Displaying 151 To 180 Of 1,300 Comments Nature of debate, Goodbye Christopher Hitchens Again, have you listened to the offered video defining debate? One of his points is that debate sharpens one’s argument. It causes one to set aside flawed or weak debating points. And we are in a Socratic debate right now. You are attempting to define debate as an impolite activity. I reject that assertion. » Posted By KevenSeven On September 16, 2010 @ 9:00 am Sorry, I mis-read you there. Got into a double negative thing there. We have had some nice chats over at huff, where I am justplainfedup. We’ve had a few laughs together. » Posted By KevenSeven On September 16, 2010 @ 12:06 am Well, I think I would say that “pompus gasbag” is an ad hominen attack and is poor practice in debate. It is a logical fallacy. You really don’t win any points by bagging on him. As an example, George Galloway called Hitchens a “drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay”, to which Hitchens quickly replied, “Only some of which is true”. Hitchens just thrives on it. You know I worship you. You and BSM really must come by someday and have a glass of wine. Perhaps we can get Adlib and his wife to join us. Actually, I’m astonished by how many of the Huff/Planeteers are so adjacent to me. Would I be able to improve your opinion of Hitch if I gave you links to him belittling Reagan or Palin? » Posted By KevenSeven On September 16, 2010 @ 12:01 am Well, I think Adlib addresses the emotionality of opinion in his rather annoyingly competent comment above. Sure, mindless emotionality underlies many opinions that get spouted everyday. I think that was my original point. I don’t see why I should be expected to accord any great consideration for an opinion formed on nothing but piss and vinegar. Show me the path of logic and reason, and the facts that lead one to an opinion, then I am interested. Basically, I am saying: don’t just spout off, prove it. I don’t think Hitchens “harbors distasteful objections” to religion. I think he has a reasoned distrust of religion. Or perhaps you don’t “respect his opinions”? The video is him talking about how he was trained to debate at Oxford. You won’t get cooties by watching it. » Posted By KevenSeven On September 15, 2010 @ 6:00 pm Well, that will require some thought. » Posted By KevenSeven On September 15, 2010 @ 5:54 pm If you want to say that an obnoxiously presented opinion was ineffective due to the rudeness of its presentation, then I could go along with that. The rudeness does not invalidate the truth or falsity of the opinion, 2+2=4 even if someone says fuck you in the middle of it. It still equals four. » Posted By KevenSeven On September 15, 2010 @ 5:01 pm I’m not sure that anyone said that opinions don’t matter. And it was Socrates that said that the mark of an educated man was his understanding of the depths of his own ignorance. Won’t get a bagger to understand that one. » Posted By KevenSeven On September 15, 2010 @ 4:56 pm Hichens also insists that the best blended scotch is Johnny Walker Black, and I don’t know how any controversy could be laid at that assertion. » Posted By KevenSeven On September 15, 2010 @ 4:53 pm We know each other? Or you know who I am? I think we have traded e-mails at some point. I prefer “Opinions are like hemorrhoids, sooner or later every asshole gets one”. And thank you for engaging at an adult level. Yes, it is absurd that people think they are entitled to respect for their opinions. The courtesy on not being attacked? OK. But if someone is going to insist to me that something that is important to me is the opposite of my vies, I claim the right to back up my opinion with facts, logic and reason. » Posted By KevenSeven On September 15, 2010 @ 4:51 pm The tone is what matters, but the content is meaningless? Could that actually be your view of the matter? » Posted By KevenSeven On September 15, 2010 @ 9:01 am Go ahead and give the clip a listen, at 25 minutes in. You won’t get cooties. He is explaining how the concept of debate differs in the US vs how he was trained in at Oxford. » Posted By KevenSeven On September 15, 2010 @ 9:00 am Well, first, I was expressing an attitude, not an opinion, I think. And most of what you wrote was an attitude, not an opinion. And you reference your methods of coping with your day, which is valid and all. I mean to speak of “opinion” as one’s beliefs in the matters of import in the business of our culture: the extent that govt should regulate, the strategy that the Democratic party should adopt to retain power, the role of religion in a modern society, these are matters worthy of debate an in which I find debate of interest. You like cats, a lot. I like cats. Some people despise cats. I don’t see any point in debating any of that. Those are not opinions, those are preferences. As for Hitchens: the clip that I offered is him talking about how he was trained to think and debate, he is not discussing his anti-theism. And he does not say that you are delusional. He just wants everybody of faith to keep their religiosity out of his face, especially he does not like to see attempts to teach creationism in US schools. Yes, yes. You personally are not trying to force creationism on American children. So, see? You agree with Hichens. It did not hurt that much, did it? » Posted By KevenSeven On September 15, 2010 @ 8:52 am Well, I am an anti-theist. Can’t speak for the rest of the gang. But my regard for Hitchens has not been widely embraced, I must say. Which is OK. » Posted By KevenSeven On September 14, 2010 @ 11:02 pm A year, huh? A lot of shit passes over the dam and under the bridge in a year. » Posted By KevenSeven On September 14, 2010 @ 10:58 pm Why Republicans Will Lose By Winning Like Hitchens says: perhaps there should be a font specifically for irony. Some people are just immune to it. » Posted By KevenSeven On September 7, 2010 @ 9:54 pm Remember the good old days of fishing for the gullible liberal at Huff? You burned me once, so bad! There is a thread over there about Axelrod blaming the Rethugs for destroying the economy. The Goons are shouting how it is Obama’s fault. I wrote: “Bush? Bush who? America has never had a president named Bush….. I really think you liberals are pretty confused. I hope you don’t mind my saying so.” And people were falling for it! But the primaries were much more fun, I must admit. Bad, bad caucuses! It is just not fair! » Posted By KevenSeven On September 7, 2010 @ 8:57 pm There is an enormous range of variability in parliamentary systems. Britain has a system that I don’t really understand, but I do know that the Liberal Dems get a lot less seats than they do votes. Britain would be a 2 and a quarter party system. At the extreme end of thaq is the Israeli kenneset, where if you have 120th of the vote, you have a seat. If Israel had had a three party system (representation requires attaining some minimum. 