Partisan Politics Good For America?

[Nodack]

Conservative implies to me slow to change.
Progressive to me implies eagerness for change.

Ying and yang. Don't want to rush into something without studying it to death first, but you can spin your wheels and never get anything done that way too.

As far as climate change goes, we all believe different things, but I don't believe anybody really knows for sure just how much we effect the climate. I personally think that we do effect the climate with our actions. I think the smart thing to do is to proceed with caution. Blocking out the sun in Hong Kong with smog and having to wear masks to breath should be a warning. China has gotten that warning and is leading the world in solar, wind and hydro research and production. They have recently made agreements to tackle those problems.

I get the Republican stance. They are pro big business and anti regulations. If it were left to them there would be zero regulations on anything and our big cities would look just like Hong Kong choked with smog. Our waters would be all polluted. The Great Lakes would go back to being a fire hazard because of all the toxins with no life left alive in the water. Cancer rates would skyrocket and because they have instilled their tort reforms it would be impossible to sue any corporations for killing our people. They aren't going to admit that they are wrong ever. Admiting that we might be causing global warming or that smog and toxic water are bad for us would be admiting that we should do something about it and doing something about it cuts into profits. Profits over people, that goes without saying.

[Indy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... id=rssfeed

Article summarizing recent movements away from climate change denial by major conservative groups.

Will conservatives themselves be able to admit that they were wrong on this issue - aggressively, confidently, and meanly so - for decades? My guess is they will conveniently forget. I want to hear, "We were wrong."

Why do you care if they admit they were wrong? That doesn't do anything. I don't hear Dems saying they were wrong for decades about slavery. It doesn't matter how we get to a consensus that yes, we are affecting the environment in a bad way, or yes, the earth is older than 5,000 years. It just matters that we get there.

[Mori Chu]

^ That. There's no point in denying climate change. It's like denying gravity. You can deny something all you want and it can still be true.

[OE32]

I want them to say they were wrong because we've spent so much time arguing about it as a country. I want it to be known as common fact that the Republicans were wrong, that they are the kind of people who make stupid arguments til they're blue in the face, so that people will be skeptical of them on other issues. Simply, there should be political costs for being so, so wrong.

As far as slavery goes and the democratic party goes, uh... what? I don't feel like giving a lesson in 20th century political history. Wow.

[Indy]

So your argument is that we have wasted time as a country, so let's waste more of it. But only waste more if it goes back a couple decades, not several. Got it.

[OE32]

You're being ridiculous. I'm not asking for much. A simple acknowledgment by that side of the aisle and their supporters. You compare it to the Democratic party apologizing for slavery. That was 150 years ago. I'm talking about freaking yesterday! The same people who have been destroying wealth (and lives!!) by preventing prudent policy are here, now, and they should be held accountable in the court of public opinion. Why is that controversial?!

I feel like I'm bearing down on one of my friends. Most of my friends are regular people, but they generally know to ask my opinion rather than argue with me when it comes to these issues. I'm one of the most reasonable people you'll meet, but I'm endlessly frustrated by the low caliber of public debate. You're right - I am condescending and bitter. And the other side is what? Wrong. Dangerously, destructively, inexcusably (and I suspect intentionally) wrong. Can we please get them out of power now???

[Indy]

The same people who have been destroying wealth (and lives!!) by preventing prudent policy are here, now, and they should be held accountable in the court of public opinion. Why is that controversial?!

What good does it do? Just makes you feel better? It is a waste of everyone's time. Do you want everyone that was wrong to come out an apologize for it? Or just people you despise?

[Ghost]

You're being ridiculous. I'm not asking for much. A simple acknowledgment by that side of the aisle and their supporters.

That would be nice. But it would also do nothing (except for make them look better, which you'd think they would want, but I don't really care if they want to look better.

Climate change is too important to care about egos. If they are actually going to back down on trying to impede efforts to fix the problem, then I couldn't care less about getting an apology.

[Ghost]

I feel like I'm bearing down on one of my friends. Most of my friends are regular people, but they generally know to ask my opinion rather than argue with me when it comes to these issues. I'm one of the most reasonable people you'll meet, but I'm endlessly frustrated by the low caliber of public debate. You're right - I am condescending and bitter. And the other side is what? Wrong. Dangerously, destructively, inexcusably (and I suspect intentionally) wrong. Can we please get them out of power now???

Just to drop in an opinion where it was not asked for, you have not been the more reasonable person in your debate with Indy.

I share your frustration with public debate being a complete sham and shouting match. I understand your bitterness and how easy it is to fall into that condescending role. But you should (and I am guessing you do) realize that when you do that, you actually bring the quality of what you say down to that level as well. It doesn't help the problem. In fact, it does the opposite, by shifting attention away from what you are actually trying to say, and making the focus more on the delivery.

There are a lot of people out there who are not going to engage in honest, intelligent debate. With them, I actually feel a certain level of ridicule is OK, because for outsiders to the debate, it reveals how dumb what they say is. But with people like Indy, Dan, or Nodack (and most people on this board, though not all) it's a different story. I don't agree with a lot of what they say, and I will argue my point as hard as I can. But I recognize that these guys are intelligent and want to have a reasonable conversation...I find that when I slip into that condescension trap, the biggest victim is me, because it makes it SO MUCH HARDER for me to get a better understanding of what they are trying to say.

