Nasty people
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 17:07
VIEWED: 4650
PAGE 5 of 7
Geezer, I still fail to see how 2+2=4 is an "extremist" statement. Each statement has to be plumbed for truth. Some statements may be true. Others may be false. For example, I know what Kerry said about Vietnam is true and is not an extremist statment. Calling him a traitor for speaking an uncomfortable truth is IMHO false.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It is crazy that to these people telling the truth is denegrating the troops...
or that, when they can even go to an original transcript of a speech, that proves to them that Kerry's latest fopa was not an attack on the troops but a screwed up joke, they still let it be used for propaganda...
and that they would equate the position many of us liberals take, that bush should be impeached for things we already know, for lies we know of, for breaking the supreme laws of the land, to extremism.
Apparently, they don't hold the truth sacred, they don't hold the rule of law sacred, they don't hold lives of Iraqis or American Soldiers sacred...
the only thing they care about is their own egos. all that concerns them is that the 'reality' they've manufactured for themselves remain unburst by the needling truth, because they don't like to feel scared, and finding out everything they believed in is a lie is a kind of death after all, and may be too much to ask.
"you won't. There is nothing left to see." - Operative
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, I still fail to see how 2+2=4 is an "extremist" statement. Each statement has to be plumbed for truth. Some statements may be true. Others may be false. For example, I know what Kerry said about Vietnam is true and is not an extremist statment. Calling him a traitor for speaking an uncomfortable truth is IMHO false.
Huh? I make no claims about the truth or falseness of either site. Both sites are, in my opinion, reasonably extreme examples of their ends of the political spectrum. I doubt that most Democrats actually want to impeach the entire upper level of the Bush administration, and I doubt most Republicans want to send an insulting fax to Sen. Kerry. Impeachbush was just the first I found on the Left. There may be more extreme ones out there, as there may be more extreme ones on the Right.
The point is: non-fringe people from both sides of the political divide CAN hold reasoned discussions. Add one inflexible extremist from either side, and things go downhill. A corollary is that the inflexible extremist usually doesn't realize that they are. They consider their viewpoint the only logical one and will not compromise on it.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
oops
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But what if ONE side is truthfully and factually correct and the other side is just malicious hot air? Is the person who is correct supposed to defer to a troll?
I doubt that most Democrats actually want to impeach the entire upper level of the Bush administration, and I doubt most Republicans want to send an insulting fax to Sen. Kerry. Impeachbush was just the first I found on the Left. There may be more extreme ones out there, as there may be more extreme ones on the Right. The point is: non-fringe people from both sides of the political divide CAN hold reasoned discussions. Add one inflexible extremist from either side, and things go downhill. A corollary is that the inflexible extremist usually doesn't realize that they are. They consider their viewpoint the only logical one and will not compromise on it.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Speaking of Nasty people (i.e, couldn't find a better place to post it):
FBI Arrests Right Wing Conservative Terrorist
http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msnbc.
msn.com%2Fid%2F15692306%2F
Quote:
"WASHINGTON - A California man suspected of mailing threatening letters containing a suspicious white powder to celebrities and U.S. politicians has been arrested and could face federal charges on Monday, the FBI said.
Investigators identified Chad Castagana, 39, of Woodland Hills, California, as the person suspected of sending more than a dozen threatening letters to media outlets and the homes of public figures in various cities, the FBI said in a statement on Sunday evening.
According to a federal search warrant, among those who received threatening letters were Jon Stewart of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show;” talk show host David Letterman; Keith Olbermann of MSNBC; Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, who is set to become Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, both Democrats."
And, surprise surprise, he's a Freeptard!
http://sadlyno.com/archives/4268.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But what if ONE side is truthfully and factually correct and the other side is just malicious hot air? Is the person who is correct supposed to defer to a troll?
Quote:
A corollary is that the inflexible extremist usually doesn't realize that they are. They consider their viewpoint the only logical one and will not compromise on it.
QED
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Geezer, I specifically didn't point out either "side" as correct or incorrect. I gave a couple of examples. For the sake of balance, I'll point out that calling Bush a "war criminal" is not correct because he hasn't been tried and convicted. In fact, I think that ALL statements need to be plumbed for truth... that means on BOTH sides. But what if one side says 2+2=4 and the other says 2+2=22? Is the correct answer somewhere between 4 and 22, or is it incumbent on us not to reach a "compromise" but to find the TRUTH?
But what if ONE side is truthfully and factually correct and the other side is just malicious hot air? Is the person who is correct supposed to defer to a troll?- Signy
A corollary is that the inflexible extremist usually doesn't realize that they are. They consider their viewpoint the only logical one and will not compromise on it.-Geezer
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But what if one side says 2+2=4 and the other says 2+2=22? Is the correct answer somewhere between 4 and 22, or is it incumbent on us not to reach a "compromise" but to find the TRUTH?
But it's not "...one side says 2+2=4 and the other says 2+2=22." It's a few people on one side saying 2+2=2 and a few people on the other side saying 2+2=22. You can't have a reasoned discussion with these people. Ignore them, or at least don't try to change their minds, since they won't change. Look for people on the other side who are willing to lok for solutions, not arguments.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer, you're making about five or six different points (What I think of as the birdshot approach).
Quote:Yes, that's always a possibility. But as you yourself said I make no claims about the truth or falseness of either site . You called these sites "extreme" not because you've examined their statements in detail and found them BOTH to be incorrect but because they don't seem representative of the typical opinion to you. But until/unless we look at their statments and premises in detail, we can't automatically say WHICH side is wrong. More likely BOTH sites contain some truth and some falsehood, but one site may on balance be more correct than the other.
It's a few people on one side saying 2+2=2 and a few people on the other side saying 2+2=22.
Quote:This is a different point. After years of wrangling with people on this board I've come to realize that you can have a "reasoned discussion" with ANYONE provided that you both follow the rules: stick to the point, be logical, don't deliberately lie etc etc. I haven'tr actually tried to discuss anything with the originators of the sites. It's possible that both are open to reasoned dsicussion.
You can't have a reasoned discussion with these people.
Quote:That's the option you chose. It certainly closes off the possibility of figuring out if either side is correct or of learning anything new.
Ignore them
Quote:This is a different point. I'm not necessarily going to try and change EITHER side because, as I've said, one side may be reasonably correct and I might be in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water, so to speak.
or at least don't try to change their minds, since they won't change.
Quote:This is yet another point. But to be reasonable about this, unless we already agree what the problems are and the CAUSE of the problems it's going to be hard to look for "solutions" that we can agree on. What if the source of our problems really is "lack of will" and all we need to do is get behind the troops for a concentrated five-year push, at the end of which our problems with radical Islamic fundamentalism will be gone?
Look for people on the other side who are willing to lok for solutions, not arguments.
EDITED TO ADD: Until two parties come to the nub of a disagreement... fundamental a priori assumptions which cannot be proved or disproved... both sides fully understanding the other's viewpoint, and either sway, be swayed, or agree to disagree then I don't consider the discussion closed. Unfortunately I find few people willing to track a discussion that long.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME