Which Dem has a Shot?

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil

1. Here you run aground. The economy is dynamic; money is not a static pie, all of whose slices come at the expense of others' pieces. The accumulated wealth passed from family to family has no relevance to you or your life; it does not make you poorer in any way and it does not come at your expense. It is none of your concern. To be so concerned over it is a manifestation of jealousy. It is also not the case that "most wealth is inherited," as you originally asserted without support.

2. Incorrect. This would only be "predestination" if the outcome were the metaphysically granted, which is not the case. On the circumstances and the abilities with which we are born are metaphysically granted. Our wills are our own; our choices make the difference. We can choose to be rational, or we can choose to be irrational; we can choose to work hard, or we can choose not to work hard. That is what we can do "change it." That is an internal locus of control. Those operating under the crushing weight of a philosophy whose locus of control is external are doomed to bemoan their fates and look with envy on the gains of others.

3. Thus we see that capitalism -- a free society -- is superior to the Marxist schools of thought that dominate, in whole or in part, many of the world's other societies.

4. Actually, when industrialism entered the picture, this model changed very quickly, because suddenly we had the ability to sustain a population much larger in size within the same given geographic area than we were able to sustain in a predominantly rural economy.

5. This contradicts, at least philosophically (though you may not be aware of it) your original assertion that the government brought the peasants out of the fields (which it didn't). Labor unions likewise did not "bring the peasants out of the fields," though you're getting closer to an understanding of basic economic theory. It was a recognition of the fact that labor is half of the economic equation that enabled workers to better their lives, within the context of a capitalist system.

6. Where government did play a role in the industrial revolution was in cracking down on those things that hinder a capitalist system -- namely manifestations of fraud, theft, and force. The government's role in a free society is that of guardian of individual rights -- which means it is that of policeman. The government protected individual consumers by passing laws relevant to, and cracking down on, widespread fraud in certain consumer industries -- such as the meat packing industry. It did not, however, liberate the oppressed worker; the workers themselves managed that by recognizing their role and the leverage it offered them.

7. Quoting a book does not constitute supporting your argument. I'm more familiar than are you with the laws of logic and with logical fallacies, I am sure; you seem to believe that your own arguments were laden with substance, which was not the case. When you offer substantive arguments you will receive substantive replies. The fact remains, however, that anyone who starts going on about liberating the oppressed worker and the evils of inherited wealth is indeed spouting Marxist ideals, the identification of which is relevant in the course of the argument because Marxism is unsound and discredited economic theory.

8. I do indeed believe in sprinkling my prose with appropriate amounts of venom, however, specifically because I lack both patience and tolerance. It's a character failing; foolishness makes me mean. The fact is that you chose to apply a certain attitude to your posts, and I simply gave it back to you in equal measure. Don't complain that you got worse than you gave.

9. When you offer a substantive argument, you will receive a substantive reply. For your misapplication of the "special pleading" to apply, you would have to have been offering logical discourse yourself.

10. You failed in the attempt, then, though I give you credit for trying. I'm not primarily attempting to present my philosophy; I am simply enjoying poking holes in yours. There's a difference.

11. I offer logic where logic is offered. When presented with empty rhetoric, I supply superior (and sharper) rhetoric. This is recreation for me. If you want to start a philosophical thread in which you ask substantive answers in order to receive substantive replies, that's fine; you're certainly free to do so. This thread has not offered much in that regard and I feel no obligation to supply it in its absence.

12. I think you labor under the misconception that I want you to respond; I'm indifferent to the idea.

1. In a biological sense, resources (wealth) fluctuates on a very minimal basis. This maintains a system that is essentially stable. If all wealth were as you assert, there would be very little opportunity for advancement in a free society. In any community, if the resources fluctuate too much, all members suffer. Scientifically, your assertion is incorrect. Economics are human ecology and even humans cannot violate these laws. Wealth has to be fundamentally static or our society wouldn't exist.

2. True. If you want something, you must work for it. No free lunches, right?

3. Partially true. The jury is out on whether capitolism is the best economic system. Fundamentally, capitolism fails when it comes to long term vision. Some things that are good for a species do not necessarily have a dollar sign attached to them. We shall see... Yet, either way I am sure that you or I will take advantage of whatever situation comes.

