What I want to know is just what progress the progressives propose.
All they seem to be is luddite-lite and believers in a zero sum economic pie.
How is this progress?
To make progress on the "environment" is to halt (and perhpas reverse) all other progress. I like a nice front lawn and I like trees. I mow my lawn.. Why can't I selectively harvest trees. AND, if that oil stuff is soooo toxic, why aren't we pumping in out of the ground, storing it in safe steel tanks and carefully burning it off?
The only reason why they changed the name to progressive is because the right successfully redefined the word "liberal." Look at any poll and you will see that invariably two thirds of the responders have a negative view of the word liberal, which is too bad because if you look up the word in the dictionary, it is actually something to which we should all aspire.
The only reason why they changed the name to progressive is because the right successfully redefined the word "liberal."
Once again, Mark, I refer you to Milton Friedman, George Orwell, and Eric Hoffer. The term "liberal" was hijacked self-admittedly by the socialists, not the Right. That hijacking has been recognized for what it is, and the Right counts among those who see the truth.
You can keep repeating a falsehood here all you like, but I'll keep correcting you every time you do. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. He was most emphatically not a socialist.
Back in the 30's there was a group of real super-duper progressives who declared war on smoking, supported abortion, believed in eugenics and euthanasia, and supported gun control. They were for free health care and guaranteed jobs, and spent vast sums on public education. They confiscated inherited wealth and loathed the free market, and provided generous pensions for the elderly. They maintained a strict racial-quota system in their universities and had campus speech codes. They led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine too. They were a large minority that reveled in their large minority-ness, and promoted a new form of pagan spirituality and free-sex.
I don't think they would have had much appreciation for Archbishop Tutu the way these nuvo so-called "Progressives" seem to see themselves - which is through a crooked mirror - although they were definitely pretty big on the antecedental Hamas organizations ands drew inspiration from their "struggle"...
When the march of Progress is on, that's what real serious "progressives" do - they march...
Kevin, I was speaking in terms of the last 13 years or so... The Republican "Revolution" if you will, the mass media, current neo-political trends etc...THEY redefined the word liberal.
You may be correct about earlier hijackings but I also think that Jefferson, were he alive today, would look at the current conservative base and, more than likely, would have to be put on an IV from continual vomiting.
Kevin, I was speaking in terms of the last 13 years or so... The Republican "Revolution" if you will, the mass media, current neo-political trends etc...THEY redefined the word liberal.
Shall I quote Mr. Friedman again? Hell, why not?
As it developed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the intellectual movement that went under the name of liberalism emphasized freedom as the ultimate goal and the individual as the ultimate entity in the society. It supported laissez faire at home as a means of reducing the role of the state in economic affairs and thereby enlarging the role of the individual; it supported free trade abroad as a means of linking the nations of the world together peacefully and democratically. In political matters, it supported the development of representative government and of parliamentary institutions, reduction in the arbitrary power of the state, and protection of the civil freedoms of individuals.
Beginning in the late nineteenth century, and especially after 1930 in the United States, the term liberalism came to be associated with a very different emphasis, particularly in economic policy. It came to be associated with a readiness to rely primarily on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became welfare and equality rather than freedom. The nineteenth-century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most effective way to promote welfare and equality; the twentieth-century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequisites of or alternatives to freedom. In the name of welfare and equality, the twentieth-century liberal has come to favor a revival of the very policies of state intervention and paternalism against which the classical liberal fought. In the very act of turning the clock back to seventeenth-century mercantilism, he is fond of castigating true liberals as reactionary!
The change in the meaning attached to the term liberalism is more striking in economic matters than in political. The twentieth-century liberal, like the nineteenth-century liberal, favors parliamentary institutions, representative government, civil rights, and so on. Yet even in political matters, there is a notable difference. Jealous of liberty, and hence fearful of centralized power, whether in governmental or private hands, the nineteenth-century liberal favored political decentralization. Committed to action and confident of the beneficence of power so long as it is in the hands of a government ostensibly controlled by the electorate, the twentieth-century liberal favors centralized government. He will resolve any doubt about where power should be located in favor of the state instead of the city, of the federal government instead of the state, and of a world organization instead of a national government.
Mark, if you call a spade a "hand-operated earth-moving device" it doesn't mean you have "redefined" it. The Left hijacked the word "liberal." The Right called them on it. That is all.