15 or 20%) a two state solution would have been achieved decades ago. I think Germany and Sweden and Holland have things structured such that typically three parties are represented, or possibly four. But not lots more than that. Italy is famous for having governments change every year, not not as much of late. So, no, I am pretty sure there are several stable parliaments going today. » Posted By KevenSeven On September 3, 2010 @ 9:32 pm Oh, your analysis could be expanded by considering the impact of TV and cable, especially the nonsense of 24/7 news. Along with compare/contrast the structure of govt and elections cycles. Like Federal-separation of powers vs parliamentary. Some parliamentary systems are relatively stable and slow to swap parties, Britain and Germany jump to mind. Others are whacky quick to change governments. Italy is the classic example. All that could be drawn out much further to expand your points. » Posted By KevenSeven On September 2, 2010 @ 11:03 pm As I wrote, I largely, almost perfectly agree with you. If I were to tackle a rebuttal, it would need be only an intellectual exercise. However, I think your syllogisms are open to critique. If someone really wanted to go after the whole cause/effect element of your analysis, I am sure that a reasoned rebuttal could be spun. So, again, you did not “show”, something. You argued a point, and well. But obviously I would not agree that your argument is utterly conclusive and of a magnitude of certainty such as E=MC squared. » Posted By KevenSeven On September 2, 2010 @ 9:06 am Well, I see that as well. But I was commenting on tone, and my ears heard what my ears heard. I perfectly agree with your analysis. And could go on to discuss how the structure of our government and our electoral schedule and how it might not be natural in a parliamentary system that had three effective parties. If you need someone to sing chorus about the goddamn Puritans, you know I know the tune. » Posted By KevenSeven On September 2, 2010 @ 2:09 am Quark. Adlib’s rather trenchant column does not “show” anything. It argues a point. A point that could readily be challenged. Not that I don’t agree with it. But it is not “evidence” in any scientific manner, and thus “shows” nothing. Rather it lines up generally accepted observations about the nature of American politics and draws a not terribly controversial conclusion. Nicely written, but not proof of anything. Just saying. » Posted By KevenSeven On September 2, 2010 @ 2:02 am OK, “Menu of Democracy” should not have a capital “D”. This may seem pedantic or trivial, but it is not. It is a serious point. And while I grooved on most of this, it sure as hell sounds like what the Reactionaries like to tag us with: sense of superiority over the ignorant unwashed. Not that I cannot sing chorus on that, but how persuasive would this be without that tone? Just thinking back to my old tone….which has not gone away…. » Posted By KevenSeven On September 1, 2010 @ 9:23 pm Vox Populi – Tonight at 7:00 pm PST! Well, it would identify me, for one. Another member who very recently launched a thread knows him quite well. She is a member of my organization. You will recall your reaction to hints of people’s identity, no matter how remote, yes? People are just going to need to accept that I am doing what I am doing, although I might be ready to come out as my own bad self at some point. » Posted By KevenSeven On August 20, 2010 @ 7:21 pm Hi. Bloody election season is upon us, and my candidate wants me to deliver on such a shoestring. What else is new? At least I know he is the real deal. » Posted By KevenSeven On August 20, 2010 @ 7:03 pm A Common Sense Case for Prop 19 Well, if you put it like that….. Seriously. I’m touched. And keep your fucking cats to your own damned self. My fucking cats? They drive me nuts. I have a mouser, and she insists on killing a fruit rat the day after the city takes out the trash. Like goddamned clockwork. Which means that I always have a rotting rat or two in the trash can waiting for the city to come along. Just this morning I walked into the kitchen to find all the less attractive bits of a fruit rat scattered about the fucking floor. Fucking goddamned cats. Blood everywhere. And they are not the least affectionate, either, Yes, my dear. I have rattling in my empty skull a few columns to write. But election day is upon us, and we are all fuckwits if we are not working to turn out voters. So for the next few months I will be dropping in the odd comment, and I might write a short column or two, but it will be some time before I have the time and energy to tell you again about how it is that you have everything all wrong. See you then. » Posted By KevenSeven On August 21, 2010 @ 11:56 pm Let me just say this about that. (My favorite Nixonism) Prop 19 is no gift to CA politicians. Jesus. What pol wants to say how they would vote on this? Who wants to set a precedent of revealing their intentions in the voting booth? I know more than a few of them who really cringe at the idea of being asked about this. » Posted By KevenSeven On August 18, 2010 @ 9:39 pm BushCo got stuff done. Most of it despicable. But they got stuff done. One can get stuff done that decent people would not recoil at. There can be no denying that Obama has not achieved as much as he might have up to this point. That is his point. And he has a point. » Posted By KevenSeven On January 25, 2010 @ 7:40 pm Duke. Not duck. And only when you glare at me. » Posted By KevenSeven On January 25, 2010 @ 7:36 pm Thank you. You are very kind. » Posted By KevenSeven On January 25, 2010 @ 7:34 pm You should have been there! Ask L about it. It was hilarious. There was all this talk of Obama having too many experienced people, with the wrong experience. Like all the Clintonistas who chose Obama over Hillary? No. Like the CRIMINALS from Chicago! The Chair of our endorsement committee is an Obvious Clintonista verging on a PUMA, from what I heard her say. » Posted By KevenSeven On January 25, 2010 @ 7:33 pmComments Posted By KevenSeven
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats