Reason, critical thought, and listening

Well, I actually liked reading this series of Alienator's posts - yes, we live in a deluge of information (knowledge shall increase).

Daniel Dennett has a good suggested approach to reasoned debate: First, restate the other person's views clearly enough so that you demonstrate to them that you really understand what they are saying. Second, identify and state the areas of their point of view you agree with. Finally, offer your rebuttal.

Except for outright inflammatory, racist, bigoted, intolerant rants, I can usually find some area of agreement with almost anyone. For example, in the abortion debate although I am firmly on the side of a woman's right to choose, I would like to see the number of abortions decrease as much as possible AND believe that there should be a reasonable period when that choice needs to be made - say 4 months. Yet many pro-choice folks fear that any compromise is a slippery slope, and pro-life folks often object to the obvious and evidence-based methods of preventing pregnancy in the first place!

Compromise is the basis of effective governance and finding common ground is the essence of compromise. No one needs to be completely happy with the outcome but everyone can agree that at least some of their interests are being advanced.

Good post Viking55803. I like the Daniel Dennett approach and need to employ it more frequently!

I think the top level problem in this country right now is:

There are two general groups and they are close to evenly divided. One group feels entitled and is willing to ignore the constitution in order to forcibly take from the producers. The other group believes in self-reliance, freedom and individual / property rights. At the moment the former group has the momentum, but the pendulum seems to swing back and forth every couple of years. Both groups distort the truth, yes even lie, in attempts to gain political advantage. Their seems to be little or no accountability for making false promises or even engaging in unconstitutional acts.

Unfortunately, I doubt the great country I was born into will ever again be the shining example it once was.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by JohnyRain
Unfortunately, I doubt the great country I was born into will ever again be the shining example it once was.

any particular era or qualities you are especially fond of recalling when dwelling on your country's greatness? many people seem to express this longing for a better past and never seem to give any specifics of what yielded this greatness.

"One group feels entitled and is willing to ignore the constitution in order to forcibly take from the producers. The other group believes in self-reliance, freedom and individual / property rights."

Truth.

[censored] the commie [censored].

From slovaguy - "any particular era or qualities you are especially fond of recalling when dwelling on your country's greatness? many people seem to express this longing for a better past and never seem to give any specifics of what yielded this greatness."

In a nutshell:

The government was acting in accordance with the constitution, i.e., protecting individual rights, not infringing upon them. If you want specifics, go to a used book store, purchase a United States History textbook that is at least 50 years old, read it and compare what you learn to what is happening today.

JohnyRain said:

From slovaguy - "any particular era or qualities you are especially fond of recalling when dwelling on your country's greatness?  many people seem to express this longing for a better past and never seem to give any specifics of what yielded this greatness." In a nutshell: The government was acting in accordance with the constitution, i.e., protecting individual rights, not infringing upon them.  If you want specifics, go to a used book store, purchase a United States History textbook that is at least 50 years old, read it and compare what you learn to what is happening today.

Yeah, the "salad days" of the past are almost never so chaste as they are remembered. Get any history book worth reading, and you'll see as much.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by JohnyRain
In a nutshell:
The government was acting in accordance with the constitution, i.e., protecting individual rights, not infringing upon them. If you want specifics, go to a used book store, purchase a United States History textbook that is at least 50 years old, read it and compare what you learn to what is happening today.

you seemed to have tipped your hand as yet another tea party person. might i point out that the current supreme court determined that the affordable care act is accordance with the constitution of the united states? or were you troubled by some other act of legislation which has passed muster? as far as i can tell, your rights to speech, assembly, worship, etc. have been preserved, and i'm therefore certain you are a strong supporter of the american civil liberties union, as they have been doing the heavy lifting in preserving those rights. and were the u.s. or any state government so interested in protecting "individual rights", one would only have to wonder why the u.s. suffered a civil war or why women were denied the vote or why only property holding males held the vote at the country's inception. again, is there any specific era which you can cite where this government behaviour actually occurred? or are you only fetishising this fictional past america like palin does, yet cannot offer any specifics from all the newspapers she reads?

is there any reason why i should limit myself to history books that are a half century old? that being said, i am quite the fan of reading old textbooks and one of those which has always intrigued me is "macauley's history of england." what i've gleaned from that reading is that even in our most eager desire to be "objective", one cannot escape a certain romanticising of a country's past or offering outright chauvinistic justifications for a government's acts in the peoples' name. i won't put words in limerickman's posts, but i think his and many other irish don't recall the english occupation as fondly as the english. pharaonic egypt, rome, england/great britain, and the united states all achieved empires only on the backs of those they could conquer.

If you are unaware of the change in scope of the US government over the past several decades, nothing I can do or say will change that.

You seem to suggest that since the US has never been perfect it has never had merit. Perfection is unattainable in this chaotic universe. The principles upon which it was founded still seem sound to me. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit (not the Guarantee) of Happiness are still and forever shall be inalienable rights.

I'm not sure what "hand" you think I have tipped. For the record, I have no affiliation with the Tea Party or any other party for that matter.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by JohnyRain
If you are unaware of the change in scope of the US government over the past several decades, nothing I can do or say will change that.

You seem to suggest that since the US has never been perfect it has never had merit. Perfection is unattainable in this chaotic universe. The principles upon which it was founded still seem sound to me. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit (not the Guarantee) of Happiness are still and forever shall be inalienable rights.

I'm not sure what "hand" you think I have tipped. For the record, I have no affiliation with the Tea Party or any other party for that matter.

I think that you are unaware that you are talking with two provoking trolls. (You only made 7 posts or did you open a new account?)

