Will Trump and the Birthers now shut up?

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

You have chosen not to respond, but to impute to me suggestions that I did not make. You may now rest assured that you will have no further opportunities to feel insulted by my responses.

Regards,

D

Ray,

I have responded... If I upset you, I apologize because it was not my intention. All political discussions are emotional.

There are many ways Biden could have said what he did. Making a "terrorist" analogy, was the least accurate, most hateful, and most divisive way he could have stated his position. There are many, including Congressman Welsh, that were (and are) perturbed at Biden for this. It would have been so easy for Biden: "The Tea Party's arguments are ridged", or "The Tea Party is not willing to compromise", there are so many things he could have said other than calling this group of citizens "terrorists". Quite frankly, that is precisely what he did.

Biden, however, is not alone at in this. There are a good many elected officials, Democrats all, who have termed the Tea Party to be terrorists. One Congresswoman even publicly stated that the Tea Party was like Hamas and is terrorizing the American people. That too is an analogy; that too is calling these Americans: terrorists.

What I would like is a nice political debate. A debate in which various arguments are presented freely and fairly. I may not agree with you, I may even say that you (or others) are wrong and why I think they are, but I not source after source, and then dispute the relevance or reliability of the sources. Some sources are more reliable than others... Yet, none should be actively discounted. All responses in a political forum are designed to create an emotional response. They are, in a great many ways, a means of swaying support. That is the nature of political debate.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Krazygrrl

Ray,

I have responded... If I upset you, I apologize because it was not my intention. All political discussions are emotional.

There are many ways Biden could have said what he did. Making a "terrorist" analogy, was the least accurate, most hateful, and most divisive way he could have stated his position. There are many, including Congressman Welsh, that were (and are) perturbed at Biden for this. It would have been so easy for Biden: "The Tea Party's arguments are ridged", or "The Tea Party is not willing to compromise", there are so many things he could have said other than calling this group of citizens "terrorists". Quite frankly, that is precisely what he did.

Biden, however, is not alone at in this. There are a good many elected officials, Democrats all, who have termed the Tea Party to be terrorists. One Congresswoman even publicly stated that the Tea Party was like Hamas and is terrorizing the American people. That too is an analogy; that too is calling these Americans: terrorists.

What I would like is a nice political debate. A debate in which various arguments are presented freely and fairly. I may not agree with you, I may even say that you (or others) are wrong and why I think they are, but I not source after source, and then dispute the relevance or reliability of the sources. Some sources are more reliable than others... Yet, none should be actively discounted. All responses in a political forum are designed to create an emotional response. They are, in a great many ways, a means of swaying support. That is the nature of political debate.

Thank you for a reasonable post. I suppose that I have been less than clear. Biden was really the least of my concerns. I pointed out the misrepresentation of his statement as an example of hyperbole. No question Joe Biden says plenty of off-the-wall stuff, but to suggest that he actually called participants in the tea party movement terrorists is to take the statement completely out of context. Again that is the not the point.

I seriously disagree that political forums – and in particular, this forum, are designed to create emotional exchanges. Highly emotional responses are often an unfortunate by-product of discussions about deeply held political beliefs, but they are not the purpose of such discussions. In my view, posts in a political discussion should consist of reasoned positions based on at least somewhat verifiable facts. It is not reasonable to throw out rants known to be contrary to what others believe and expect others to take what is said as a matter of blind faith. That only invites a shouting match but no real exchange of ideas. All of us are guilty from time to time of throwing out our own political truisms without even considering the need to support them. Any of us who do can expect to be called on our suppositions.

Many of us are also prone to use whatever rhetorical tools we have in our quiver. We can also expect to be called on the propensity of using some such tools to mislead. Many of us here enjoy debating. Argument is part of debating. When I use the term argument, I mean application of reason and principles to facts, I don’t mean a backyard brawl. This might be trying to make too fine a distinction, but nevertheless, I see a difference between making an argument despite knowing that it might make someone angry, and making an argument designed to make someone angry.

Those are the standards to which I aspire. God knows that I frequently fail to meet them. I’m gonna end up pissing people off sometimes – I am one of those damn lawyers. But upsetting people is not my purpose for being here, and IMHO, that’s not the reason PC is here. I stand by my position that posting material designed only to provoke a negative response is trolling. I make this point prospectively only, and without the expectation that anyone needs to justify any conduct. PC is also clearly not designed to require everyone to justify himself/herself to others, and absolutely not to require anyone to justify himself/herself to D-Ray.

Regards,

D-Ray

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Thank you for a reasonable post. I suppose that I have been less than clear. Biden was really the least of my concerns. I pointed out the misrepresentation of his statement as an example of hyperbole. No question Joe Biden says plenty of off-the-wall stuff, but to suggest that he actually called participants in the tea party movement terrorists is to take the statement completely out of context. Again that is the not the point.

I seriously disagree that political forums – and in particular, this forum, are designed to create emotional exchanges. Highly emotional responses are often an unfortunate by-product of discussions about deeply held political beliefs, but they are not the purpose of such discussions. In my view, posts in a political discussion should consist of reasoned positions based on at least somewhat verifiable facts. It is not reasonable to throw out rants known to be contrary to what others believe and expect others to take what is said as a matter of blind faith. That only invites a shouting match but no real exchange of ideas. All of us are guilty from time to time of throwing out our own political truisms without even considering the need to support them. Any of us who do can expect to be called on our suppositions.

Many of us are also prone to use whatever rhetorical tools we have in our quiver. We can also expect to be called on the propensity of using some such tools to mislead. Many of us here enjoy debating. Argument is part of debating. When I use the term argument, I mean application of reason and principles to facts, I don’t mean a backyard brawl. This might be trying to make too fine a distinction, but nevertheless, I see a difference between making an argument despite knowing that it might make someone angry, and making an argument designed to make someone angry.

Those are the standards to which I aspire. God knows that I frequently fail to meet them. I’m gonna end up pissing people off sometimes – I am one of those damn lawyers. But upsetting people is not my purpose for being here, and IMHO, that’s not the reason PC is here. I stand by my position that posting material designed only to provoke a negative response is trolling. I make this point prospectively only, and without the expectation that anyone needs to justify any conduct. PC is also clearly not designed to require everyone to justify himself/herself to others, and absolutely not to require anyone to justify himself/herself to D-Ray.

Regards,

D-Ray

That was perfect and follows my sentiments exactly. Emotion must be kept out of rational reasoned debate. In fact, that's why mathematics is, well, mathematics. The absence of emotion and precise language is why mathematics is so beautiful and powerful. Obviously, in political debate one can't have that sort of unambiguousness and precision of thought, but alas, we can always try to do better.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by bhunter

That was perfect and follows my sentiments exactly. Emotion must be kept out of rational reasoned debate. In fact, that's why mathematics is, well, mathematics. The absence of emotion and precise language is why mathematics is so beautiful and powerful. Obviously, in political debate one can't have that sort of unambiguousness and precision of thought, but alas, we can always try to do better.

That's music to the ears of an engineer.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by bhunter

That was perfect and follows my sentiments exactly. Emotion must be kept out of rational reasoned debate. In fact, that's why mathematics is, well, mathematics. The absence of emotion and precise language is why mathematics is so beautiful and powerful. Obviously, in political debate one can't have that sort of unambiguousness and precision of thought, but alas, we can always try to do better.

We touchy feely philosopher types can try to gain entry into the club by pointing out that Plato was a mathematician.

When I am seriously listening to something - lecture, speech, music - I am a prolific doodler. I gravitate toward equilateral triangles in my doodles. I don't know if that something to tell a mathematician or a shrink. I do find them to be near perfect - or at least a versatile shape.

Back on topic, doesn't an unhealthy combination of political argument and emotion lead to demagoguery?

Regards,

D-Ray

PS: WTF, BH - it frightens me when we agree on something.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by bhunter

That was perfect and follows my sentiments exactly. Emotion must be kept out of rational reasoned debate. In fact, that's why mathematics is, well, mathematics. The absence of emotion and precise language is why mathematics is so beautiful and powerful. Obviously, in political debate one can't have that sort of unambiguousness and precision of thought, but alas, we can always try to do better.

Mathematics.

The one endeavor with which the Socratic Method produces an unassailable conclusion.

IMHO,

Charles

[Krazygrrl]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Thank you for a reasonable post. I suppose that I have been less than clear. Biden was really the least of my concerns. I pointed out the misrepresentation of his statement as an example of hyperbole. No question Joe Biden says plenty of off-the-wall stuff, but to suggest that he actually called participants in the tea party movement terrorists is to take the statement completely out of context. Again that is the not the point.

I seriously disagree that political forums – and in particular, this forum, are designed to create emotional exchanges. Highly emotional responses are often an unfortunate by-product of discussions about deeply held political beliefs, but they are not the purpose of such discussions. In my view, posts in a political discussion should consist of reasoned positions based on at least somewhat verifiable facts. It is not reasonable to throw out rants known to be contrary to what others believe and expect others to take what is said as a matter of blind faith. That only invites a shouting match but no real exchange of ideas. All of us are guilty from time to time of throwing out our own political truisms without even considering the need to support them. Any of us who do can expect to be called on our suppositions.

