Reasonable people can have differences of opinion

[NJmaverick]

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

That is the second rule of intellectual honesty (from the list I have frequently posted) and it is the violation of that rule that has been a major cause of much of the rancor on this forum.


Take the situation in Afghanistan. I support the president's choice and would have done the same thing myself. However I respect those that say that while the understand what the President is trying to accomplish they don't agree with the chances of success or that the price is worth the gains. However those that come here and say the President or those that support the decision are driven by bad motives just being intellectually dishonest. I am talking about those that use terms like "war mongering" "pro war" or suggest this is about a pipeline or personal glory. Those comments are intended to paint any view that doesn't support their own as being unreasonable or completely invalid.

It also comes into play when you have people refuse to allow the President to ever stray from a position other than the far left. There are other points of view on how the nation should be run and many are reasonable and valid. Hell, I doubt even among all the progressives on this board you could come up with a SINGLE unified view on how our nation should be run. Just because the President (or any other leader) doesn't rigidedly follow a single ideology doesn't mean he has "betrayed" us or "bowed down to corporate masters". When you are a politician you have to be mindful of elections and that some stands and positions could result of losing elections and then being unable to enact any policy. The idea that we would agree 100% of the actions of any politician is just unrealistic. Again if President Obama came to DU and asked how he should run things and which issues he addressed first he would end up with conflicting answers and hard feelings from a sizable number of DUers.

If we (and I am not saying I haven't violated this rule myself) all just appreciate that we live in a world of grays where there are often more than one right answer, I think it would be better for DU and if all our fellow Americans could adopt a similar point of view the Country we would all be better off.

[TexasObserver]

1. And yet, you go on to make judgments in your OP, and think they're valid.

You do what many do. You say reasonable minds can differ, then you choose sides and explain why your side is right and the other side is flawed, taking personal shots at those with whom you disagree. THAT is intellectually dishonest, and it is what you did.

Opinions are like assholes, and this OP is yours.

[AllentownJake]

2. This one is one of my favorites

Brags about how reasonable and intelligent as a poster they are, while at the same time engaging in the behavior they disparage.

[HughMoran]

6. Similar to complaining that the Dems don't know how to be as vicious as the Republicans

It seems that being the "better person" simply gets one shit upon.

The anger is understandable - who will be the first to lay down their weapon ...?

[AllentownJake]

11. I have an awesome bit I'm working on for my Democratic friends in PA

I can do impressions pretty well, I call it Arlen Specter's first day in the democratic caucus room, it involves Arlen quizzing Harry why he just doesn't tell the other mother fuckers what to do.

It also has Evan Bayh in a human hamster wheel flicking off the other members of the caucus.

[HughMoran]

14. Make it an animated series and sell it to Comedy Central

I'd watch it ;)

[AllentownJake]

18. A few people liked the rough draft

Someone wants me to write a show for a fundraiser locally.

[LooseWilly]

41. One mashed word: YouTube ... I totally want to see the Evan Bayh!!

Bravo sir... bravo (a down payment...)

[hfojvt]

66. right, the OP was all about bragging

"If we (and I am not saying I haven't violated this rule myself) ..."

There was a thesis there saying "People should behave "reasonably" and many on the anti-war left are not doing so." Ironic that the pacifists seem to see debate as a form of 'total combat' with no holds barred and no mercy given.

[anonymous171]

46. Seriously, how arrogant is that?

Making judgments when we know that all opinions are right and valid! . :rofl:

[TexasObserver]

49. Thanks. I misread your post the first time.

I hate it when that happens. Doing too many things at once, and too quick to assume a reply is negative.

[anonymous171]

51. I was agreeing with you.

And was attempting to mock OP's "everyone is right, no one is wrong" mindset. Sorry for the confusion. :hi:

[TexasObserver]

52. Oops. Corrected. See above.

[HughMoran]

3. reasonable

:yoiks:

[oneshooter]

5. Does this include discussions on the 2nd Amendment?

[HughMoran]

9. No

There is too much vitriol to ever have a "reasonable" discussion on that topic. Sad & ironic, but it's been proven over and over again here and elsewhere.

[oneshooter]

35. On which side?

"There is too much vitriol to ever have a "reasonable" discussion on that topic."

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[HughMoran]

42. Both

Seems like you have a position you want to discuss - go to the "guns" forum and have fun.