You may be correct about earlier hijackings but I also think that Jefferson, were he alive today, would look at the current conservative base and, more than likely, would have to be put on an IV from continual vomiting.
And what he would see of the rise of "Political Correctness," victim-group identity politics, the "New Deal" and the "Great Society" would put him into a coma.
BOTH sides are far from the independent social ideal of the majority of the Founders, not just the Right.
Speaking of redefining terms, I've got another book on my Christmas list: Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. In it, Mr. Goldberg explains what the word "Fascist" actually means, and gives both historical and current examples.
This too is known on the left as "redefining," when, in fact, it is merely clarifying.
Kevin, I was speaking in terms of the last 13 years or so...
That's part of the problem Mark - you speak as if history began with the Clinton administration. Hint: by the early 70s liberal was taking on a pejorative tint - much as conservative had from the time of FDR, until Goldwater rehabilitated it.
I'm a little ticked at you. While I haven't been able to scrape together any time to post, I have been thinking about what to say to Kevin. I was all set to point out that Mark probably thinks bearded Spock is the real Spock. But you beat me to it! Now my planned snark has lost much of its power.
At least it has been worth it for Mark to reveal just how thoroughly he belongs in the mirror universe.
Let's review, shall we?
Leftists claimed the term "liberal".
Over the years, "liberal" becomes equated with policies pushed by leftists via the Democratic party.
Leftists begin to distance themselves from the label of "liberals" because conservatives oppose leftist policies and equate the label with those policies.
In short, leftists chose to apply the label to themselves. And it's somehow conservatives who are at fault for allowing the leftists to apply that label to themselves?!? Just... wow...
Guys, after torturing myself to try and think like Mark enough to write that last paragraph, I gotta think that even though it may be easier for civilized men to act like barbarians, it's still doggone hard!
Markadelphia, you've finally managed to shred my last bit of respect for you. I have tried very hard to respect you at least on the level of a fellow human being. But your spew worthy conclusion that word choices made by leftists is somehow the fault of conservatives is so diametrically opposed to easily observed facts that I really do have to think that maybe you really are from bearded Spock's universe. You are so aggressively oblivious to even basic concepts such as reality, facts, truth, evidence and reason that if you claimed the sky was blue I wouldn't believe you without at least three signed affidavits from people I personally know to be trustworthy confirming the sky actually is blue.
You have repeatedly used every logical fallacy in the book. And when called on your fallacies, you simply repeated them with slightly different characters/claims in the exact same fallacious form.
When asked for evidence supporting your view, you responded with references to others who spouted the same views with no supporting facts, or worse, using demonstrably false claims of facts—otherwise known as lies—as supposed "evidence" supporting those views.
You have also repeatedly refused to answer direct challenges when the only reasonable, fact-based answers undermined your chosen dogma. Instead, you switched topics, or even outright ignored the same challenge repeated over and over again, ad nauseum.
I have zero respect for you Mark. That's right. Zilch. Nada, Zippo. The Big Nothing.
I refuse to debate you further. I suggest that others here choose to do the same. Rather, any response to Mark will consist only of those important challenges which have been ignored.
I'll start with two recent ones:
1) Mark, show us where the U.S. Constitution allows the Federal government to give away tax money for charity.
2) Mark, show us any one person in all of human history who was perfect and incorruptible. If we are to design a government which requires large numbers of such people to exist and go into government service where they will be given absolute power over our lives, then we must know that such people actually exist.
Direct answers to a direct question would be something you haven't done before. Why should I expect now to be any different?
It's not like my challenges were originally posted in the last 24 hours, or just once, or anything lame like that.
Dodging questions you don't like is your standard MO. To answer those challenges and prove that you are actually interesting in real debate, you would actually have to do something different.
"there doesn't appear to be a way to comment over there."
Where? On my blog? There sure as heck is...if I am understanding correctly.
Ed, I left a comment for Unix about dodging questions in the above post. I do admit I don't answer all of them but it is for the reasons listed there.
However, there are questions I do answer but, since they invariably deconstruct the question in a way that is unacceptable to the questioner, I am accused of "not answering the question." One thing I've learned with debating conservatives over the years is they excel at framing questions in such a way that there is only one possible answer.
Let's use the above two questions as an example.
