/chuckle. Jeremy I want to congratulate you. You've impressed me and thats not easy. Somehow you managed to write several very official sounding paragraphs on logical fallacies, working diligently to apply them to my posting, yet at the end of the day you fail to address any of the content of my post in a meaningful manor. It is a feat worthy of the TP I gave you for it.

Re-reading the thread, I've noticed that many of your posts apply this technique. I'll reword a small portion of my post for you, quoting from your post so you can address a single issue and not wander into some tangential discussion.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Miller

Some tasks are worthy of being above a sole purpose of earning money. Health care is chief amongst them

Jermey argues: The task is worthy, regardless of if it earns money(Repeating what you said, hopefully not changing the meaning). Democrats (some on this forum) argue: Iraq war is financially breaking us. Neocons argue: Deposing an evil dictator worth it, even if the cost is high.

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. I'm just repeating what you and others have said. In my opinion, outside of the cause, there is very little different in the spending habits of the Neo-cons and the Liberals.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Miller

"Common sense" I'll give you is subjective, but truth, if speaking about subjects other than abstract concepts and philosophy, is absolute.

Unfortunately, the court of reality for you is quite different than the court of reality for me, as is the court of reality for the CEO of Exxon. If the truth we are talking about is "Bush was a "bad" president", clearly the three people I mentioned are going to give you different answers which may be equally true to each of them. This makes pretty much every "truth" as related to politics subjective, as evidenced by your later post implying Bush feels the constitution is a document of recommendations.

Originally Posted by cbwm

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.

lol. And, I'll leave you to the court of final appeal.

No need to re-hash what we've already said. We both made the case. I'll let other decide for themself.

EDIT: I'd like to see you try something different. Try arguing from the other point of view. I find it very enlightening and it usually strengthens my arguments. I had the opportunity(?) to argue on behalf of the South in a debate over the civil war (in class). I'm very glad it wasn't me arguing back then -- we slaughtered the opposition, even though they could have proffered much stronger arguments than they did. And, if you do, I will follow up too with an argument from the side I oppose (so, if it's not on this thread that you do it, PM me and I'll join in).

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

Ah, alas. Fey, you are right 2+2 over the field of integers is whatever you want it to be. There is objective truth. It's not always able to be observed, however, by everyone. It still exists though.

That would be a fact.. Truth is more subjective..

There was no evidence that the tased dude was fighting them. Four people subduing one person (who didn't appear to be that strong) isn't enough? Well, then, perhaps we leave it to the courts where a civil suit was just settled against the Taser company.

Perhaps you were watching a different video?? When it takes four people to put cuffs on you, it's sort of hard to say you weren't resisting.. Not resisting is saying "yes sir" then turning around and putting your hands behind your back..

BTW: Obama has taught constitutional law. He probably knows more about it than you and I.

Could very well be.. But I know a lot of architecture professors that can't get a house built where I've had quite a few built..

Haha. A fan of speech and debate. I once argued the side of Affirmative Action in class, with similar results. My friend who was my opponent held a grudge for a week, and several anti-AA people in class were actually angry with me for the arguments I presented.

I could definitely argue the side of Obama in an Obama vs. McCain debate, as I actually don't like McCain to the point I am very seriously considering voting for Obama. Granted, the more I see of Obama, the less I like him, but even if he sucks, a Dem in office would provide the Republicans to present a candidate I actually like in 2012, rather than having to deal with a choice between dumb and dumber again.

If you are talking about arguing the side of "Bush Derangement Syndrome", I cant do it because I just don't get it. I've tried to argue the opposite side but it just seems an insurmountable task to find the "magic" evidence that lays the responsibility of Katrina or the housing bubble, or any of the other goodies people dig up, on Bush without sounding like a lunatic. Lets not even go down the path of "Bush planned 9-11", or the cruise missile hit the pentagon story.

I don't know what you're talking about regarding "The 43rd Derangment Syndrome". Those who try to say that any president would plan an attack on the US have watched just a bit too much 24 and I would never demean you to the degree of asking to see from their view.

If you're planning to vote for Obama, I'll shut up, though. Wouldn't want to dissuade you there!

What I was really talking about was a pro-Obama view. Not necessarily a comparison against McCain.

In fact, it's my view that in this election, people should focus more on the positive qualities of candidates instead of blanket attacks. The attitude of "vote for candidate X b/c candidate Y is not good" just seems to me to be missing the point.

Well, I'm done on here for today. Have a bunch of stuff to get done b4 tomorrow morning.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

I don't know what you're talking about regarding "The 43rd Derangement Syndrome".

Bush Derangement Syndrome is probably why many call Bush the most divisive president in recent times. Beyond the desire by most on the left to take the opposite stance of any position he takes, I'm convinced it is the reason we have so many nutty conspiracy theories floating around. The link I provide doesn't go into the causes, but I'm convinced his 2000 election victory with a popular minority, his struggle with the English language, his ability to get legislation passed, and the fact he is a wise crack, all mixed together create a "potion" that drives liberals quite literally insane. His very effigy invokes a visceral reaction. Its funny as hell, but I have to admit its likely not very good for the nation as a whole.