Many of us are also prone to use whatever rhetorical tools we have in our quiver. We can also expect to be called on the propensity of using some such tools to mislead. Many of us here enjoy debating. Argument is part of debating. When I use the term argument, I mean application of reason and principles to facts, I don’t mean a backyard brawl. This might be trying to make too fine a distinction, but nevertheless, I see a difference between making an argument despite knowing that it might make someone angry, and making an argument designed to make someone angry.

Those are the standards to which I aspire. God knows that I frequently fail to meet them. I’m gonna end up pissing people off sometimes – I am one of those damn lawyers. But upsetting people is not my purpose for being here, and IMHO, that’s not the reason PC is here. I stand by my position that posting material designed only to provoke a negative response is trolling. I make this point prospectively only, and without the expectation that anyone needs to justify any conduct. PC is also clearly not designed to require everyone to justify himself/herself to others, and absolutely not to require anyone to justify himself/herself to D-Ray.

Regards,

D-Ray

Ray,
I am glad that we have worked things out. It does please me, as a civil debate is preferable.

About Biden: You're right, he does say all kinds of crazy things. He is, however, the Vice President of the United States. Yes, what he says is not supportable - especially for one in his position. He was talking about "mass rapes in the street" the other day if the Jobs-bill doesn't pass. Well, it failed in the Senate as a large bipartisan group voted against it. This kind of talk is simply not presidential and the American people should not tolerate it coming from a Vice President.

The terrorist analogy: It was an analogy, but it was not out of context. In today's world, it is also extremely hateful and divisive, not to mention polarizing. Just because Biden says stupid things, does not mean that he should get a free pass. Personally, I firmly believe that if Biden were a Republican and he made a "terrorist" analogy about a Democrat group, that the press and the DNC in general would have been calling for his immediate resignation. The bottom line is, that it was totally uncalled for. To paraphrase Barrack Obama: He acted stupidly.

Emotional responses: Well, there has to be logic... but without passion in politics, what do you have?

Choice of words: My choice of words with Fast Eddie was unfortunate. What I should have said, is that I was attacking Obama as I believed it was his vulnerability as retaliation to the personal attacks he launched on me. It was designed to ruffle his feathers in the most effective way. In using your reasoning, he too was guilty of trolling in launching his series of attacks....Water under the bridge

[finnbow]

Yep, KG. Biden should have said that the Tea Party were acting like extortionists - a much better and more accurate choice of words, IMHO.

[Fast_Eddie]

Biden probably did say they were acting like terrorists. I said the same thing.

When we were facing the debt ceiling "crisis", a crisis that only existed because they wouldn't take the procedural vote they needed to take, they did indeed act as if the consequences of their actions didn't matter. Budgets are passed by Congress. Congress is elected by people. Congress allready voted on everything in the budget. If they want to kill programs, put them to a vote and kill them. But don't use a procedural vote to kill programs that you know you could never kill in a straight vote. It's just like the default to filabuster deal in the Senate. That's not how it's supposed to be. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the "liberal media" report that such and such "failed to get the 60 votes needed to pass in the Senate". Like that's just how it is.

What's weird about the whole thing is that there weren't more consequnces to what they *did* do. It's bad enough that our credit rating was lowered due to their inability to compromise at all. But what they threatened to do was horrific. They threatened to destroy the economy if they didn't get what they wanted. Put another way, they threatened to bring devistation to innocent people if their demands weren't met. I mean, that may be putting it in the strongest possible terms, but I don't know how anyone could argue that's not what happened.

Is it hyperboly to phrase it that way? Maybe, but not to a huge degree. It's no worse than calling anyone who questioned the war in Iraq "un-American". Yeah, neither is the right thing to do. But I don't know how you can be outraged by the "terrorist" comments without being outraged by a whole lot of other stuff. It may be over doing it a little, but it is based in actual fact.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Is it hyperboly to phrase it that way? Maybe, but not to a huge degree. It's no worse than calling anyone who questioned the war in Iraq "un-American". Yeah, neither is the right thing to do. But I don't know how you can be outraged by the "terrorist" comments without being outraged by a whole lot of other stuff. It may be over doing it a little, but it is based in actual fact.

It's just that "terrorist" is a loaded word (at least since 9/11), like Nazi or Hitler. It lets the accused (who could have more appropriately been labelled extortionists IMHO) change the subject when their behavior is the issue. Biden should have been smart enough to know that.