1. It doesn't.
2. Such a person doesn't exist and has never existed, although I believe that Christ came the closest.
So, now that I have answered these questions in a direct way--in the way you wanted me to answer them--I have basically lost the debate, which is the goal of questions like this.
There are so many other variables that play into the realm of these questions that it's really difficult for me to see things in such a plain fashion. I wonder if the "charity" you speak of includes the no bid contracts in Iraq? Or any of the corporate contracts with the government in which money is mishandled?
It's true no one is perfect but I want a leader who will be reflective and learn from their mistakes, which they will most definetly make. I want a leader who will take responsibility for his or her actions and admit fault. We don't have that now. I think we can have that in the future and there are candidates on both sides of the aisle that are close to this, if not exactly like it.
To be quite honest with you, I still have hope that some people who post here (if they haven't already) serve the federal government. Our country would be a better place.
there are questions I do answer but, since they invariably deconstruct the question in a way that is unacceptable to the questioner, I am accused of "not answering the question."
Deconstruction: noun - A philosophical movement and theory of literary criticism that questions traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth; asserts that words can only refer to other words; and attempts to demonstrate how statements about any text subvert their own meanings: "In deconstruction, the critic claims there is no meaning to be found in the actual text, but only in the various, often mutually irreconcilable, 'virtual texts' constructed by readers in their search for meaning" (Rebecca Goldstein).
In other words, you attempt to prove that the questioner didn't really ask you a question, he simply strung some words together that had no actual meaning, therefore there was no question to answer.
Unfortunately, here in the real world we don't believe in bullshit and understand that questions really do have meanings, and there are such things as legitimate answers. Avoidance of such is called not "deconstruction" but dissimulation. Look it up.
You answer two questions directly and proceed directly to BDS without passing go to collect your $200 entitlement check.
The reason that those of us on the right demand straight answers is that we have learned (from the left I might add) that "he who controls the terms of the debate, controls the debate."
If I allow you to redefine my question, you are no longer answering my question. It is the shift of meaning to the meaningless that we object to. A = A. Any other approach makes for good theater of the absurd, but it does not move rational thought forward.
The problem with the left is "the nuance thing". Everything is nuance. Translation: Everything is spin. Translation of the translation: Deconstruction is the norm. Simple, straight answers are not available.
So, to your answers. If it is not in the Constitution, the follow-up is then: How is it a supportable function of the national government whose governing and founding document is the Constitution? If a chicken in every pot et.al. is your goal for the government, get the constitution ammended.
To the second answer I would say this: Christ as described in the Bible fit the description, but he was wholly disinterested in govenment service AND he's the only one.
Yes, the right puts its foot down and demands straight answers. Sean Hannity is very forceful in that regard. We do so because the left/liberals/progressives/whatever have been getting away with redfining "is" for far too long. (Yes, that was an example of Clinton Derangement Syndrome, you ought hear me go off on Carter! At least CDS has some basis in verifiable facts.)
Eric WS, ah, whew. Sometimes blogger doesn't show comments. I have had that problem in the past. Actually, I am glad when everything is not always about me. A lot less pressure.
Hey, c'mon, DJ - you too, Eric - you have to admit, since Markadelphia started commenting here the volume of comments has soared and the quality (one exception noted) has been excellent.
All true, Kevin, and duly noted, but my comment is accurate.
To quote Heinlein: "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."
So far, trying to "get Mark into the real world" has been a waste of time, like trying to teach a pig to sing, in that it hasn't yet worked, even slightly. But he gives no evidence that it has annoyed him.
"No comment on the "deconstruction" piece, eh? That WAS about you."
I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. What I meant was:
deconstruct (verb): to break down into constituent parts; dissect; dismantle.
So, it's not that I think that Unix's questions have no meaning nor do I think he or DJ is hiding anything (dissimulation). They are "leading the witness", if you will, and get teed off when I call them on it.
I take apart some of the questions and show them for what they are: framed and lacking perspective. To be clear, though, not all of their questions are like this. Some are quite thought provoking and have certainly altered my perceptions on some things.
Too bad the same can't be said for my questions to them, as they (and some others here) are firmly grounded in the rigid structure of a certain kind of ideology.
Yup, that would be me, Mr. "rigid structure of a certain kind of ideology."
"If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."