Originally Posted by JeremyMiller

What I was really talking about was a pro-Obama view. Not necessarily a comparison against McCain.

In fact, it's my view that in this election, people should focus more on the positive qualities of candidates instead of blanket attacks. The attitude of "vote for candidate X b/c candidate Y is not good" just seems to me to be missing the point.

If it is a debate, the Pro-Obama view must have an opposing side. I suppose that would be the Pro-McCain View? Or the Con-Obama View? Maybe its just me, but I tend not make decisions based on the qualities of the candidates, but more along the lines of what I think they will do during their term in office. That eliminates all of the following talking points from being relevant, even though some of them may be "Positive Qualities" of one candidate vs. another.

1) Obamas race
2) McCains Age
3) Both Candidates Pandering
4) Obamas gift of oration.
5) Who I think I'd rather have a beer with
6) Who is [currently] more popular

These two are so different, if you just look at what each of them is telling you they want to do, take that at face value, assume they could actually get it done, and then work out logically what you think the results will be, it seems the choice ought to be clear. There are only two problems with that theory:
1) Its based on the assumption they will actually be able to do what they say they will do. Given that that rarely happens, one has to start debating the permutations of what their body of legislation will look like after it has been mutilated.
2) The possible results of any given action, despite previous historical fact and evidence, can be effectively spun, nearly to the point of changing history(Reagans Cold War Victory denial is a good case and point here).

Anyway, I agree that it is a useful exercise in not only strengthening your own position, but sometimes in forging it.

BDS seems like a contrived concept to ignore the fact that The 43rd's definition of cooperation is capitulation to his wishes. When someone says, "My way or the highway", you can't exactly call that cooperation in all honesty.

Originally Posted by cbwm

If it is a debate, the Pro-Obama view must have an opposing side.

The part which starts with the above (no need to quote it all) I agree with. Even someone who is as excited about Obama as I am cannot presume that he will be able or willing to achieve everything he has said he will work for as president. Reality changes potentiality.

9/11, for example, changed The 43rd's presidency whether he wanted it to or not. That he never addressed the real terrorists behind 9/11 and instead went out to rectify what he thought his father should have done is irrelevant; it still defined him as a military president. I believe he wanted to be an education president before that, but thank reality that he didn't -- No Child Left Behind was a tragedy in-and-of itself (punctuation correction?), so it is fortuitous that he didn't have a chance to further damage the public education system, though we would all hope that it would not have been under the circumstances which arose.

I do believe that once the Republicans have lost Congress to such a degree that even their filibusters can be stopped and Obama is in office, that much more will be able to be accomplished than would otherwise be the case. The filibuster-and-do-nothing Congress will be dead.

It is pleasing that every technique the Republicans have tried have blown up in their face. If only they would have tried cooperation, but they consider that "appeasement".


Well, this thread has been fun. I'll read it from here on out, but I need to stop posting on WT for a week as I'm moving and that's taking a lot on top of my work.

Take care and remember to vote Obama!

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Ah, but when 4 officers are wrestling with you on the ground, and you still fight, it's common sense to expect to get tasered..

Sure, but I didn't realize we were talking about Rodney King? Put less sarcastically, there's no reason to believe the guy was resisting arrest. Well, there's a reason, that it makes it easier to hold other beliefs - but I hope we can all agree that isn't how the world works. The earth isn't flat because that makes Middle Ages Christianity easier to swallow.

More to the point, the man was tasered for asking a question. Was it necessary? Absolutely not! How does a cost benefits analysis go on this situation?

• The benefit of not tasering the guy would be that we could claim to live in a society where people are free to speak their minds and voice their concerns to the people they might elect to represent them. A democracy, in other words.
• The cost of not tasering the guy is a guard would have had to find some other way of entertaining himself.

How does that work out, on balance?

Originally Posted by Feydakin

Personally I don't believe in the "truth".. It's too easy to manipulate by your point of view.. Whose truth?? Where you excluded truth, philosophy, religion, etc., is actually the only place I think that it applies..

So when somebody tells you the Holocaust never happened or that Iran doesn't actually exist, truth isn't the way you would go about demonstrating that they were wrong?

Originally Posted by Feydakin

And I agree about civil rights, but the time to argue for them is not when a police office has his taser pointed at you.. Again, common sense says you will get tased.. Right or wrong, true or false, doesn't really apply, you are on the wrong end of the taser and need to adjust "your" attitude to keep from getting tased.. Talk about it in a safer environment, like court..

On most of this we agree.

"Truth" is a religious concept to me.. I prefer "facts" when dealing with certain issues.. Photographs, eyewitness statements, etc are facts.. I repeat what I heard and it becomes the "truth" with facts to back it up.. Hopefully.. You get further down stream and the truth gets watered down and watered down.. There is still a "fact" in there somewhere but it's been obscured by the truth as it evolves..

Yes, it's a philosophical look at things, maybe even a tweaked philosophical look, but it works for me.. And it keeps me from seeing Limbaugh's truth, or O'Rielly's truth, or Jackson's truth, or Gore's truth as anything more than they are, strongly held opinions..

Whatever happens there would always be a good and a bad reason to elect Obama. The thing is that not all will understand each and every of your/his points. I think it would be nice to have a public debate with the candidates...