The need for rational debate and civil discussion is at its highest point in recent history, yet it's at its lowest point of occurrence. You simply cannot have a civil discussion with the "opposition". I keep trying....
RATED

Fox reporters weren't rejected from Blind Date. They were the writing staff of "Fear Factor."

Wow, Aaron. I've worked construction all my life and haven't run into anyone as biased as a Fox News reporter. Hehehe.

The old saying that,"When a wise man argues with an idiot, it's hard to tell which is which." rings true in this discussion. If one is not willing to deal with facts then they are delusional. No amount of conversation can convince some of these people.

Kind of Blue: There is a definite dearth of civil discourse. My father and I have this discussion all the time regarding one of his friends who is a right winger, but not a nut job. To wrap religion around ideology is quite scary, although wrapping ideology around religion is not much better.

Snoreville Bedenknockers:
My guess is that they've already eaten the yak testicles and have moved onto becoming the biggest jackass.

Michael:
It's been way too long. I've had these conversations with much younger students on my campus. Some of them get it, and others just hold firm in defending their ideology, disregarding the logic placed before them that reduces their 'arguments' to the complexity of a 5 year old's whining in the supermarket because mommy says he can't have the latest crap the toy industry is peddling.

I guess the point is just to try to win some battles. Incremental illumination of the facts are the only way we can dirty up these brainwashed folks minds again. *Some* are beyond help, (reasoning with) - but I'll let God sort those out for me.

"Don't confuse me with facts, I've already made up my mind." That about sums up their stance. That and "My head hurts!"

And lay off my romaine!

Wayne: Ideology wrapped up in circumstance tends to make people comfortable if not complacent regarding the acceptance of facts. The alternative of considering facts in order to measure the efficacy and soundness of the ideas upon which said ideologies are based, is a repeated exercise of skating upon thin ice -something most on the other side of the 'aisle' have not only accepted, but also embraced.

For market economics or fundamentalist/maximalist religious ideologies to function without the benefit of a stable core, simply underscores the need for a new incarnation of ideas; using reason as oppped to indignant fervor as a measure of their validity.

We all know that the people of whom we are speaking, count among their company those who do not believe in evolution.

Poof, here we are; no need to really know how or why, or even to determine our own purpose *within* the confines of our enviornment's limits. The same seems to be true of the dark recesses from which emerged their enigma wrapped within a defective idea.

The was a recipe for disaster among those who value reason, no? Hence, the dilemma of the unbeliever/Realist when dealing with the instability and reactivity of this common element of our society. Fully 46 (+/- 1%) of voting Americans approved of the vacuous ideology used to legitimate support for McCain-Palin.

Admittedly, the ideology used to support Barack Obama [being] on the "left" has had mixed results when challenged too. At least it made sense though.

These post are examples of why I miss you so much! Well done, friend! Truly.

I think that I enjoy talking to a dead tree stump more than I do talking with about 90% of the people around this part of Ohio who think of themselves as "up to date and current on current affairs." The sad thing is that so many of them are really nice people as long as you are talking about the weather, family, and Ohio State football. Once out of the realm of banality they are way over their heads, but haven't a clue that Fix News is not "true fact." That is so sad, but so true.

Rated

Monte

Monte: Thanks - I am doing my best to balance between here and school. I definitely would like to be here at least once per week. I feel like a part of me is stifled if I don't take this as my release valve.

Substantially deep conversations are a relative rarity here in Miami too. I just hope that as I clime the ladder of educational attainment, that the quality of interpersonal interactions will improve too. If not, I could always move...

"the ladder of educational attainment"... "deep conversations are a relative rarity here in Miami too." you have got to be kidding. You seem like a nice young man. But…..did someone cut off your testicles?

Are you in-grateful loser? Come on man! Snap out of it! While 70% of the rest of the world survives on $2 a day, you go to school and complain about shallow conversations with simple folk. I hate to break it to you, but those simple working middle class tax paying conservatives that want to talk about college football to get their minds off of the flippin' leach complainers like you are the ones bankrolling your scholarship.

And if you are one of the .05% of the people in this country who is paying for his education, you still owe it to mankind to try to find out how things really work.