4. Population increased quite rapidly, but change did NOT correlate proportionately. As the general education level of the populace increased, the ability for the populace to organized increased. Only then did the old aristocratic system fall away to a more modern system.

5. Partially true. Government did not, initially, bring peasents out of the fields. You are right when you say that government opposed them. Through corruption, the government even sent soldiers against them! Until through the democratic process, the workers changed the government. Hence the New Deal. (as of now the government is in need of another change)

6. True. The most freedom is offered by the smallest government. Large government breeds corruption from those who have accumulated the most resources. The best protection from the rich is to take away their federal power.

7. Your superiority in the matter of logic remains to be seen. The very fact that you charicterize my position as Marxist is a large strike against you.

8. Your attitude lacks any shred of humility. That is the most bothersome aspect of your presentation. How long do you dare spin the wheel of hubris?

9. Substative replies are subjective and totally inconsistant with the label "objectivist." If you would be true to your philosophic claims then your demand for substantive replies would not matter. Objectively, every reply is substantive. As a scientist, I know special pleading and you are guilty.

10. Poke. Poke. Poke.

11. Lets start a thread on the value of libertarianism. I think that you will see that we agree on a great many things.

12. Do not lie to yourself. I could guarentee your response with the phrase, "if you do not respond, I will be right," yet I do not care what you do. This discussion will not change anything substantive and does not merit worry.

As far as this thread is concerned, I think that we need a candidate that will take government out of our lives. This includes updating an outdated military in order to better deal with the "war on terror." A small, coalition based military will operate best in a global world. I also believe that safety, health care, and education need to be addressed on the national level in order to ensure that our country remains productive. Unfortunately, there are no candidates that meet this criteria as of yet. General Clark comes the closest to this ideal, but I admit that I need to do more research.

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by upnorthkyosa
12. Do not lie to yourself. I could guarentee your response with the phrase, "if you do not respond, I will be right," yet I do not care what you do. This discussion will not change anything substantive and does not merit worry.

I'm kidding about this last part, Phil. I'm fond of fishing, though.

 

[Phil Elmore]

In a biological sense, resources (wealth) fluctuates on a very minimal basis. This maintains a system that is essentially stable. If all wealth were as you assert, there would be very little opportunity for advancement in a free society. In any community, if the resources fluctuate too much, all members suffer.

Confusing biology with material goods will lead you astray every time.

Scientifically, your assertion is incorrect.

No, it isn't. You don't understand trade, apparently, or the laws that govern it.

Economics are human ecology and even humans cannot violate these laws.

No, economics is not "human ecology." It is not biology, either. Economics is the mechanics and the principles governing the ways in which people trade goods and services, exchanging value for value.

Wealth has to be fundamentally static or our society wouldn't exist.

That is a ridiculous statement. Wealth is simply a store of value. Value is dynamic because the economy is dynamic. It is not a static pie that is divided up. It expands and it contracts with the actions of its participants.

Partially true. The jury is out on whether capitolism is the best economic system.

The jury is only out to those who wish to deny the evidence of history and the fundamental moral and economic failures of collectivist systems, which invariably infringe on individual rights.

Fundamentally, capitolism fails when it comes to long term vision.

Your problem is in thinking that economics must have vision. An economy is not something with a lofty goal or a long-term purpose. It does not exist to fulfill a mission. It is a mechanical set of processes that facilitate the exchange of value for value in a free society. Yes, egalitarians, Marxists, collectivists, utopian socialists -- these are people who believe the economy should have some "long term vision," some "higher purpose" -- invariably, the transfer of value from those who have earned it to those who haven't, for the accomplishment of whatever social schemes are the order of the day.

None of this changes the fact that it is fundamentally wrong to divorce people from the product of their efforts -- to deny them what they have earned by confiscating it. That is why forced government transfers of wealth are immoral.

Some things that are good for a species do not necessarily have a dollar sign attached to them. We shall see...

You need to spend some time considering the concept of a standard of value for a philosophical system. By definition, all things that are good for an individual have a value, though this may not always be quantifiable. That which you value is that which you act to gain and keep. Only individuals are capable of goal-directed action; morality is not a question of "the good of the collective" but of the unit of action, which is the individual member of the species -- not the species as a whole. Human beings are not cells in a living organism, who can be discarded for the good of the "body."