And if you want to actually get through, that is probably the single most important part...understanding what the other guy is saying. If you just want to shout, well, that's easy. Unproductive, but sometimes it feels good. It only makes any rift between you worse, though.

[OE32]

Often I find that no matter how much people hate me in these debates, I end up changing minds. Usually it isn't admitted to my face, but I come back to the same people later, and they're saying the things I once said to them: they just don't recall that it was me who told them.

Truth is infectious. And there should be more truth-telling assholes in the world. Most of the people who have truth in mind are too nice. Bunch of Nicomacheans, they are.

[Ghost]

Often I find that no matter how much people hate me in these debates, I end up changing minds. Usually it isn't admitted to my face, but I come back to the same people later, and they're saying the things I once said to them: they just don't recall that it was me who told them.

Truth is infectious. And there should be more truth-telling assholes in the world. Most of the people who have truth in mind are too nice. Bunch of Nicomacheans, they are.

Interesting. I normally find myself more convinced by people who are open to an actual discussion than by people whose best defense for letting their delivery overshadow their message to be "But I am smart and convincing, I promise."

But yes, yelling can be infectious. I know you typed truth, not yelling, but it seemed like a typo after your last few posts.

[Indy]

Exactly Andy.

[OE32]

Ad hominem. Got it. Enjoy the sandbox, children.

[Indy]

You keep proving his point.

[OE32]

Except that his point isn't actually a point. His point is that I'm a jerk, and no one likes jerks.

I KNOW I've added to your cognitive toolkit, Indy, over the course of this discussion. But everything you've said mirrors statements that I publicly put to rest in undergrad. Your side doesn't actually ever have these debates - you tend to quit. Maybe you're young enough to learn new tricks, and if you are, maybe you'll realize one day how empty your libertarianism actually was. I suspect that, as it is for most, it is a way to remain connected to the anti-Democrat party without having to apologize for bigotry or the drug war or any other policy of that party. It's also a way for people to maintain an anti-establishment zeal. But there's no actual substance - and I highly suspect you're beginning to think about that.

[Indy]

It seems to me that your anti-libertarianism is completely based in the thinking that you are superior to everyone because you align yourself to the Left, and anything else is wrong. Or that it is "kind of Republican." Either way, you seem to truly be ignorant of what it actually is. Or you are being obtuse. Considering you claim to be an intellectual, I would guess it is the latter. Either way, I would expect you agree with at least half of the core beliefs of libertarianism, whether you want to admit it or not.

[OE32]

I would expect you agree with at least half of the core beliefs of libertarianism, whether you want to admit it or not.

I've already admitted that I'm a developmentalist, so I prize liberty. In western society, who doesn't?

I'm talking about the politics of libertarianism. You just won't address any of the points I've raised - even when there are question marks attached. I'm also talking about the people I've met who call themselves libertarians. The specific policies I usually hear them discuss are totally outrageous from a thoughtful policy perspective. I've already discussed this, but you won't respond because I'm such an asshole.

It seems to me that your anti-libertarianism is completely based in the thinking that you are superior to everyone because you align yourself to the Left, and anything else is wrong. Or that it is "kind of Republican."

As to the second part, it's merely a social observation. The people I've met who describe themselves as libertarians tend to have anti-scientific beliefs are for reasons of principle have problems with things like progressive taxation.

As to the first part, I was independent for a very long time, but I registered Democrat because I found that they were open to argument about everything, and they're not particularly "left." I've met the left - and trust me, they have nothing to do with the democratic party. Go to the arts district in Phoenix and see how many Obama supporters you'll find (you'll find plenty more Rand Paul supporters, I anticipate, actually). The democratic party is to the right of just about the whole of Europe and Canada, as well as the American left. It's a very moderate party - as I've said, they listen to everybody. The left is not represented in that party, plain and simple. And I hate the left just as much as the right, because they're both anti-scientific, but that's just it - the right actually owns a political party, and I haven't seen much in the libertarian strain to convince me that science and economics are back on the menu for them. It's just an observation.

As to superiority, I generally don't debate engineers about engineering because I don't know anything about engineering. My field is tax law and public policy, economics and finance. Unfortunately, everyone thinks they know everything about my field because of their beliefs. Listening to people talk, you wouldn't think there's actually knowable information in this field!

Oh - and if you'd like to respond - I'll just put this here: ???

Either way, you seem to truly be ignorant of what it actually is. Or you are being obtuse. Considering you claim to be an intellectual, I would guess it is the latter.

OK. I've read the wiki page, and it looks like there's a great diversity of thought under the banner of libertarianism. So it's not unreasonable for me to ask what you think it is: it doesn't exactly have an accepted canon. I pressed you on your example about purple crayons, and you wouldn't respond - I'm guessing because you hadn't adequately considered how the government creates positive freedoms by taking away negative freedoms, and this made things complicated for you.