[proteus_lives]

76. On the grabber side.

I've rarely seen a RKBA Democrat or gun-owner be unreasonable from the get-go.

[rd_kent]

75. I would disagree with you.

I have yet to see a pro-RKBA here on DU take a militant stance full if vitriol and hyperbole like I see the anti-RKBA here on DU post.

[sojourner]

4. your message is welcome. we need to be just a tad more sensible when

discussing politics (or anything) here. too many times we (yeah, me too) get caught up with our passions and lose that "intellectual honesty" you are promoting here. but then, some posters are (I believe) deliberately fomenting frothy disagreements in the service of disrupting the board, and they had no intellectual honesty to begin with.

[laughingliberal]

7. I agree with your point, overall. I notice you don't call those on your side of the discussion to

task for their inability to recognize alternate views. Although you are able to point out the inflammatory rhetoric of those on the left side of the debate I see no mention of those on the more 'moderate' side belittling those with more liberal views with accusations of 'wanting a pony,' or (the slimiest recent talking point) calling us the 'teabag left.' I am a left leaning pragmatist. I gave Clinton a pass on a lot of the more 'moderate' policies he enacted knowing he had to take some hits to get anything done with Republican majorities in the House and Senate after 1994.

For myself, as a liberal, I will say I never expected a Democratic president, house, or senate to pass all liberal approved policies and laws. Neither, however, did I expect to see most of them compromised away or 'taken off the table' with no fight whatsoever.

edited punctuation

[NJmaverick]

27. You're right there are other examples to be had

I would welcome more examples.

[laughingliberal]

34. A few off the top of my head

"Did you think Obama was going to be able to fix everything in 1 day?" (belittling, ignores substance of message)

"Obama bashers" (Discounts message and poster, labeling)
"Obama haters" (same as above)
"I suppose you would rather have had McCain/Palin" (false dichotomy, accusatory slam)

Just a few off the top of my head

[AllentownJake]

8. Politics is never reasonable

I don't think you have been observing this game that long, nor do I think you understand how policy actually gets crafted.

I don't understand why so many on DU fail to understand how the process actually works. A politician will always take the position they feel is most likely to benefit them personally. Whether it is Dennis Kucinuch or Barack Obama. Does it mean it is the wisest most sensible position to take, no. It is just where they have figured is the sweet spot.

Since there are so many people who like this particular President personally and cut him slack on things they would cut no other slack on, the President has a sweet spot further to the right than most national democratic politicians.

[HughMoran]

12. ...steers it post haste into the "Obama is further to the right" gutter

Nice!

You're pretty good at this game!

Kudos!

[AllentownJake]

15. I take consulting fees occasionaly nt.

Most of the time, I give my advice for free.

[HughMoran]

17. lol nt.

Oh, doesn't "nt" mean no text? :rofl:

You are very generous with your advice :hi:

[AllentownJake]

19. My family is yelling at me to get them the Christmas Tree from the closet.

and I have bowling, some of my less paying attention posting.

[AllentownJake]

16. Dupe

Most of the time, I give my advice for free to people I like.

[HughMoran]

23. You are generous.

OK, while we're having fun, I assume you're old enough to remember "Sanford & Son"? One line we got a huge kick out of in my house was Foxx talking to Esther "Every time you open your mouth, you give away your ignorance!!!" :rofl:

I just found out that Redd Foxx's real last name was Sanford!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[AllentownJake]

24. They call me for some reason

:rofl:

[HughMoran]

26. Allentown Fred Sanford?

:think:

[AllentownJake]

30. The stories I don't post on DU

:rofl:

[HughMoran]

32. I bet

You seem like you're probably a 'real character' off of DU.

[anonymous171]

45. +10000

[Hippo_Tron]

53. Agree except "further to the right than most national democratic politicians"

I think he's probably right about in the middle. Saying that he's to the right of most national democrats ignores the way that even the liberals will make a sudden turn right if they fear backlash from their constituents. For example, the President's position on closing Guantanamo was to the left of pretty much every single Senator.

[NJmaverick]

74. I have been observing politics since Jimmy Carter's acceptance speech

is that long enough? Still that's not the point and your suggestion is a violation of rule 7. The argument has been put forward and explained. Address it, not dismiss it out of hand by going after me.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

[NYC_SKP]

10. Recommended. But not likely to happen, adopting this similar point of view.

We'd like to think that everyone generally aligned with progressive point of view is somehow more reasonable or enlightened, but it's just not the case.