That is a monstrous concept that discards individual rights and implements an inhuman utilitarianism. This, in turn, treats all individual human beings as disposable, as long as the collective is served by their deaths. I have no desire to live in such a dystopian "community."

Population increased quite rapidly, but change did NOT correlate proportionately.

Actually, it did, by definition.

As the general education level of the populace increased, the ability for the populace to organized increased.

The implementation of organized labor was not a manifestation of education. It was a reaction to working conditions.

Only then did the old aristocratic system fall away to a more modern system.

We have never had an "old aristocratic system" in the United States. This nation was founded on Enlightenment ideals that dismiss such notions.

Partially true. Government did not, initially, bring peasents out of the fields.

Totally true.

You are right when you say that government opposed them. Through corruption, the government even sent soldiers against them! Until through the democratic process, the workers changed the government. Hence the New Deal. (as of now the government is in need of another change)

The New Deal is a fiction propagated by collectivists. It solved little. World War II rescued us from the Depression, ironically. And you can't have it both ways; you cannot on one hand claim the "government" opposed the people but that the "democratic process" liberated them. The two are the same.

The most freedom is offered by the smallest government.

Thank the gods we finally agree on something.

Large government breeds corruption from those who have accumulated the most resources.

You were doing so well; don't ruin it by adding that note of class warfare and envy. It's unnecessary and historically incorrect. Governmental corruption and abuse of power is not about wealth -- it is about power. The President of the United States is not the richest man in the world by any stretch of the imagination, but he has the most power -- and thus the most ability to abuse his fellow citizens.

The best protection from the rich is to take away their federal power.

There you go again, blaming phantom legions of "the rich." The best protection from corruption is limited government -- a government with strictly defined roles that respects citizens' individual rights. This is not about "the rich."

Your superiority in the matter of logic remains to be seen. The very fact that you charicterize my position as Marxist is a large strike against you.

Actually, it doesn't remain to be seen. Your position is Marxist because you spout Marxist ideals, or at the very least voice quintessentially Marxist opinions about the Evil Rich. I think this attitude really hinders your understanding of how these things work -- and ultimately will hinder you in life, for this amount of envy and resentment invariably works against the individual.

Your attitude lacks any shred of humility.

I suppose it does. Why does that threaten you?

That is the most bothersome aspect of your presentation.

Why would I care if you are bothered?

How long do you dare spin the wheel of hubris?

Only as long as it takes for my Chariot of Arrogance to arrive via mail-order. It's considerably more comfortable than the Wheel of Hubris and has nice velvet upholstery.

Substative replies are subjective and totally inconsistant with the label "objectivist."

I think you need to get your dictionary and look up the meaning of the word substantive.

If you would be true to your philosophic claims then your demand for substantive replies would not matter.

This is a meangingless statement.

Objectively, every reply is substantive.

Really? Now there's an interesting assertion.

As a scientist, I know special pleading and you are guilty.

I suggest you spend a little more time immersing yourself in your "science," for you are incorrect.

Lets start a thread on the value of libertarianism. I think that you will see that we agree on a great many things.

Libertarianism is fine as utilitarian politics go, but it is insufficient as a moral philosophy.

Do not lie to yourself.

I never do.

I could guarentee your response with the phrase, "if you do not respond, I will be right," yet I do not care what you do.

You could make silly statements of that kind if you wished, I suppose. I would still remain indifferent to your replies.

This discussion will not change anything substantive and does not merit worry.

Why, are you worried about it?

As far as this thread is concerned, I think that we need a candidate that will take government out of our lives.

We agree on that, at least.

I also believe that safety, health care, and education need to be addressed on the national level in order to ensure that our country remains productive.

This and "taking government out of our lives" are mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[arnisador]

Chopping an argument into its constituent sentences and replying to each of them in isolation is a sure-fire way to stall an argument to death, but it has little else to recommend it. It's a tactic, not a (counter-)argument.

