:49 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/13/2013 1:56:00 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 8:24:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/12/2013 8:11:37 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 7:18:23 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I think Rand Paul will just decrease the violence inherent in the system, so I don't see a problem with him. He's not as cool as his father, but he's still pretty cool. In one sentence, why is he a threat?

Take a couple of minutes to read the OP. There, that was one sentence. I'm developing a headache (speaking literally and not sarcastically) and don't feel like rehashing, ergo I simply refer you to the OP.

All you said was he was a libertarian...and thats bad.


I said a good deal more than that, but apparently your proneness to reactive devaluation kicked in and prevented you from processing my points.

He's right, you went on to explain how libertarian ism is a threat, not the individual, making your thread title misleading, and once I saw your typical mantra on the vile capitalist scum that degrade society I stopped reading. On top of that, a lot of what you write is filler space and I could probably effectively and objectively summarize your 7,000 characters in one-two paragraphs made up of about 1,000 characters.

So, you would downplay the relevance of his libertarianism?

Since I don't think ideology says that much about one's personality or intelligence, yes.

What an utterly simplistic and nonsensical statement. Your desire to disagree with me is such that you can't even recognize that an individual's worldview, and fundamental attitudes in political clothing indicate anything of significance about his/her personality or mentality.

The proposition that somehow one ideology is inherently inferior to another is simply fallacious propaganda.

Not to succumb to Godwin's law by citing Nazism in a discussion that has nothing to do with the ole fuhrer and his philosophy, but Nazism was indeed an ideology, and it was indeed quite arguably inferior, morally, and politically, and intellectually to most other political ideologies. This one example alone certainly refutes your absurdly relativistic assertion.

An ideology is not superior or inferior to another, you can only win an argument based on how you justify your ideology,

So, a sophist who has the skill to sell us on an ideology that's utterly lacking in merit deserves to win an argument because he's done a superior job of justifying the rubbish he's proffering?

... If liberalism was inherently better than conservatism, wouldn't all liberals also be better?

Well, leftists are better, humanistically and ethically speaking; to the extent that they don't fall away from applying their leftist views and values, that is. Mm-hmm, it's only when we succumb to human failings and act or govern in a fashion that's inconsistent with our principles that we of the leftist persuasion acquit ourselves poorly. Conversely, rightists acquit themselves quite dreadfully as human beings precisely by inflicting their principles via public policy, i.e. the more consistent a rightist is the worse it bodes for his character - at least this holds true if one considers compassion to be a significant factor in good character.

Or wouldn't a liberal be able to win a debate by simply saying "I'm a liberal"?

No, as not everyone is sufficiently enlightened to recognize and acknowledge enlightenment.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 3:02:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/13/2013 7:06:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/13/2013 5:00:18 PM, charleslb wrote:

An ideology is not superior or inferior to another, you can only win an argument based on how you justify your ideology,

So, a sophist who has the skill to sell us on an ideology that's utterly lacking in merit deserves to win an argument because he's done a superior job of justifying the rubbish he's proffering?

P.S. And in case you don't grasp the implication and danger, yes, placing forensic merit before truth as you inadvertently do here threatens to replace philosophy with sophistry.

(See the rest of my reply above)
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 5:54:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Well, dear ConservativeAmerican, you don't grasp the implication and danger because the distinction between forensic merit and philosophical truth seems to be somewhat lost on you.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 6:45:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/14/2013 2:36:39 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/13/2013 7:06:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/13/2013 5:00:18 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/13/2013 7:20:49 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/13/2013 1:56:00 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 8:24:33 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 3/12/2013 8:11:37 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/12/2013 7:18:23 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
I think Rand Paul will just decrease the violence inherent in the system, so I don't see a problem with him. He's not as cool as his father, but he's still pretty cool. In one sentence, why is he a threat?

Take a couple of minutes to read the OP. There, that was one sentence. I'm developing a headache (speaking literally and not sarcastically) and don't feel like rehashing, ergo I simply refer you to the OP.

All you said was he was a libertarian...and thats bad.


I said a good deal more than that, but apparently your proneness to reactive devaluation kicked in and prevented you from processing my points.

He's right, you went on to explain how libertarian ism is a threat, not the individual, making your thread title misleading, and once I saw your typical mantra on the vile capitalist scum that degrade society I stopped reading. On top of that, a lot of what you write is filler space and I could probably effectively and objectively summarize your 7,000 characters in one-two paragraphs made up of about 1,000 characters.

So, you would downplay the relevance of his libertarianism?

Since I don't think ideology says that much about one's personality or intelligence, yes.

What an utterly simplistic and nonsensical statement. Your desire to disagree with me is such that you can't even recognize that an individual's worldview, and fundamental attitudes in political clothing indicate anything of significance about his/her personality or mentality.

That's not true, how they justify their worldview and political views is how they should be judged, not the views their entirety.

The proposition that somehow one ideology is inherently inferior to another is simply fallacious propaganda.

Not to succumb to Godwin's law by citing Nazism in a discussion that has nothing to do with the ole fuhrer and his philosophy, but Nazism was indeed an ideology, and it was indeed quite arguably inferior, morally, and politically, and intellectually to most other political ideologies. This one example alone certainly refutes your absurdly relativistic assertion.

Traditional Nazism is just fascism with biological racism and antisemitism, these things aside fascism is not terrible and there are quite a few intelligent economists and philosophers that easily argue it's validity. It's just socialism fused with government created patriotism and authoritarianism.

An ideology is not superior or inferior to another, you can only win an argument based on how you justify your ideology,

So, a sophist who has the skill to sell us on an ideology that's utterly lacking in merit deserves to win an argument because he's done a superior job of justifying the rubbish he's proffering?

Because YOU think something is rubbish, doesn't make it rubbish, if a skinhead can justify his ideology better than I can, his view should be considered superior until another like-minded thinker can come along and argue that his justification is invalid/wrong, what makes a view bad or invalid if not for the person that logically points it's invalidity out?

... If liberalism was inherently better than conservatism, wouldn't all liberals also be better?

Well, leftists are better,

Seeing as how far left governments have killed more people that far right governments, technically speaking this is fallacious.

humanistically and ethically speaking; to the extent that they don't fall away from applying their leftist views and values, that is. Mm-hmm, it's only when we succumb to human failings and act or govern in a fashion that's inconsistent with our principles that we of the leftist persuasion acquit ourselves poorly. Conversely, rightists acquit themselves quite dreadfully as human beings precisely by inflicting their principles via public policy,

Guilt by association, classic fallacy.

i.e. the more consistent a rightist is the worse it bodes for his character - at least this holds true if one considers compassion to be a significant factor in good character.

Compassion<Efficiency and Progress in my subjective opinion, since all you just did was state your subjective opinion mine is just as worthy anyways. Considering compassion is nice to have, but if it impedes the progress of the populous (i.e We can't build an oil field here that would employ dozens of thousands of people, it would kill a few hundred birds!), I think efficiency wins in that case both morally and logically.

Or wouldn't a liberal be able to win a debate by simply saying "I'm a liberal"?

No, as not everyone is sufficiently enlightened to recognize and acknowledge enlightenment.

So if someone does not think like one who considers himself enlightened he is then not enlightened by your standards?

If a view is inherently superior and needs no justification (if something is inherently better there is no need to justify why it is better), you should be able to win a debate by simply saying "I'm a liberal" if liberalism is inherently superior to all other political ideologies.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 6:49:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/14/2013 3:02:37 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/13/2013 7:06:51 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/13/2013 5:00:18 PM, charleslb wrote:

An ideology is not superior or inferior to another, you can only win an argument based on how you justify your ideology,

So, a sophist who has the skill to sell us on an ideology that's utterly lacking in merit deserves to win an argument because he's done a superior job of justifying the rubbish he's proffering?

How can you know he/she is a sophist if you do not prove your view as superior first by showing facts that show the sophists facts were untrue or deceptive? After all, a major way you prove you are intellectually superior to someone is by directly proving them wrong factually. If you can not factually prove someone wrong, how could you know if they are a sophist to start?

P.S. And in case you don't grasp the implication and danger, yes, placing forensic merit before truth as you inadvertently do here threatens to replace philosophy with sophistry.

(See the rest of my reply above)
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 6:50:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Charles, my problem with you is that you make a lot of your arguments philosophically and not logically. You would probably be one of the greatest, most insightful philosophers of our time, but you do not grasp the importance of making arguments not only from emotion and expereince, but logic also.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2013 11:47:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/14/2013 6:50:57 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Charles, my problem with you is that you make a lot of your arguments philosophically and not logically. You would probably be one of the greatest, most insightful philosophers of our time, but you do not grasp the importance of making arguments not only from emotion and expereince, but logic also.

Fair enough. I acknowledge that a great many of my positions are not so much logical as what you would derogatorily term emotive. However, I consider this to be a strength rather than a shortcoming. Our much maligned-for-their-subjectivity feelings are in fact a mode of knowing that can key us in to truth and correct stances that aseptic logic fails to arrive at.

(Btw, you might be interested in this, http://www.debate.org... )
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 7:09:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/14/2013 11:47:11 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/14/2013 6:50:57 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Charles, my problem with you is that you make a lot of your arguments philosophically and not logically. You would probably be one of the greatest, most insightful philosophers of our time, but you do not grasp the importance of making arguments not only from emotion and expereince, but logic also.

Fair enough. I acknowledge that a great many of my positions are not so much logical as what you would derogatorily term emotive. However, I consider this to be a strength rather than a shortcoming. Our much maligned-for-their-subjectivity feelings are in fact a mode of knowing that can key us in to truth and correct stances that aseptic logic fails to arrive at.

I believe that is important to be passionate about your views, but it has been proven that when you let this passion violently overtake the logical thinking one needs to process ideas and come to decisions, it can be dangerous.

(Btw, you might be interested in this, http://www.debate.org... )
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 3:00:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/15/2013 7:09:50 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 3/14/2013 11:47:11 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/14/2013 6:50:57 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Charles, my problem with you is that you make a lot of your arguments philosophically and not logically. You would probably be one of the greatest, most insightful philosophers of our time, but you do not grasp the importance of making arguments not only from emotion and expereince, but logic also.

Fair enough. I acknowledge that a great many of my positions are not so much logical as what you would derogatorily term emotive. However, I consider this to be a strength rather than a shortcoming. Our much maligned-for-their-subjectivity feelings are in fact a mode of knowing that can key us in to truth and correct stances that aseptic logic fails to arrive at.

I believe that is important to be passionate about your views, but it has been proven that when you let this passion violently overtake the logical thinking one needs to process ideas and come to decisions, it can be dangerous.

(Btw, you might be interested in this, http://www.debate.org... )

Yes, there's certainly the danger that our emotions can lead us in the direction of error and evil as well as enlightenment and righteousness. One must be ethically choosy, so to speak, about the feelings that one cultivates; and rational thinking is absolutely not something to be dispensed with.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 2:13:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Happy St. Patrick's Day everyone.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 2:05:37 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Well, apparently Congressman Paul is currently a quite popular figure in the GOP camp. Dismally sad and shameful commentary indeed. Nor, from a Republican perspective, does it augur well pragmatically speaking. Not unless you seriously believe that a "libertarian" has any realistic chance of ever being elected president without watering down his ideological positions to the point of becoming just another ho-hum neo-Reaganite. Mm-hmm, wake up GOPers, characters like Rand Paul aren't the new blood that's going to save you from being a party in decline! Actually, don't wake up GOPers, by all means persist in making choices that will ensure the continued decline of your party.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 1:31:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
http://www.debate.org... , I'm referring to the thirteenth post from the top.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2013 3:19:36 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Charles, basic logic. Other leftists on this site don't get the reaction you do. Why? It's not because you're more extreme, Rob1billion is just as extremist for the left as you, at least as far as anyone can tell (you aren't good at pinning yourself down anywhere, preferring to bash from the fog). But he gets a different reaction. What's differences explain that? It can't be the ideology, that's not different. What is different? Writing style. Sorry, writing style is indeed the dominant cause of the reaction toward you.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.