It is an entirely relativist idea that ideology is somehow void of thought or philisophical underpinnings if it holds to anything close to absolutes - and thus fixed (or rigid) thoughts which develop questions (which are immovable as well).
There are certain things which are inarguable due to the argument form, others due to solid evidence.
Experience is a tough teacher and most of the ideas of the left have been attempted and shown to be failures - repeatedly.
The current hot button of raising taxes ignors both the Laffer Curve and demonstrable success of LOWERING taxes. The wishful thinking of the left that raising taxes will raise revenue has not been shown true over any extended period.
Perspective? It is the left which has no sense of perspective. To see perspective, one must be at a fixed point as an observer. If the point of observation is not steady, the perspective will not be. I suggest that it is the non-rigid (and non-rigorous) question form which has no (and will not yield) perspective.
"So, it's not that I think that Unix's questions have no meaning nor do I think he or DJ is hiding anything (dissimulation). They are "leading the witness", if you will, and get teed off when I call them on it."
"Leading the witness" is allowed in court when the witness is a witness for the other side, or when the witness is hostile to being questioned (regardless of the form that hostility).
I take apart some of the questions and show them for what they are: framed and lacking perspective.
Luckily, Kevin's comments have permalinks. Would you mind showing me where you've ever "taken apart" these questions and showed them for what they "are"?
I'd appreciate it.
I've only seen you breezily wave off any and all discussion with a claim, that you would then fail to defend that the question is leading, thus, need not be addressed.
In the prior discussion, you said you "Know the right questions to ask" [of yourself], to "determine what any person really means, or thinks".
You never even claimed that DJ was making his questions to you "leading" - and they weren't, you just ignored them.
So, DJ and I ask you "leading" questions... But you can ask (yourself) the "right" questions to see inside Bush, Obama, Clinton's head - and those aren't in any way leading, nor wishful thinking? (Oh, sorry, that's probably leading, too.)
"Aestheticism manifests itself in one's fixating on the idea's expression, whether the fact of its being expressed, or the form in which it is expressed, while ignoring its content. The aesthete is typically concerned less with what is said than how it is said or why it is said. The aesthete is not concerned with whether the idea is true or false, nor is he concerned to inquire into its exact meaning. He 'knows' what is being said, and bypassing the question of its truth or falsity, attends to whether he finds it congenial, 'empowering,' offensive, 'creative,' 'original,' attractive, 'what people are saying,' and the like."
"The ordinary person has no patience with any of this, thinking that he knows quite well what he means by the words he bandies about, words like 'democracy,' and 'justice,' and 'religion.' That is why he needs philosophy which, in its Socratic essence, is an exposure of the ignorance hiding behind pretended knowledge."
And it all underscores the insistence we make here that words have meaning, and that if the meanings of words are subject to the whim of the moment, then communication using those words is an oxymoron.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2007/11/spock-has-beard.html (45 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
How about this for an alternate universe?
http://smallestminority.com/
Mirror Mirror just happens to be my favorite Star Trek episode.
Which reminds me that I have to keep praying that they'll make a sequel or two to "Serenity."
I hate, HATE, when lefty's call themselves "progressives"! Argh! I guess that makes us non-progressives, um, regressives?
Eeeeewwwww.
Markadelphia, how could you?
I can wash my hands, but now my computer is soiled... B-)
Now I've followed Kevin's link and I think I will have to re-format my system.
Truly a content free zone. Cartoons are not content IMAO.
BTW: Fred's beef with Fox was mild, but valid.
How about this for an alternate universe?
http://smallestminority.com/
Oh, GAWD! Not RonBots!
I KNEW I should have plopped down money for SmallestMinority.com. AND .org.
I hate, HATE, when lefty's call themselves "progressives"! Argh! I guess that makes us non-progressives, um, regressives?
No, no, Ben! The opposite of "pro" is "con," so the opposite of "Progress" is...?
If you're going to call a spade a spade... then they're socialists.
I like it :)
If you're going to call a spade a spade... then they're socialists.
Well... Yes. Isn't that what I said?
What I want to know is just what progress the progressives propose.
All they seem to be is luddite-lite and believers in a zero sum economic pie.
How is this progress?
To make progress on the "environment" is to halt (and perhpas reverse) all other progress. I like a nice front lawn and I like trees. I mow my lawn.. Why can't I selectively harvest trees. AND, if that oil stuff is soooo toxic, why aren't we pumping in out of the ground, storing it in safe steel tanks and carefully burning it off?