Get a job and contribute to the marketplace of the world and quit sucking off the system. You won’t. Too much risk. It ain’t in your social DNA. What are you going to do….get your masters and teach for God’s sake? What a dead end. Lusting after the endearing respect of minors who think you have it going on when you have never accomplished anything, and only took the job because you thought you could “make a difference” all while just babysitting the next generation of miscreant co-dependant juveniles, prevent the bloodletting and get a steady paycheck . That’s the perfect description of a modern day teacher. Their hands are so tied in this system. I pity them. We should let hem teach.

Why don’t you really make difference and go risk everything to create the next company that provides jobs and elevated lifestyles with a mentoring program to reproduce that in young men & woman for our future. That’s what I do. That’s what those who are the backbone of America do. That’s what makes our country great. Yeah, the one you complain about every time you stroke a key on this blog

After reading your posts, it's no wonder you are such an elitist. You are useless to our society and you contribute nothing. No original ideas. No plan to make it better. No love for those who think differently. Just more of your critical culture of complaint crap. You live off of the largess of the capitalists. I can't wait for the Obama led crash.

When the money for those who don't contribute runs out, what are you going to do then? Get a job at Fox.......?

Let’s have fun. I will make you a deal....Any topic, any subject at all.
Here are the rules.

1. Stay on topic. No rambling. We both seem to do that well also.
2. No attacks on any ones personal motives. The political motive is the only fair ground. For example: If you attack Bush or a conservative, it has to be for their political motive not for what you think their personal motive would be. That is speculation and if you are going to speculate, that is fine, but there has to be a solid reason behind it. I will do the same. Even though I think Obama has a personal narcissism that drives him, I will stick to what I perceive his political motive to be. Yes, that will always skirt the personal, but try to be your better self and I will do the same.

I will refrain from any personal attacks and sarcasm if you will do the same. I personally don't think you can do it. Most liberals/progressives, once they run out of fact ammo revert to tactics like "kill the messenger", innuendo or other silly incredible debate methods to change the subject or divert the issue.

3. Admit if you lose a debate or if your opinion is swayed or exposed as flawed. That takes guts and integrity.

Those are attributes that we both would argue that we have. You may think I have none because I am a conservative. I think you mean well, but that you are delusional with a flawed character. You have been raised in a culture that believes that America is fundamentally flawed. That qualifies as diametrically opposed to what I believe.

You also claim to be Progressive Christian. I don't know what that means. I think the 2 cannot scripturally or doctrinally coexist without some creating license on the behalf of the progressive. I think it means that you are a social/political Christian. Not a bible believing, faith exercising Christian. That’s too bad….

4. Name your topic. I'll name mine. We agree on one and give it all we have until we have exhausted the topic and we agree to disagree. Then we pick a new topic. Other than that....the gloves are off.

Most liberals don’t like a fair fight because they really deep down inside have a flaw. You see, they really don’t believe in absolutes. They really don’t believe that it’s all tied together. They want to believe that, but they are driven by emotion and not the laws that govern the universe. Like gravity. They think that in order to fly, you have to defy gravity. Conservatives know that that is impossible. Conservatives know that flight is managing gravity to its highest and best use. Flight then is the next law employed that doesn’t defy gravity, it embraces it, understands it and harnesses it.

Progressives just complain about it and wish someone else who knows how to fly would give them their plane. Progressives know in their souls (incorrectly) that they reason people fly is because of the efforts of those who don’t and that they got their planes illegally or through corrupt means. They can’t imagine that someone actually conceived a dream and tried and failed numerous times on the way to that dream fulfillment. They can’t conceive that someone paid their own money at great risk to themselves to create and cultivate an idea. That is a foreign concept to a liberal.

I digress…..are you in?

Fun topics: Racism, abortion, homosexuality, environment, politics, religion, defense, foreign policy. What is progressivism? What is conservatism. etc.

Bring it.

@Philos777:

I was a little harsh and sounded reactive re: my interactions with other people. The point is that I may be talking to a Democrat or Republican, but it's the level of thought that goes into some of the opinions I hear that troubles me, not the political party the source of the opion embraces. I can disagree with something based on its logical indefensability. On the other hand, it just doesn't make sense to me to oppose something I may not agree with on the surface, but upon further exploration, cannot refute. Regarding some of your more specific assertions, see below:


"you have got to be kidding. You seem like a nice young man. But…..did someone cut off your testicles?"

Thanks for the compliment, I am nice. As for the testicles, no; actually they are still quite present and accounted for. In my comment I wrongly omitted stressing that it's not that I am so much smarter, but that so far, many here in my area of FL. seem less capable of talking about anything that is not MTV-related - but then again, sometimes I think that so too is my brother.


"Are you in-grateful loser? Come on man! Snap out of it! While 70% of the rest of the world survives on $2 a day, you go to school and complain about shallow conversations with simple folk"

Here we agree - mostly. The world is in a horrible state, and I am back in school to do something other than contributing just to GDP through being a waiter, appraiser and mortgage broker, to help right the ship.

As I attend school, it is not simple folk that bother me - its the other students who seem to be wasting their time prattling on about ...crap. The people I discuss morality and ethics in business with that just shut down as soon as their position is no longer dependable - them I have a problem with. As of yet, I have no problem with you.

As for this being a waste of time, how can it be a waste to understand others in your representative democracy with whom you share a future? Simple folk, I actually have no problem with. Incessant yapping about shows that feed off our 'culture of complaint' just aggravates me. That is the definition of elitism and the ugly side of exceptionalism. To guide community activism through prudent, judicious policy-making tied to necessarily more equitable corrective policy, is the best way to make government work - not giving it a facelift every 4 - 8 years. Hindsight is 20/20 is not enough don't you see? Just like not wearing your glasses 20 years ago cannot absolve you of manslaughter. For examples, see Civil rights Act, recent GI bill benefits revisions et al.

As regards entertainment and values, when you look at the values promoted on network tv - wealth, accumulation of stuff, and a negative - if any - view on the importance of community among individualists; does what you see not bother you?

"What are you going to do….get your masters and teach for God’s sake? What a dead end."

"That’s the perfect description of a modern day teacher. Their hands are so tied in this system. I pity them."

Don't want to teach - not yet anyway. I *do* want to do better than I was in making a difference, by working in policy formation. As for teachers' hands being tied in the system. Sure, I'll second that. So are we all: employees, employers, senators, insurance companies, campaign officials, campaign donors, wall street, joe citizen, etc. Does that mean we shouldn't talk about our flaws to come up with the best solution/s? Um, no.


"Why don’t you really make difference and go risk everything to create the next company that provides jobs and elevated lifestyles with a mentoring program to reproduce that in young men & woman for our future. That’s what I do."

As for the "why don't you [do what I did] " argument, I don't think that is a particularly helpful beginning. Nonetheless, I actually think that is an awesome idea, and I admire you for having done it. Can you help me get started with the 'how' of it? I wouldn't have the first clue where to start...

"That’s what makes our country great. Yeah, the one you complain about every time you stroke a key on this blog."

You're right - that is what makes our country great, as well as the stress we put on inspiration, and the role it plays in creating momentum and achieving meaningful progress that is in turn, key to our nation's greatness.

"You are useless to our society and you contribute nothing. No original ideas. No plan to make it better. No love for those who think differently."

Here you seem to digress for a moment - but as you said, we are both quite capable of rambling. You seem to have the plan part taken care of - activism. For my part, I am working on becoming more useful, given my strengths, and continue to work on my weaknesses. Do you?

"If you attack Bush or a conservative, it has to be for their political motive not for what you think their personal motive would be."

Fair rules - and as you alluded to later on in your comment, personal and political as well as international levels are a part of the same grouping within systemic analysis.

"You may think I have none because I am a conservative. I think you mean well, but that you are *delusional with a flawed character. You have been raised in a culture that believes that America is fundamentally flawed. That qualifies as diametrically opposed to what I believe."

You do have guts and integrity - I can see it in the thoughtfulness of your responses. I am sorry you think that I am delusional and with a flawed character. I don't think the same of you. I think you may be delusional to a degree - but that remains to be seen through our future discussions. Your character has yet to be demonstrated. If we can have a civilized discussion, then I think we can say that you are of at least moderate character. Disagreement does not preclude me from reaching that conclusion; one has nothing to do with the other.

*If we are going to discuss anything, I insist that you stick to the rules though: no personal attacks, either in debate or correspondence.

I don't think that America is fundamentally flawed. I think that the fundamentals are currently on shaky ground - we have lost our way to a great extent, but the fundamentals - the core principles - *excluding* the economy for now, are sound.