I'm talking about the modern American political movement. I've met and spoken to a lot of people who claim to be libertarians. I read a lot of books, but not generally about political philosophy - more economics, history, pop science. I was a philosophy major, so I've had plenty of these sorts of debates, but political philosophy bores me because I've moved on to the science of policy. And I wish everyone else would.

I draw your attention to this, from the wiki:

As individualist opponents of social liberalism embraced the label and distanced themselves from the word liberal, American writers, political parties and think tanks adopted the word libertarian to describe advocacy of capitalist free market economics and a night-watchman state.

This is the view I'm trying to discuss. I can offer a more full-throated defense of capitalism than most, but THESE people, in my view, are destructive. And I would happily discuss, if you would stop calling me a jerk and actually respond. I get that I'm aggressive, but my guess is you're hesitant to lay out your perspective because of the worry that I will do it great damage. At some point, I'll have to stop this. Probably tomorrow.

[Nodack]

I think you guys are being a little hard on OE. He has gone to great lengths to discuss his beliefs in great detail exposing himself to criticism and you guys mostly seem to just be attacking his delivery more than anything he discusses. He might come across as a know it all to you guys and that rubs you the wrong way, but I don't see anybody here laying down their positions in near as much detail as he has.

Indy, you seem to be sort of promoting a Libertarian view, but leave it at that. You never never get into the details, just a blanket statement. You let OE go into a long winded response on his feelings about it in great detail and then tell him he really doesn't understand, but you never expose yourself to criticism by explaining your reasons for liking or in any kind of detail. I have to give the advantage in this discussin to OE based on his willingness to expose himself to criticism. Just arguing against him on the basis of you guys not liking his delivery isn't doing it for me.

It seems to me that your anti-libertarianism is completely based in the thinking that you are superior to everyone because you align yourself to the Left, and anything else is wrong. Or that it is "kind of Republican." Either way, you seem to truly be ignorant of what it actually is. Or you are being obtuse. Considering you claim to be an intellectual, I would guess it is the latter. Either way, I would expect you agree with at least half of the core beliefs of libertarianism, whether you want to admit it or not.

I have put in my two cents on my very limited knowledge of the Libertarian party, but it has been a lot more detail than you have provided Indy. If you are a Libertarian and believe in that party then I would appreciate you explaining just what it is that you like about the party other than just just saying others don't understand it or just saying liberty and smaller government and leaving it at that.

[Ghost]

Ad hominem. Got it. Enjoy the sandbox, children.

No, not remotely.

You are the one who made it a point to say that you are "one of the most reasonable people" we'd ever meet. I pointed out that your approach to this discussion has not backed that claim up.

You replied by telling me that you enlighten everyone you talk to. And you are a very smart guy and usually are much better at making your points than you have been in this thread, but strictly by observing this thread (mostly your recent interactions on it), I don't really see how. You're appealing to your own character as proof that you are right...that would be "pro hominem" and it's every bit as much of a logical fallacy as ad hominem...except I didn't attack your character. I don't think you're a jerk. I don't think you have nothing of value to say. I think quite the opposite.

I just think you are wrong, and you doubling down on your condescension and moral superiority is doing absolutely nothing to convince me otherwise.

[Ghost]

I think you guys are being a little hard on OE. He has gone to great lengths to discuss his beliefs in great detail exposing himself to criticism and you guys mostly seem to just be attacking his delivery more than anything he discusses. He might come across as a know it all to you guys and that rubs you the wrong way, but I don't see anybody here laying down their positions in near as much detail as he has.

How in the world is anything I said on this "a little too hard?"

http://www.phx-suns.net/viewtopic.php?f ... 695#p38559

He replied by saying that he doesn't really care, and he doesn't mind acting like a jerk, because he knows he's right and gosh darnit, he's changing hearts and minds everywhere he goes.

I'm questioning his delivery because honestly, it's making it really hard to understand anything he discusses. And when he pointedly says that he knows it all, I'm not reading a lot into things to think that he's a know it all.

He COMPLETELY dismissed everything Dan said (after a long-winded spew of words) with this gem:

Whatever you say next is the last word on this subject. It's okay, I don't have to win. I know how this plays out. Science and wisdom will win, because they're fucking cool. Your side hates progressives, but what leaders of our country are deemed worthy of legacies of greatness? Lincoln, Teddy and Frankie Roosevelt - the progressives.

And there is actually some truth to that, but can you possibly defend the incredible moral superiority there?

He admits to being deliberately condescending and bitter, and defends that by calling it a rhetorical tactic. Guess what? You have to fall back on rhetoric when you can't prove your point otherwise. In this case, the tactic is shouting down the opposition. He Gish galloped his way through his "discussion" with Indy (while asking very few actual questions, as Indy pointed out...many of the actual ones seemed on the rhetorical side, just intended to make a point, not actually engage in a discussion).

And then he goes and laments about the state of public discourse. Well, this is the state of public discourse. It's not discourse. It's one side shouting down the opposition, trying to ram his points home without actually having a conversation.

I guess I should take some solace in the fact that Indy and I have probably learned some good tools to add to our "cognitive toolkits." Hope I never have to use them, though, because they are exactly how the opposite of honest debate works.