The only reason why they changed the name to progressive is because the right successfully redefined the word "liberal." Look at any poll and you will see that invariably two thirds of the responders have a negative view of the word liberal, which is too bad because if you look up the word in the dictionary, it is actually something to which we should all aspire.
The only reason why they changed the name to progressive is because the right successfully redefined the word "liberal."
Once again, Mark, I refer you to Milton Friedman, George Orwell, and Eric Hoffer. The term "liberal" was hijacked self-admittedly by the socialists, not the Right. That hijacking has been recognized for what it is, and the Right counts among those who see the truth.
You can keep repeating a falsehood here all you like, but I'll keep correcting you every time you do. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. He was most emphatically not a socialist.
Back in the 30's there was a group of real super-duper progressives who declared war on smoking, supported abortion, believed in eugenics and euthanasia, and supported gun control. They were for free health care and guaranteed jobs, and spent vast sums on public education. They confiscated inherited wealth and loathed the free market, and provided generous pensions for the elderly. They maintained a strict racial-quota system in their universities and had campus speech codes. They led the world in organic farming and alternative medicine too. They were a large minority that reveled in their large minority-ness, and promoted a new form of pagan spirituality and free-sex.
I don't think they would have had much appreciation for Archbishop Tutu the way these nuvo so-called "Progressives" seem to see themselves - which is through a crooked mirror - although they were definitely pretty big on the antecedental Hamas organizations ands drew inspiration from their "struggle"...
When the march of Progress is on, that's what real serious "progressives" do - they march...
Kevin, I was speaking in terms of the last 13 years or so... The Republican "Revolution" if you will, the mass media, current neo-political trends etc...THEY redefined the word liberal.
You may be correct about earlier hijackings but I also think that Jefferson, were he alive today, would look at the current conservative base and, more than likely, would have to be put on an IV from continual vomiting.
Dirt, I am going to make a prediction, based on today's events in Annapolis.
Hamas's days are numbered.
Kevin, I was speaking in terms of the last 13 years or so... The Republican "Revolution" if you will, the mass media, current neo-political trends etc...THEY redefined the word liberal.
Shall I quote Mr. Friedman again? Hell, why not?
As it developed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the intellectual movement that went under the name of liberalism emphasized freedom as the ultimate goal and the individual as the ultimate entity in the society. It supported laissez faire at home as a means of reducing the role of the state in economic affairs and thereby enlarging the role of the individual; it supported free trade abroad as a means of linking the nations of the world together peacefully and democratically. In political matters, it supported the development of representative government and of parliamentary institutions, reduction in the arbitrary power of the state, and protection of the civil freedoms of individuals.
Beginning in the late nineteenth century, and especially after 1930 in the United States, the term liberalism came to be associated with a very different emphasis, particularly in economic policy. It came to be associated with a readiness to rely primarily on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became welfare and equality rather than freedom. The nineteenth-century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most effective way to promote welfare and equality; the twentieth-century liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequisites of or alternatives to freedom. In the name of welfare and equality, the twentieth-century liberal has come to favor a revival of the very policies of state intervention and paternalism against which the classical liberal fought. In the very act of turning the clock back to seventeenth-century mercantilism, he is fond of castigating true liberals as reactionary!
The change in the meaning attached to the term liberalism is more striking in economic matters than in political. The twentieth-century liberal, like the nineteenth-century liberal, favors parliamentary institutions, representative government, civil rights, and so on. Yet even in political matters, there is a notable difference. Jealous of liberty, and hence fearful of centralized power, whether in governmental or private hands, the nineteenth-century liberal favored political decentralization. Committed to action and confident of the beneficence of power so long as it is in the hands of a government ostensibly controlled by the electorate, the twentieth-century liberal favors centralized government. He will resolve any doubt about where power should be located in favor of the state instead of the city, of the federal government instead of the state, and of a world organization instead of a national government.
Mark, if you call a spade a "hand-operated earth-moving device" it doesn't mean you have "redefined" it. The Left hijacked the word "liberal." The Right called them on it. That is all.
You may be correct about earlier hijackings but I also think that Jefferson, were he alive today, would look at the current conservative base and, more than likely, would have to be put on an IV from continual vomiting.
And what he would see of the rise of "Political Correctness," victim-group identity politics, the "New Deal" and the "Great Society" would put him into a coma.
BOTH sides are far from the independent social ideal of the majority of the Founders, not just the Right.
Speaking of redefining terms, I've got another book on my Christmas list: Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. In it, Mr. Goldberg explains what the word "Fascist" actually means, and gives both historical and current examples.
This too is known on the left as "redefining," when, in fact, it is merely clarifying.
Kevin, I was speaking in terms of the last 13 years or so...
That's part of the problem Mark - you speak as if history began with the Clinton administration. Hint: by the early 70s liberal was taking on a pejorative tint - much as conservative had from the time of FDR, until Goldwater rehabilitated it.
Kevin,
I'm a little ticked at you. While I haven't been able to scrape together any time to post, I have been thinking about what to say to Kevin. I was all set to point out that Mark probably thinks bearded Spock is the real Spock. But you beat me to it! Now my planned snark has lost much of its power.
At least it has been worth it for Mark to reveal just how thoroughly he belongs in the mirror universe.
Let's review, shall we?
Leftists claimed the term "liberal".
Over the years, "liberal" becomes equated with policies pushed by leftists via the Democratic party.
Leftists begin to distance themselves from the label of "liberals" because conservatives oppose leftist policies and equate the label with those policies.
In short, leftists chose to apply the label to themselves. And it's somehow conservatives who are at fault for allowing the leftists to apply that label to themselves?!? Just... wow...
Guys, after torturing myself to try and think like Mark enough to write that last paragraph, I gotta think that even though it may be easier for civilized men to act like barbarians, it's still doggone hard!
Markadelphia, you've finally managed to shred my last bit of respect for you. I have tried very hard to respect you at least on the level of a fellow human being. But your spew worthy conclusion that word choices made by leftists is somehow the fault of conservatives is so diametrically opposed to easily observed facts that I really do have to think that maybe you really are from bearded Spock's universe. You are so aggressively oblivious to even basic concepts such as reality, facts, truth, evidence and reason that if you claimed the sky was blue I wouldn't believe you without at least three signed affidavits from people I personally know to be trustworthy confirming the sky actually is blue.
You have repeatedly used every logical fallacy in the book. And when called on your fallacies, you simply repeated them with slightly different characters/claims in the exact same fallacious form.
When asked for evidence supporting your view, you responded with references to others who spouted the same views with no supporting facts, or worse, using demonstrably false claims of facts—otherwise known as lies—as supposed "evidence" supporting those views.
You have also repeatedly refused to answer direct challenges when the only reasonable, fact-based answers undermined your chosen dogma. Instead, you switched topics, or even outright ignored the same challenge repeated over and over again, ad nauseum.
I have zero respect for you Mark. That's right. Zilch. Nada, Zippo. The Big Nothing.
I refuse to debate you further. I suggest that others here choose to do the same. Rather, any response to Mark will consist only of those important challenges which have been ignored.
I'll start with two recent ones:
1) Mark, show us where the U.S. Constitution allows the Federal government to give away tax money for charity.
2) Mark, show us any one person in all of human history who was perfect and incorruptible. If we are to design a government which requires large numbers of such people to exist and go into government service where they will be given absolute power over our lives, then we must know that such people actually exist.
So much for proofreading.
(Fixed it for you, Ed.)
Edited By Siteowner
Thanks Kevin!
Ed, I guess I'm not sure if I should answer you if you don't want to debate me.
Direct answers to a direct question would be something you haven't done before. Why should I expect now to be any different?
It's not like my challenges were originally posted in the last 24 hours, or just once, or anything lame like that.
Dodging questions you don't like is your standard MO. To answer those challenges and prove that you are actually interesting in real debate, you would actually have to do something different.
How surprising that there doesn't appear to be a way to comment over there.
Noticed that, did you? It is typical.
"there doesn't appear to be a way to comment over there."
Where? On my blog? There sure as heck is...if I am understanding correctly.
Ed, I left a comment for Unix about dodging questions in the above post. I do admit I don't answer all of them but it is for the reasons listed there.
However, there are questions I do answer but, since they invariably deconstruct the question in a way that is unacceptable to the questioner, I am accused of "not answering the question." One thing I've learned with debating conservatives over the years is they excel at framing questions in such a way that there is only one possible answer.