I do however, think that there are externalities - costs of doing business so to speak - that our current political discourse does not account for. The fact that your business needs to provide programs with mentoring services speaks to our failure as a society to foster good values in children, and brings into perspective the government's failure to reinvest in its greatest assets.

"I don't know what that means. I think the 2 cannot scripturally or doctrinally coexist without some creating license on the behalf of the progressive."

Progressive just means looking for or open to something better, while conservative means ""disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change." Seems to me that the only disagreement is what the margin of error in past policy making has been.

You obviously know what being a Christian means. To be a progressive Christian is to believe in God's word, and reconcile the solutions to today's problems with policy that is in line with that word.

Legislating morality does not work,but serving as an example of moral behavior [enacting equitable laws/correcting historical injustices] does. To be a progressive christian is no less possible than being a Conservative Republican. One is ideological and the other political, but reason has to be used to arrive at a reasonable party/faction position. You are not, after all, a robot.

We can make killing against the law, but generally cannot prevent murder from occuring - in an absolute sense. That is the only reason you can possibly justify the death penalty from a Christian or Conservative standpoint - which I happen to agree with under certain circumstances.

"They [Democrats] think that in order to fly, you have to defy gravity. Conservatives know that that is impossible. Conservatives know that flight is managing gravity to its highest and best use. Flight then is the next law employed that doesn’t defy gravity, it embraces it, understands it and harnesses it."

There goes that nasty digression again...Understanding a thing is embracing it, I agree. However harnessing it is not. Oil for example, is a resource to be harnessed for our own use, but not at the cost of the air we breath or the water we drink. I think you would agree, that would not be the 'highest and best use.'

Embracing nature and dominating nature is impossible to attain simultaneously - at least without consequences of mutually assured destruction. When you embrace something, usually it means accepting "...[the need for a] plan to make it better... and...] for those who think differently [about it]. There is a fine line between harnessing something and bending its will for one's own benefit.


"Progressives just complain about it and wish someone else who knows how to fly would give them their plane."

Life is largely what you provide for yourself, with some exceptions. As you know from your work, some folks' bootstraps are longer than others, as are other folks' coat tails. It's not the long-coats' fiscal responsibility to carry the less fortunate.
It is however, their moral responsibility to consider what would be the highest and best use of their fellow citizens' potential - to their own benefit, I might add.

The sooner you realize that it's not *simply* an us and them dynamic which will drive our conversations, the sooner we can get to being satisfied - rationally - on a common ground derived from sound logic versus either of our perceived ideologies.

Politically, somehow we disagree. Philosophically speaking though, I think we are more alike than you care to acknowledge - just yet. The same may also be said for me - hence my name Purple.


Not blue, not red, Purple.

Bring it again...

Thanks for weighing in Zyskandar - I really do appreciate your feedback.

As for my 'thing' with Fox, I thought about it for a moment and came up with this:

What I don't like about Faux Noose is the same thing I don't like about MSNBCee, Cee-eNeN or the other major outlets here in America - the only country I really know about. Sure, there are other outlets available - for those who seek them.

That, my friend, is where the problem lies. I wouldn't go so far to say that the former's audience clings to guns and religion, anymore than I would say the latter networks' audience is particularly endeared to peace symbols and atheism. Come to think of it though, it seems the right plays by different rules and carries considerably more vitriole for their 'sworn enemies.'

At what juncture in our history did we decide that politics would be more rather than less sinister (I am aware of the pun) and less rather than more civilized and or proactive? I just want to have a decent conversation with someone with different views once in a while - without losing a finger in the melee.

In fact, I'd settle for a sane discussion. I thought I had one with Philos777 until the 'rules of engagement' were established. I was actually excited at the proposition of participating in a reasoned debate now and then :(

Oh well - I'll keep 'Favoriting' them...and hope for the best.

@Zyskandar:

Absolutely, junk journalism is trending toward becoming the rule, rather than the exception. I thought it odd that Charlie was featured in the retrospective looking at Walter Cronkite's contributions to journalism. Then again, they can't very well disavow their choice - whether most of the public perceives him to be a puppet or a real journalist.

The same too, can be said for Hannity, Colbert, Beck, Olbermann et al. The difference is that everyone knows that Colbert is a comedian first and Olbermann a (sports) commentator...right?

interesting commentary..

Great post, says this pagan. Rated!