Like any other group of human hearts and souls, we are balls of emotion and confusion and thoughts and ideas, and there will always be impenetrable barriers to consensus, just as you say, including a consensus to disagree in an agreeable fashion.

But I appreciate your post, and I remain hopeful that there will always be more reason on DU than disharmony.

:patriot:

[AllentownJake]

13. Your not alighned with the progressive point of view

How do you feel about Harold Ford Jr. coming to town?

[NYC_SKP]

31. There is no universally accepted definition of "progressive". I like Harold Ford.

If you know of a reliable questionnaire or litmus test for progressive, let me know, I'll take it.

Conclusions and assumptions aside, that I support democratic and progressive candidates, abortion and gay rights, universal health care, dramatic, like 50% cuts in the US military budget, and huge regulation of media and corporations and net neutrality...

...should at least make me as entitled to speak to progressive matters as anyone here.

Don't you think?

And I no longer live in NY, but don't mind Harold Ford's going there, it's within the rules and Hillary did it.

:donut:

[mike_c]

20. passive-aggressive acceptance of crimes against humanity....

That's fine and all, just don't ask me to accept them with you. I won't.

[HamdenRice]

21. Well said! I also think we should all try to be fact based

and not accuse each other simply for stating unpleasant facts.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

56. statistics can just as easily be used in a bigoted way as in a scientific way

for instance, in argument about whether or not black were more prone to violence, were i to to state these statistics: In 2005, offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher than the rates for whites. http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm to try and prove that blacks were more violent than whites, an argument of bigotry can be made against me

of course you know that. just like arguments of homophobia are made against you, because you make homophobic statements

[paulk]

22. I have, over time, found you to be one of the most

unreasonable posters on this board.

I hope that your post indicates a change of heart?

Otherwise the irony is too much to bear...

[NJmaverick]

25. I would like to direct you to rule number 7

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

[laughingliberal]

28. So, would you call accusations of 'just wanting a pony,' or being of the 'teabag left' ad hominem

attacks? Cause that's what I see on here when reasonable people of the left disagree with reasonable people of the more moderate persuasion. And, as I noted above, your OP does not call those on your side to task for the inflammatory nature of their rhetoric.

That is also part of honest debate. Being willing to see the the flaws of your own side, also.

posted before seeing reply #27

[HughMoran]

29. That rule is SO hard to observe at first

I did an indirect ad hominem argument just today - it's so difficult to avoid when you know your fellow posters positions on every topic and can "predict" what they will be saying just by the subject line. I hope others here are trying as hard as I am to avoid this sort of attack. Resist the temptation!

[paulk]

81. you are the last person who should be lecturing anyone

on ad hominems...

LOL!

[Skelly]

33. Shades of gray becomming dreary

I think many here recognize shades of gray. And while you will always have a few that proclaim "my way or the highway", most understand there is usually more than one right answer. However, the frustration I see here is one I feel myself (ironically, it is the same frustration many on the far right feel about their own RINO's).
It isn't about one issue, one ruling, or one piece of legislation. No candidate has ever accomplished all he/she has set forth in campaign speeches. Yet, it is a pattern we, as voters, need to monitor. When Obama said he would eliminate income tax for seniors making less than $50,000 and allow penalty free withdrawals for 2009 from retirement accounts, and the tax season comes and go with no mention of either, we keep our hope for change. When Obama says he will institute tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials then immediately grants waviers to several former lobbyists allowing them to serve, we keep our hope for change. When Obama said he would allow Americans to buy imported medicines from other developed countries, then does an $80million deal with the drug companies and says now the importation of drugs is unnecessary, we keep our hope for change. When he said we would restrict warrentless wiretaps and provide greater oversight then renews 3 Patriot Act provisions without serious adjustments, we start to wonder "where is the change we hoped for?". And finally, when he takes the stage in front of West Point cadets and announces 30,000 additional troops and states, "we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse." we start to see an eloquently packaged GWB ("you are either for us or against us"). And I for one, have to start wondering just who is really pulling the strings?

[laughingliberal]

37. Very well put! Welcome to DU

:hi:

[Fumesucker]

36. But the fact that reasonable people can have differences of opinion....

Does not imply that all differences of opinion are reasonable.

Which is where I think many discussions get off track.

[bridgit]

38. As a practical matter that's true, but imo that's not so much what's going on here

What's as likely the case is that 'progressives' think they won the election all by themselves; progressives alone, so they feel very, very special. They think they put Obama in the WH, like no one else had to break a sweat. I've seen them crow back & forth to each other, "We did it! We really, really did it!" "You Rock!!" "No, you rock!" "Yes but you were so magnificent working those phones selling 'the brand' you're simply wonderful!" "But you sold it hook, line & sinker - lock, stock & barrel." "I won't hear of it: you sold them the kit & the caboodle too, very inspired!" "And that's why *you* rock!!" "No, you rock!" "Then please, after you." "I'll hear nothing of the kind, you first" "Indubitably thus and so, please, you go first." "No. You rock you go first." "After you." "No, after you..." Dammit!!!!!

It's like watching an installment of Chip'n Dale. Don't people get hand shaped bruises from patting themselves on the back so hard x(


By their own predisposition, by their own prejudice they think they put Obama in office. I have long since Cassandra'd this day as coming. Because too many misplaced questions were never asked, and now that their answers are coming regardless of their having been asked...so-called progressives are walking away cause it's just too hard after all. Much easier to blame someone else accuse other people of being a facsimile of what is progressive

Is 'freedom' just another word for nothing left to lose? Or is 'progressive' just another word for placebo?

[Warren Stupidity]

39. "people refuse to allow the President to ever stray from a position other than the far left"

As usual the purported 'reasonable' is a facade around another red-baiting smear campaign from the party loyalists. There is nothing 'far left' about opposition to permawar or advocay of single payer universal healthcare. Our party does indeed rigidly follow a single rigid ideology: free market fundamentalism wrapped around american triumphalism, around which ideology and its ideological framework all decisions are made. The official Democratic Party is the one notch to the left half of the unofficial Duopoly Party.

What term would you like for supporting perpetual war other than 'pro war'? Would you like instead to have the inverted tag of 'pro peace' using the Orwellian framing?

[laughingliberal]

40. It is a little shocking to see positions which, not so long ago, were basics of the party's platform

now called 'far left.' An indication of how far right the policies of the country have been pushed over the years.

[QC]

48. "another red-baiting smear campaign from the party loyalists"

Excellent post.

[anonymous171]

43. Right wingers are wrong and deserve no respect.

When we give them respect it legitimizes their shitty opinions. You and your relativist bullshit are the reason why the left is so incompetent these days. We are right, they are wrong. It's time we stand up for ourselves and stop humoring the GOP and their evil ways.

[walldude]

44. A SINGLE unified view on how our nation should be run

Easy. Campaign finance reform and lobbying reform. I defy you to find one person on DU (trolls don't count) who thinks we should leave all the corporate money in government.

[Sinti]

47. Intellectual honesty and common courtesy would be a real blessing around here

I agree with the intent of the subject - if not on the war itself. Intellectual honestly demands that when you have new information you recognize its impact on your current perceptions and opinions. As the situation changes, so does your thinking about it - unless you are not actually 'thinking' and are just reiterating what you've been told. More information is always better, the more you have, the closer you get to the right long-term solution for everyone.

I also feel it's much better to understand the person you disagree with than to try to beat them out of thinking that way. Respectfully listening and trying to understand is a progressive value IIRC?

Personally, I don't care about the partisan positioning. I think it's nearly all theater. I want and expect people who we elect to do what they believe is right for everyone. That does not always happen, but it's the optimal outcome in a democracy - you just need to elect well.

There is far too much bashing over differences of opinion around here lately. These are emotional issues for many of us, and we react without thinking clearly. Strong emotion causes certain chemicals in the brain to be released, which actually prevents human beings from thinking clearly - this is part of the fight or flight survival mechanism.

People who believe the war is necessary, believe it's the best thing for the nation and that we have to do it, like lancing a boil or something I suppose. We peace-mongers disagree. This does not mean we can't have cordial dialog and I think we should work at it, and keeping together rather than tearing ourselves apart.

All perspectives are valid to the person holding that perspective :toast:

[LooseWilly]

50. Your own rule: "7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument."

You've violated it in the first paragraph of your OP (the first one after the posting of the rule and the sentence to explain what it is, that is)

<For those wishing to see the list:http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=38699&mesg_id=38832>

In the first paragraph you say:

I respect those that say that while the understand what the President is trying to accomplish they don't agree with the chances of success or that the price is worth the gains. However those that come here and say the President or those that support the decision are driven by bad motives just being intellectually dishonest. I am talking about those that use terms like "war mongering" "pro war" or suggest this is about a pipeline or personal glory. Those comments are intended to paint any view that doesn't support their own as being unreasonable or completely invalid.