Let's use the above two questions as an example.
1. It doesn't.
2. Such a person doesn't exist and has never existed, although I believe that Christ came the closest.
So, now that I have answered these questions in a direct way--in the way you wanted me to answer them--I have basically lost the debate, which is the goal of questions like this.
There are so many other variables that play into the realm of these questions that it's really difficult for me to see things in such a plain fashion. I wonder if the "charity" you speak of includes the no bid contracts in Iraq? Or any of the corporate contracts with the government in which money is mishandled?
It's true no one is perfect but I want a leader who will be reflective and learn from their mistakes, which they will most definetly make. I want a leader who will take responsibility for his or her actions and admit fault. We don't have that now. I think we can have that in the future and there are candidates on both sides of the aisle that are close to this, if not exactly like it.
To be quite honest with you, I still have hope that some people who post here (if they haven't already) serve the federal government. Our country would be a better place.
Mark,
They were referring to the "Largest Minority".
It is not always about you.
there are questions I do answer but, since they invariably deconstruct the question in a way that is unacceptable to the questioner, I am accused of "not answering the question."
Deconstruction: noun - A philosophical movement and theory of literary criticism that questions traditional assumptions about certainty, identity, and truth; asserts that words can only refer to other words; and attempts to demonstrate how statements about any text subvert their own meanings: "In deconstruction, the critic claims there is no meaning to be found in the actual text, but only in the various, often mutually irreconcilable, 'virtual texts' constructed by readers in their search for meaning" (Rebecca Goldstein).
In other words, you attempt to prove that the questioner didn't really ask you a question, he simply strung some words together that had no actual meaning, therefore there was no question to answer.
Unfortunately, here in the real world we don't believe in bullshit and understand that questions really do have meanings, and there are such things as legitimate answers. Avoidance of such is called not "deconstruction" but dissimulation. Look it up.
Frankly, we're tired of it.
Mark,
You answer two questions directly and proceed directly to BDS without passing go to collect your $200 entitlement check.
The reason that those of us on the right demand straight answers is that we have learned (from the left I might add) that "he who controls the terms of the debate, controls the debate."
If I allow you to redefine my question, you are no longer answering my question. It is the shift of meaning to the meaningless that we object to. A = A. Any other approach makes for good theater of the absurd, but it does not move rational thought forward.
The problem with the left is "the nuance thing". Everything is nuance. Translation: Everything is spin. Translation of the translation: Deconstruction is the norm. Simple, straight answers are not available.
So, to your answers. If it is not in the Constitution, the follow-up is then: How is it a supportable function of the national government whose governing and founding document is the Constitution? If a chicken in every pot et.al. is your goal for the government, get the constitution ammended.
To the second answer I would say this: Christ as described in the Bible fit the description, but he was wholly disinterested in govenment service AND he's the only one.
Yes, the right puts its foot down and demands straight answers. Sean Hannity is very forceful in that regard. We do so because the left/liberals/progressives/whatever have been getting away with redfining "is" for far too long. (Yes, that was an example of Clinton Derangement Syndrome, you ought hear me go off on Carter! At least CDS has some basis in verifiable facts.)
Eric WS, ah, whew. Sometimes blogger doesn't show comments. I have had that problem in the past. Actually, I am glad when everything is not always about me. A lot less pressure.
No comment on the "deconstruction" piece, eh? That WAS about you.
Remember, Kevin, Mark only replies to the comments he has "time" for.
Unix-Jedi is trying to get him to ponder DJ's comments on another thread without much success.
I am amazed at the amount on energy you guys pour into trying to get Mark into the real world.
"I am amazed at the amount on energy you guys pour into trying to get Mark into the real world."
I am amazed, too. It's like teaching a pig to sing, except that it doesn't annoy Mark.
Hey, c'mon, DJ - you too, Eric - you have to admit, since Markadelphia started commenting here the volume of comments has soared and the quality (one exception noted) has been excellent.
I'm not chasing him off!
All true, Kevin, and duly noted, but my comment is accurate.
To quote Heinlein: "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."
So far, trying to "get Mark into the real world" has been a waste of time, like trying to teach a pig to sing, in that it hasn't yet worked, even slightly. But he gives no evidence that it has annoyed him.