One of them types more text then the other one, the other one just types enough to suck you in to an e-argument.

I am unaware of their reasons for doing so.

You might wanna give that "block user" button a go... [IMG]files.cyclingforums.comwink.pngOpen ↗[/IMG]

Welcome to the forum btw... [IMG]files.cyclingforums.comsmile.pngOpen ↗[/IMG]

JohnyRain said:

If you are unaware of the change in scope of the US government over the past several decades, nothing I can do or say will change that. You seem to suggest that since the US has never been perfect it has never had merit.  Perfection is unattainable in this chaotic universe.  The principles upon which it was founded still seem sound to me.  Life, Liberty and the Pursuit (not the Guarantee) of Happiness are still and forever shall be inalienable rights. I'm not sure what "hand" you think I have tipped.  For the record, I have no affiliation with the Tea Party or any other party for that matter.

Still your "history book" will in no way indicate that the the days 50 years ago were the salad days. To take such a view requires some historical myopia. Certainly claiming that things were wonderful and so much better 50 years ago fails any test of critical thought. You're going to have to come with a lot more detail and a lot more supportable evidence if you want to claim days of yore were so much better. You'll have to also use some measure of objectivity. Here are some tidbits from 1963:

• whites and some governments in the US were actively working to prevent blacks from gaining the civil rights that all humans are due
• George Wallace, one of the men at the fore front of the bigot and hate brigade, was sworn into office as governor of Alabama
• the Soviets were conducting reconnaissance flights over Alaska
• the US conducted a number of above ground nuclear weapons tests
• the CIA Domestic Operations Division was created
• bombs planted by bigots went off in Birmingham, Alabama
• race riots
• Our president was assassinated
• 4 young black girls were murdered in a church bombing
• our military involvement in Vietnam continued to grow

Thoe tidbits required a very minimal effort to find and type. Yep. Those sure do sound like the days of wine and roses.

Volnix said:

I think that you are unaware that you are talking with two provoking trolls. (You only made 7 posts or did you open a new account?) One of them types more text then the other one, the other one just types enough to suck you in to an e-argument. I am unaware of their reasons for doing so.  You might wanna give that "block user" button a go... :wink: Welcome to the forum btw... 😄 Â

It looks like the troll is the one posting the above to stir [censored] up, the one who is unable to post anything constructive on topic in this thread.

One more comment on those happy days gone by: the tax rate in 1963 for people varied between 20-91%. Right now the tax rate varies between 10-39.6% The US government was taking a comparatively huge bite out of a person or couple's income in 1963.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by JohnyRain
If you are unaware of the change in scope of the US government over the past several decades, nothing I can do or say will change that.

You seem to suggest that since the US has never been perfect it has never had merit. Perfection is unattainable in this chaotic universe. The principles upon which it was founded still seem sound to me. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit (not the Guarantee) of Happiness are still and forever shall be inalienable rights.

I'm not sure what "hand" you think I have tipped. For the record, I have no affiliation with the Tea Party or any other party for that matter.

i am quite aware of the changes in the role federal government over the years. i am also sure that you have not offered any substantiation of your position about how this country is no longer the "shining example" it once was. again, just for our mutual amusement, what specifically made this place a "shining example." the topic you chose to join deals with "reason, critical thought, and listening" not nebulous platitudes offered to make us all long for some fictional past.

and just because it irks me, the words "pursuit of happiness" had a meaning more like profession of the individual's choice, not, as you lean it, an attempt at comfort. just a tidbit of information all the original intent-ers seem to get wrong. reading and braying about how you have a copy of the declaration of independence and the constitution (both written at different times and with different authors) and understanding them takes more effort in the latter. you actually have to read those documents with a dictionary which records the meanings then current. language and government change because we, humans, operate them.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by Volnix
I think that you are unaware that you are talking with two provoking trolls. (You only made 7 posts or did you open a new account?)

You might wanna give that "block user" button a go... [IMG]files.cyclingforums.comwink.pngOpen ↗[/IMG]

you certainly have no idea what you are talking about many times. please, don't be so offended when others call you on your bigotry. as has been shown on many occasions, you tend to spew your thoughts around here with only your own prejudices to support your postion. when called on to support those points with actual supporting evidence, you have never acquitted yourself very well.

Aint clicking "click to show" you @#$@#'es... [IMG]files.cyclingforums.combig smile.pngOpen ↗[/IMG]

"They are coming to geeeeeeeet you alienator...... They dont like non - right wing extremists like you........ They are coming to geeeeeeeet you......" [IMG]files.cyclingforums.combig smile.pngOpen ↗[/IMG]

You guys are a HOOT!

You need to get out on your bikes a bit more often.

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by JohnyRain
You guys are a HOOT!

You need to get out on your bikes a bit more often.

Flee!!! I'll distract them! [IMG]files.cyclingforums.combig smile.pngOpen ↗[/IMG]

Alienator!!! There is a spammy thread selling counterfeit look-like-fascist symbol jerseys that is marginally politically correct!!!!!!!!!!!

[IMG]img.youtube.com0.jpgOpen ↗[/IMG]

"you seemed to have tipped your hand as yet another tea party person."

STFU, Mao.

JohnyRain said:

You guys are a HOOT! You need to get out on your bikes a bit more often.

One could advise you to do the same, but that would be stupid seeing as how we don't know anything about you. Note how the stupid would apply to your comment, too. I assume that you're not going to substantiate your claims, thus the comment you just made. Note that if you make comments such as you have in this thread, it's only reasonable to expect people to counter your claims, especially given the sub-forum in which this thread is found. Don't post comments if you don't want people to respond.