Ironically, while you are superficially lamenting those on the left who "paint any view that doesn't support their own view as being unreasonable...", you are actually doing exactly what you lament others doing. You start out with a statement of "respect" for those who "don't agree with the chances of success...", but then immediately turn and say "...those that come here and say the President or those that support the decision are driven by bad motives just being intellectually dishonest.", and you say that without a single straw of proof, evidence, or any other support whatsoever- aside from your personal judgement.

By dismissing those who assert that the President, or his supporters, are being driven by bad motives by judging them to be "intellectually dishonest", rather than "Address<ing> the argument", You are in violation of your own rule 7. Which, of course, makes you the one who is being intellectually dishonest.

Further, in arbitrarily assigning to this "group" to whom you are ascribing the appellation of intellectual dishonesty in violation of your own rule, "those that use terms like "war mongering" "pro war" or suggest this is about a pipeline or personal glory", you are in violation of rule 2 "Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist." In other words, you are in violation of the rule which is the entire basis of this OP. That is a fail of epic proportions.

I will acknowledge that some may try to justify your statement within the framework of your own rules, by claiming that the alternate viewpoints that you are dismissing in an intellectually dishonest fashion are not "reasonable". I will now demonstrate reasonableness of one, which will then demonstrate that you have dismissed at least one reasonable alternate viewpoint... and thereby prove that you are in violation of the OP's rule, which you are, ironically, trying to foist upon others.

You lump those who think the Afghanistan troop escalation is about a "pipeline" amongst those being intellectually dishonest. I present to you an article from Mother Jones (generally acknowledged as a reputable, if left leaning, publication) http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/05/pipelineistan-goes-af-pak
The mere fact that there is an article on the topic of the merits of the pipeline-as-rationale is sufficient to establish the pipeline theory as "reasonable" (whether or not it is correct, or rather: the full extent of the pipelines as contributory factors in the final decisions reached... is a reasonable topic for intellctually honest debate.).

Ipso Facto, you are in violation of your own rule 2, and in violation of the premise of your own OP.

Now I expect you to, in accordance with your own rule 5

(5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

Publicly admit that you are wrong. You were wrong to dismiss those who might've asserted that the escalation of the Afghanistan troop levels might be tied to pipeline interests as being unreasonable. And you were wrong to violate your own rule 7 by attacking them as being intellectually dishonest.

I think a separate OP to announce your having been wrong is appropriate. Lest you want those of us that you insult as being intellectually dishonest to judge you by your own rules: "Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold."

[Bjorn Against]

54. +1

I really have to wonder if NJMaverick is for real or if he is some kind of satirist who takes on the persona of an extremely intellectually dishonest person who lectures others about intellectual honesty. He is in such obvious violation of his own rules in practically everything that he posts that it is almost difficult to believe he is not intentionally violating them to see people's reactions to the clear hypocrisy.

[Starry Messenger]

60. *crickets*

[Lilith Velkor]

95. still waiting....

[La Lioness Priyanka]

55. are you going to follow your own rule? because honestly, i have very rarely seen you follow these

rules yourself. especially while discussing womens rights, gay rights, excessive police force, war etc.

[QC]

58. +10000000000000000000

[NJmaverick]

71. You don't know me so your +10000 would be should questionable intellectual honesty

despite your unrecs intellectual honest is important.

[TokenQueer]

62. Bwahahaha!

:thumbsup:

[NJmaverick]

72. See post 71

[LooseWilly]

82. See post 50

[NJmaverick]

68. I suggest you consider rule 6

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.

[Bjorn Against]

69. I think she has considered that rule, that is why she asked you if you were going to follow it.

[NJmaverick]

70. More like she has violated that rule. Beyond that, she is simply wrong in her accusations

The sort of error that comes from violated the rules of intellectual honesty. If she had bothered to TALK and LISTEN she would know my record for fighting for rights in those areas are beyond question. In fact if she took the time to learn the truth she would be embarrassed at how foolish her accusations are and feel guilty at how wrong they were. I think she would benefit from reading all the rules, because her mistakes are easy enough to avoid.