 

[Makalakumu]

Economics and ecology are related through the equations that are used in prediction. Wealth, in human systems, really is nothing more then energy in a natural system. The ebb and flow of a natural system operates on certain natural rules and NOTHING a human has created has not already been done in a natural system. Whether it's trade, currency exchange, or inflation, there is ALWAYS a natural analogue. That is why your assertion that all wealth is constantly in flux is scientifically incorrect. It cannot be or we wouldn't be sharing these messages over the computer screen. Look at it from a realistic perspective rather then idealogic. The whole concept of corporations, banks, currency and ownership ALL depend on static wealth/energy. If this were not the case, the organization required to form these structures could not overcome the entropy of their many parts.

Also, your assertion that the redistribution of wealth is immoral is ludicrous. Again, wealth is energy in a human ecosystem and if a group of humans decide to take some energy from a smaller group of humans that is as natural as a lion driving a hyena off a kill. The hyena will protect as much of the kill as they can while the lion rouses the pride. Class warfare is a biologic fact.

You have chosen the side of the hyena.

This objectivist philosophy of yours is full on contradictions. You claim to be a rugged individualist who does not believe in community, yet you affirm community by making moral judgements. The very nature of morals is that of collective beliefs in a community. You cannot have it both ways unless you redefine the term objective. Otherwise, in order to be consistant, you must remain morally neutral. There would be no such thing as "evil rich" or "immoral redistribution of wealth".

Perhaps when you step out of this "objectivist" paradigm and look at an "objective" portrayal of reality you will develop a working philosophy.

Humans are social creatures and the needs of the individual are equally important as the needs of the community. There needs to be a balance that allows people to be as free as they can and yet provides a descent base for everyone in the community rise or fall as they please. A "right" or "left" ideology will not accomplish this by itself. There needs to be balance.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Axly, Philip, all I can really think of to write that seems appropriate and may not draw a torrent of abuse is:

Best wishes of the season.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Chopping an argument into its constituent sentences and replying to each of them in isolation is a sure-fire way to stall an argument to death, but it has little else to recommend it. It's a tactic, not a (counter-)argument.

Actually, it's a sure-fire way to address (and refute) each salient point, which is why I employ such a tactic. I like to be thorough, at least when I'm interested enough to continue arguing -- which is growing less and less frequent.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
Actually, it's a sure-fire way to address (and refute) each salient point

But, by treating them in isolation, it deprives them of their context. As John Cleese said, "An argument is a connected series of statements..." (emphasis mine). That series of statement makes a point(s). It's incorrect to treat each statement as an argument to be refuted on its own. If there's a logical fallacy--a statement that begins "Therefore..." but does not follow from what has gone before--it can easily be pointed out. But an argument deserves to be refuted.

There's a reason you don't see the great philosophers refuting one anothers' positions in this way, nor high school debate teams scribbling down their opponents' statements and refuting them line-by-line. It not only fails to make a counter-argument, but it also smacks of sophistry--of a trick with words.

One should refute the argument. The argument is, in my opinion, more than the sum of its sentences. The order matters, for example. A "bag of words" approach (I refer to latent semantic analysis, the basis of many computerized essay grading systems) succeeds in grading essays, sadly, but I don't think it succeeds in refuting arguments. You're approaching a "real argument" (in the sense of this book) as though it was a simple syllogism, or a high school geometry proof.

In what writing that you appreciate and respect do you see an approach like the one you're using? One might argue that there is something vaguely Socratic about it, but that method is based more on skepticism and attempting to force the other person to carefully define his or her terms, which I don't see in what you're doing.

 

[Phil Elmore]

But, by treating them in isolation, it deprives them of their context.

Not at all. The original post remains there for readers of the thread to see. I never take an item out of context when I address and refute it, for to do so would be to give the opponent ammunition in rebutting my refutation. That's too simple a mistake to make; I don't often hand the other party to a debate a gift of that kind.

It's incorrect to treat each statement as an argument to be refuted on its own.

That is not, however, what I am doing or have done. Each component of the argument constitutes a point supporting it (at least in theory -- in reality, most of the "arguments" made are sloppier than that); addressing the components demolishes the argument by kicking out each of the (however many) legs on which it stands.

There's a reason you don't see the great philosophers refuting one anothers' positions in this way, nor high school debate teams scribbling down their opponents' statements and refuting them line-by-line.