"No comment on the "deconstruction" piece, eh? That WAS about you."
I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. What I meant was:
deconstruct (verb): to break down into constituent parts; dissect; dismantle.
So, it's not that I think that Unix's questions have no meaning nor do I think he or DJ is hiding anything (dissimulation). They are "leading the witness", if you will, and get teed off when I call them on it.
I take apart some of the questions and show them for what they are: framed and lacking perspective. To be clear, though, not all of their questions are like this. Some are quite thought provoking and have certainly altered my perceptions on some things.
Too bad the same can't be said for my questions to them, as they (and some others here) are firmly grounded in the rigid structure of a certain kind of ideology.
Yup, that would be me, Mr. "rigid structure of a certain kind of ideology."
"If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."
It is an entirely relativist idea that ideology is somehow void of thought or philisophical underpinnings if it holds to anything close to absolutes - and thus fixed (or rigid) thoughts which develop questions (which are immovable as well).
There are certain things which are inarguable due to the argument form, others due to solid evidence.
Experience is a tough teacher and most of the ideas of the left have been attempted and shown to be failures - repeatedly.
The current hot button of raising taxes ignors both the Laffer Curve and demonstrable success of LOWERING taxes. The wishful thinking of the left that raising taxes will raise revenue has not been shown true over any extended period.
Perspective? It is the left which has no sense of perspective. To see perspective, one must be at a fixed point as an observer. If the point of observation is not steady, the perspective will not be. I suggest that it is the non-rigid (and non-rigorous) question form which has no (and will not yield) perspective.
"So, it's not that I think that Unix's questions have no meaning nor do I think he or DJ is hiding anything (dissimulation). They are "leading the witness", if you will, and get teed off when I call them on it."
"Leading the witness" is allowed in court when the witness is a witness for the other side, or when the witness is hostile to being questioned (regardless of the form that hostility).
You are a hostile witness, Mark.
But DJ, it is mean of you to not allow Mark to frame the argument to his liking.
Just like physics, human nature, and time are mean for not letting Mark frame reality to his vision.
All true, Eric. But I do wish that Mark would refrain from lecturing us on how to ask questions until he learns how to answer them.
"All true, Eric. But I do wish that Mark would refrain from lecturing us on how to ask questions until he learns how to answer them."
SNORK!! Now THAT's funny!
..and pointed.
They are "leading the witness", if you will, and get teed off when I call them on it.
WTFF?
I mean, WTFF?
I take apart some of the questions and show them for what they are: framed and lacking perspective.
Luckily, Kevin's comments have permalinks. Would you mind showing me where you've ever "taken apart" these questions and showed them for what they "are"?
I'd appreciate it.
I've only seen you breezily wave off any and all discussion with a claim, that you would then fail to defend that the question is leading, thus, need not be addressed.
In the prior discussion, you said you "Know the right questions to ask" [of yourself], to "determine what any person really means, or thinks".
You never even claimed that DJ was making his questions to you "leading" - and they weren't, you just ignored them.
So, DJ and I ask you "leading" questions... But you can ask (yourself) the "right" questions to see inside Bush, Obama, Clinton's head - and those aren't in any way leading, nor wishful thinking? (Oh, sorry, that's probably leading, too.)
The first part of this seems rather apropos "Three Ways of Responding to an Idea"
"Aestheticism manifests itself in one's fixating on the idea's expression, whether the fact of its being expressed, or the form in which it is expressed, while ignoring its content. The aesthete is typically concerned less with what is said than how it is said or why it is said. The aesthete is not concerned with whether the idea is true or false, nor is he concerned to inquire into its exact meaning. He 'knows' what is being said, and bypassing the question of its truth or falsity, attends to whether he finds it congenial, 'empowering,' offensive, 'creative,' 'original,' attractive, 'what people are saying,' and the like."
Russell:
Very, very fine link. Thanky.
Yes, that was an excellent link!
The last part is rather apropos, too:
"The ordinary person has no patience with any of this, thinking that he knows quite well what he means by the words he bandies about, words like 'democracy,' and 'justice,' and 'religion.' That is why he needs philosophy which, in its Socratic essence, is an exposure of the ignorance hiding behind pretended knowledge."
And it all underscores the insistence we make here that words have meaning, and that if the meanings of words are subject to the whim of the moment, then communication using those words is an oxymoron.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>