[LooseWilly]

83. See post 50

If the post is too long for you, please let me know. I am sure I can provide you with a synopsis that might better accommodate your apparently short attention span. If, however, you need no such assistance, then please do respond to post 50. :)

[TexasObserver]

86. Guess what? That's you it's talking about.

This thread by you is a "clear sign of intellectual dishonesty" which "extensively relies on double standards."

Do you have any idea how silly you appear to be, using this numerical guide and arguing it, while lacking any of the qualities you tout?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

97. i am going to be intellectually dishonest and answer on his behalf ,

a resounding NO

[Ignis]

96. Seriously.

:thumbsup:

[Bluebear]

57. lol

[noamnety]

59. My opinion is that this is about a pipeline and corporate profits.

But in the spirit of cooperation, I welcome your comments claiming my opinion is unreasonable or completely invalid.

[hfojvt]

63. is that what he said?

it is not reasonable to not listen to somebody

[noamnety]

65. Did I say he said that?

it is not reasonable to not listen to somebody

[hfojvt]

67. You didn't? How so?

I'm listening.

[NJmaverick]

73. Do you have some facts to back up the accusation

Don't you think an opinion such as this would have to have some pretty strong evidence to support it?

[noamnety]

77. Old PNAC documents.

pipelines in the works.
The usual conquest over resources.
$3.6 billion per month to combat a few box cutters vs. $3.6 billion per month to control oil resources.
common sense

[NJmaverick]

79. There is a reason to suspect that the pipeline might have been a contributing factor when Bush went

in. However considering Obama drew most heavily on citizen donations, I don't see a reason to think he is beholden to big oil.

[Marr]

85. You don't see a reason why a US President would be influenced

by the energy industry when formulating foreign policy?

Did you mean that?

[CreekDog]

61. "Reasonable People can have differences of opinion"...I see lots of loopholes in that one

:evilgrin:

[hfojvt]

64. I think that is a key problem on many issues

although clearly some people do not want to hear it. But not just on the war, this is similar to what I said about the food stamp battle. One side said 'no' and many on the other side said 'yes, and the people who say no are defective either intellectually or morally'. Clearly, one can see the same thing on the abortion threads. Many seem to believe that nobody with an alternative point of view can be considered reasonable or worthy of any modicum of respect.

[ClarkUSA]

78. That's because you're a "Rational Progressive" according to Nate Silver.

Then there is the other category of progressive that he describes euphemistically as "radical":

"But if someone wants to marshal an army to fight a battle of wills while playing fast and loose with the truth and using some of the same demagogic precepts that the right wing does, I am not particularly interested in that. In fact, I think it is acutely dangerous."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=41921&mesg_id=41921

Sounds so familiar... hmm....

[NJmaverick]

80. There is certainly some striking similarities between the two

different wording, but when you come down to ideas are very similar.

[ClarkUSA]

87. I thought so, too.

GMTA, obviously. ;)

[Marr]

84. It's a good point, but you're hardly the one to make it.

Before you direct me to a statement on addressing the argument instead of the person making it, I'll concede that point. But you must understand that this advice would have more weight if you would live it for a few days before offering it to others.

[Romulox]

88. Declaring ones self "intellectually honest" is a lot like labeling ones self a "rational progressive

and characterizing one's opponents as "radicals"

In other words, this post is entirely self-serving, and, to me at least, this sort of self-regarding narcissism is the very soul of "intellectual dishonesty".

[La Lioness Priyanka]

89. well stated

[whatchamacallit]

90. I don't really give a shit about your little list of "rules"

I calls it likes I sees it. Enjoy the corporate murder and mayhem being committed in the guise of your security.

[Bluebear]

92. !

:)

[cbdo2007]

91. The smartest people are those who can acknowledge that they may be wrong.

[PVnRT]

93. This wins the prize for "Ironic Post of the Day"

[ItNerd4life]

94. Most people aren't reasonable. They have their beliefs and aren't open to other ideas.

Democrats only believe in more government. Republicans only believe in less taxes on the rich. Both sides are wrong
but aren't willing to look at alternative solutions. As a blue dog Democrat, I find very few people willing to discuss
issues. You can't discuss 'true' facts (as opposed to any other type of fact).

Most importantly, most people aren't capable of discussing the foundations of their beliefs and what the role of government is.
that's where the true problem lies with most people. They can't discuss it, so they make it personal and just insult others.