The world's great philosophers did not have the Internet. High school debate teams do not work in a text medium. People have been arguing posts point by point, however, since the early days of the UseNet. That is why I do it (and do it well) -- countless hours logged engaged in that type of debate, since the days when I had to use the University's VAX system to log into the Chapel Hill BBS just to read newsgroups.

One should refute the argument. The argument is, in my opinion, more than the sum of its sentences.

A logical argument, however, is an assertion supported by component parts. Addressing the component parts thorougly demolishes the argument, which is why I use such a method. I believe in being thorough.

The order matters, for example. A "bag of words" approach (I refer to latent semantic analysis, the basis of many computerized essay grading systems) succeeds in grading essays, sadly, but I don't think it succeeds in refuting arguments. You're approaching a "real argument" (in the sense of this book) as though it was a simple syllogism, or a high school geometry proof.

That may well be true, but it is an inaccurate assessment of what I do. I write for a living. I never just throw a "bag of words" at the issue and then go home.

In what writing that you appreciate and respect do you see an approach like the one you're using?

Don't hang too much significance on this medium. The Internet -- and bulletin board debate -- is not great literature. It is not even prose. It is a near-real-time interaction between parties whose responses are delayed by the nature of the medium, one stepped removed from text chatting. An argument on the web is not War and Peace, Plato's Republic, or even The Turner Diaries, though it often verges closer to the latter than either of the former.

One might argue that there is something vaguely Socratic about it, but that method is based more on skepticism and attempting to force the other person to carefully define his or her terms, which I don't see in what you're doing.

That is precisely what I am doing, though not as overtly. I'm somewhat misanthropic and don't believe in holding anyone's hand. You might say I'm something of a social Darwinist when it comes to bickering; I figure the strong survive and the weak go home offended.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
addressing the components demolishes the argument by kicking out each of the (however many) legs on which it stands.

Assuming, of course, that the other party is mistaken...assuming it's an issue on which one party can be considered objectively ritght or wrong. Your phrasing goes to my point: You're using an argument-of-attrition tactic to win arguments rather than addressing the argument on its merits.

I find your comment that it isn't even prose to be interesting--indeed, it has many of the components of a conversation/chat. But here you nearly argue against yourself, for the type of refutation you use could not possibly be used in a conversation. And again, while there's much to be said for addressing each point in a detailed, cogent, written argument, you dismiss this medium as not conducive to such arguments, as being much more informal, but then proceed as though you believe the opposite.

It is an Internet tradition, and I have used it too, but to be frank, I've only ever seen trolls split up a post as finely as you do. I don't think you're trolling--I think you're using a sow-the-fields-with-salt tactic to stop the argument. The more patient person wins.

Let's reason together. Suppose a person posts a two-line argument. Suppose you split it up into two parts that you refute, each with a two-line rebuttal. If the other person adopts your style, he or she will split your two parts, consiting of four lines, into as many as four separate components for rebuttal (perhaps fewer). But then you'll split up his or her post...I hope you see my point. This method cannot lead to a useful discussion because of the "and they tell two friends" nature of it.

[Socrates' approach:]

That is precisely what I am doing, though not as overtly.

Ah, to be more subtle than Socrates. I must disagree. While he went point-by-point, he did so in a much more connected way. Despite the source of the following material, I do agree with their summary:
http://www.str.org/free/studies/socratic.htm

I don't see that in what you're doing. Where is "the actual discovery of opinions amongst men"? You aren't forcing others to draw their distinctions more carefully, you're flat-out contradicting them. Look back at your post here. I see nothing Socratic in "You could make silly statements of that kind if you wished, I suppose. I would still remain indifferent to your replies." or "I never do." or "Libertarianism is fine as utilitarian politics go, but it is insufficient as a moral philosophy." or "I suggest you spend a little more time immersing yourself in your "science," for you are incorrect." These don't lead the other person anywhere, they simply falt-out contradict--in many cases, without any support that could be refuted in turn (e..g., 'it is insufficient as a moral philosophy because...'). No, your appraoch shares nothing more in common with Socrates' than the often brief nature of the interchanges. There's much more to the method than brevity.

This is an ephemeral medium, and I don't mean to put too strong a point on this--I think we both agree that no one is likely to win a prize for their philosophical ramblings in the humanities.philosophy.objectivism newsgroup, and that neither of us has a great deal invested in this argument. (I'm about to go back to working on my textbook, due to be published in February. I meet with the publisher next week in Phoenix.) But I've seen you use this approach here before and I felt compelled to say that what you are doing is a tactic designed to win an argument through frustrating the other person into quitting rather than a true meeting of minds to determine the truth or even just to force careful statements of opinion.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Assuming, of course, that the other party is mistaken

Of course. If they're not wrong, I don't argue.

You're using an argument-of-attrition tactic to win arguments rather than addressing the argument on its merits.

Not correct. I'm using a tactic that demolishes the supporting points of an argument to address the argument's explicit merits overwhelmingly and totally.

But here you nearly argue against yourself, for the type of refutation you use could not possibly be used in a conversation.

Sure it could -- because a conversation moves much more quickly than this type of exchange and people often interrupt and address points as they are made.

Discussions of this type on the Internet, in fact, have made it much easier for me to have highly charged discussions in person.

And again, while there's much to be said for addressing each point in a detailed, cogent, written argument, you dismiss this medium as not conducive to such arguments, as being much more informal, but then proceed as though you believe the opposite.

Well, yes. I think I'm wasting my time -- but I do it because it is fun and because it allows me to refine my own opinions and methods.

It is an Internet tradition, and I have used it too, but to be frank, I've only ever seen trolls split up a post as finely as you do. I don't think you're trolling--I think you're using a sow-the-fields-with-salt tactic to stop the argument. The more patient person wins.

I believe in destroying the other argument entirely, yes. I like to stop arguments. Sometimes I get bored and simply wander off. It happens.

Let's reason together. Suppose a person posts a two-line argument. Suppose you split it up into two parts that you refute, each with a two-line rebuttal.

I reject your premise. I would never find it necessary to break up two lines if that was all that was offered. I use point-by-point rebuttal for lengthy posts.

If the other person adopts your style, he or she will split your two parts, consiting of four lines, into as many as four separate components for rebuttal (perhaps fewer). But then you'll split up his or her post...I hope you see my point. This method cannot lead to a useful discussion because of the "and they tell two friends" nature of it.

That would only be true if you play the other person's game. When I find someone who responds in like manner, I do a lot of cutting, pasting, and consolidating to make my posts flow as I wish them to flow.

I must disagree. While he went point-by-point, he did so in a much more connected way. ...I don't see that in what you're doing.[/QUOTE]

You can disagree, but you'd be wrong.

Where is "the actual discovery of opinions amongst men"? You aren't forcing others to draw their distinctions more carefully, you're flat-out contradicting them.

Let's not make more of this than there is. There are times when I don't bother to waste my effort. I tend to treat arguments on the level they earn through their content. If I am flip and dismissive, it's a sure bet I don't think much of the argument presented.

Look back at your own posts, now. Don't you find it silly to have wasted so much time arguing about arguing? I will continue to win arguments as I see fit. No amount of complaining that it just isn't fair will change that.

Of course, I have an unfair advantage. I write for a living and therefore have most people outgunned in text before we begin. Even in an informal setting such as this, in which I don't preplan my posts and don't proof them, it generally works to my advantage.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
Look back at your own posts, now. Don't you find it silly to have wasted so much time arguing about arguing?

No more than any other argument. I, like you, choose to argue when it suits my interests (or whims). I have no vested stake in this.

I will continue to win arguments as I see fit. No amount of complaining that it just isn't fair will change that.

There is no complaint here--it's an observation. You're being too sensitive in assuming I am trying to stop you from doing what you want to do. If it was a complaint, I would have asked you to stop. I am indifferent--but you've done it a number of times that I've seen, it's a cheap tactic, and I wanted to comment on that, and to hear what your response was.

The claim that you follow in the tradition of Socrates here is simply without merit. As you offered only a curt "You can disagree, but you'd be wrong" in response to my reasons for disagreeing, however, you offer nothing for discussion. I will simply respond in kind: You're mistaken. Frankly, you flatter yourself. You're wrapping a stalling tactic in the flag of reasoning. Short replies of the form "not X" to assertions of X are not Socratic.

Of course, I have an unfair advantage. I write for a living and therefore have most people outgunned in text before we begin. Even in an informal setting such as this, in which I don't preplan my posts and don't proof them, it generally works to my advantage.

Your oft-repeated "I write for a living" is rather stale also, I must say. (Judging from my local newspaper, writing for a living doesn't guarantee a very high standard of achievement.) However, if you claim that your level of success as a writer speaks for itself, and is fully in line with your abilities, I will concur. But your phrasing above, that you have people "outgunned" on general writing skills--not the facts, or logic, or what-have-you--goes precisely to my point: This is a general tactic intended to work in any argument. We all have tactics and approaches we like to use in argumentation and I don't mean to imply that you should be defensive about having tricks that you employ. But, this one seems intended to win by longevity alone.

To write well one must practice, practice, practice. Your practiced response of cutting an argument into sentence tokens to treat in isolation is practiced, but it remains a technique. If winning the argument is the goal then using a technique intended to get you there is fine. But if the goal of an argument is to increase understanding--here we come again to the ways of Socrates--then a technique intended to "demolish" is hardly appropriate. Not every issue admits of a clean resolution, where the strongest argument wins, leading to the right answer. In an earlier post in this thread you said to someone else: "Great. Cry "uncle" and this is over." But the issues at hand--related to Ayn Rand's philosophy and political matters--don't seem to admit a simple Yes/No solution. A model that says every position is either 100% right or 100% wrong doesn't work well in the real world.

Once again, I'm not complaining--feel free to keep using this tactic. It's a boring read for those of us lurking in a thread, who would prefer to read paragraph-style discussions, and splits an argument into so many points that the "tell two friends" problem occurs for the other person, but it's your choice. Still, let's call it what it is--a technique for winning through superior patience, not a means of engaging in rational debate.

 

[Phil Elmore]

The truth may get "stale," but it's still the truth. You're entitled to your opinion, however misinformed it may be.

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
Let's not make more of this than there is. There are times when I don't bother to waste my effort. I tend to treat arguments on the level they earn through their content. If I am flip and dismissive, it's a sure bet I don't think much of the argument presented.

This is a blatent admission to special pleading and its academically lazy. If you have such high standards with logic you sure don't show them in this setting. Do you ever think you might dismiss an argument that has merit you didn't realize at first?

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
Not at all. The original post remains there for readers of the thread to see. I never take an item out of context when I address and refute it, for to do so would be to give the opponent ammunition in rebutting my refutation. That's too simple a mistake to make; I don't often hand the other party to a debate a gift of that kind.

If you don't present any coherent alternative positions, you haven't really refuted an argument. If you want to debate someone, you must do this. This is very much like saying that you can punch me in the face with a technique and when I ask you to try, you refuse. Nobody gains from this.

I'm curious about your opinions and there is no need to be miserly. We certainly aren't any threat, unless you are afraid of being wrong.

 

[rmcrobertson]

To go back to something I mentioned a few pages back, the Democrats are going to git whupped. Now there are all sorts of reasons for that, but the salient one, here, is that they lose these days in part because they tend to offer thoughtful responses. They may not always be grounded in facts, and they may not always be terribly insightful, and they may at times very well be wrong--but their tendency, over the last twenty years, has been to attempt thoughtfulness.

Unfortunately, they are up against people who have been writing and speaking and acting in ways that are the opposite of thoughtful. Spiro T. Agnew, Dan Quayle, even the VPs were far better at sloganeering than analysis. It's why right-wing talk radio works and sells--they pass off yelling and attempted bullying as thoughtful commentary. More than that, these guys have managed to pass off repeating the ideology of wealth as a "radical," position, something that is opposed to the status quo. And in a sense they're right: capitalism is what's radical, what wipes out the "old," and brings in the "new." These folks play off the frustration that these radical changes cause--and they help convince us all that the very people who are trying (though sometimes badly) to explain what's going on are in fact the enemy.

But be that as it may, the Democrats are going to lose partly because in our present fix, yelling slogans and trying to bully the opposition works a hell of a lot better than saying, "Now wait a minute, let's try and look at the history of that...," or, "Well, the result of privatizing schools seems to be...," or, "Uh, we are actually talking about leaving people without health care, aren't we?"

Look at the present war in Iraq. Why'd we get into that, again? In part because the yahoos presently running our government (elected by a minority of voters, remember) started yelling about a threat that a) we helped create, b) could have been taken care of by other means, c) wasn't really there at all--no WMDs, remember? and about two weeks ago, our gov't quietly noted that there probably hadn't been any for ten years. In part, because these clowns didn't have the patience to shut up and let a professional like Colin Powell do his job.

The problem relates to martial arts this way: it is always hard to take a deep breath and walk away, or try to settle things peacefully. (I wrote, "try," see? Not all situations can be resolved peacefully by most of us.) It is difficult to spend the time and energy to really learn, and much easier to announce that all that stuff in martial arts is just junk and what we need is just boxing and grappling. It takes a LOT of time and energy to really learn about oneself and about the world, and it is a hell of a lot easier to grab onto this simplistic philosophy or that simplistic philosophy and simply declare that ________ was right about everything and if you all weren't stupid and inadequate, you'd know that already.

The Dems are going to get whupped, and in part they're going to get whupped not because they're wrong, and not because their facts are inadequate, and not even because of their differing and "out of the mainstream," philosophies, but (in part) because their basic moves involve explaining and trying to be reasonable. And reason takes time, and means complexity.

Look at Jack Lemmon's character in that silly and inaaccurate, "China Syndrome," movie: he was right, got lost in his explanations, and came across like a complete loon.

It is much easier to yell.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
The truth may get "stale," but it's still the truth.

But using an irrelevant truth as some form of appeal to authority--that authority being, by odd coincidence, you--is what's getting stale.

You're entitled to your opinion, however misinformed it may be.

I am reminded once again of Monty Python's "The Argument Clinic" sketch (the Man is played by Michael Palin; Mr. Vibrating, the clinic employee, is played by John Cleese):


Man: I came here for a good argument.

Mr Vibrating: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.

Man: An argument isn't just contradiction.

Mr Vibrating: It can be.

Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

Mr Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

Mr Vibrating: Yes it is!

Man: No it isn't!

Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

(short pause)

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: It is.

Mr Vibrating: Not at all.

Man: Now look.


You provide nothing but automatic gainsaying. Much as in the Monty Python sketching, it's an automated process that frustrates, rather than responds to, an arbitrary argument. Simply repeating "You're misinformed" or variants of it is a child's game.

I suggest you make the claim that this is Socratic dialogue to a philosopher and see if agreement is reached.

Well, I believe that we have both made my point very well, and I consider it established.

 

[Phil Elmore]

Mischaracterizing my arguments may make you feel better, but it does not change the facts. You may believe it however fervently you choose to believe it -- but this, too, changes nothing. There are two dynamics at play, as well -- arguments over which I choose to take time, and contemptuous dismissals I employ when I grow bored with the opponent. (This would be the latter and has been so for some time now.)

 

[KenpoTess]

Please Keep to Topic

Which Dem has a Shot?

Pick a candidate and throw a plug. If you don't think any Dems will win in 2004 lets hear why?

Thank you

Tess

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
Mischaracterizing my arguments

Calling what you do 'argument' is already a mischaracterization. I see you are already hedging your bet by claiming that what we have here is not a true example of your considerable skill but rather 'contemptuous dismissals' out of sheer boredom.

There is no point in continuing this so I will heed the call for topicality. Feel free to add the final 'contemptuous' word.

This is a time of high patriotism, so Gen. Clark is the person to beat.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
Mischaracterizing my arguments may make you feel better, but it does not change the facts. You may believe it however fervently you choose to believe it -- but this, too, changes nothing. There are two dynamics at play, as well -- arguments over which I choose to take time, and contemptuous dismissals I employ when I grow bored with the opponent. (This would be the latter and has been so for some time now.)

Phil,

No Disrespect meant. Taking a contemptuous view in your written arguements could also influence how you think in a self defense or combat situation. This could lead you to making errors.


As to to the questions at hand, Which Dem has the Best shot?

The one that has the cleanest record and has the money to stay the course against the other Dems, until the party unites completely. Who is this? I honestly do not know.