Baker, it's not about quality of argument. The quality could still be good.

Let me put it this way. Let's assume that you have a wife. You just got home from work and she accused you of cheating. You never cheated on her, but she thought you did. Does it matter how many times you explained that you didn't cheat? No matter how good your evidence and argument, somehow I still don't think she would believe you. Would you agree that she didn't listen because she was upset? No reasoning could get through to her at that moment.

That's what I found here, several writers are very defensive (yet offensive at the same time). On some issues, I feel it would be impossible to get their attention to consider different perspectives. They are not wrong for writing like that. After all, you should express what you feel in your articles. But at the same time, some prospective writers would consider not to join the conversation because they feel their perspective would be just easily dismissed no matter how well-written is the response.

I can't say the same for everyone, but I personally feel there is little that could be learnt from engaging a hostile discussion.

Conservatives have a lot easier time dealing with people who oppose them.

You didn't read Texaii'a comments very carefully.

It's just an observation, and if you feel I'm way off, that's cool. I'm not trying to be a jerk to you. I was just trying to express care, not call you out or anything.

Baker, You do get uptight, you know.

Most of the more intelligent liberals are more moderate than liberal, or focus their blogs on other topics. The few truly intelligent, truly dedicated liberals that remain spend far too little time blogging here, in my opinion. And there ARE some points to be made by liberals. It could be that liberals if not in essence unwanted on JU, they might at least feel they aren't taken seriously.
I suppose, I'm suicidal.

J: By that rationale, though, why have political debates? Is there a chance that Kerry was going to be really persuasive and Bush was going to slap his head and say "Why didn't I think of that..."

Nah. Persuasion is nice, but in the end I'd be surprised if a millionth of the debates throughout history ended up swaying one or the other side. It does make good material for people who watch and haven't made their minds up, though.

I think when many talk about Liberal Americans not doing a good job getting the word out, that is a symptom. Sure, they may know they are right and wash their hands of you without bothering to fight it out, but they don't realize the smallest fraction of those witnessing the debate are actually in it, at least around here.

Steve: I know. Tex knows too. The situation I am refering to was unfortunate and born more of misunderstanding than difference, I think. Still, it was kind of the same situation here, and I think it reflects more of how I deal with people who mischaracterize me than it does a trend in my relations around here.

I take you seriously. I take Kingbee and Bahu seriously. No one takes cartoons seriously, and when people lack any depth or dimension, toss a catchphrase and walk they don't come off as anything BUT a catchphrase. I have faith that when we start freefalling toward the election we'll gain quite a few new Libs.

That's why I wasn't interested in that kind of political debate. Both-sided are too hard-headed to admit any mistake and little substance was discussed. Each side was basically saying: this is my stance and that's your stance. No matter what, my opinion is better so everybody should goddamn vote for me!

What I value most is a discussion not a debate. I'd like to discuss about an issue to evaluate my stance and take inputs from others. Yes, you can say that I haven't made my mind up. But I hope not to be arrogant enough to consider that I know everything. Different situation may require different approach. And that's what I like most about a good discussion, the opportunity to learn.

But if you think about it, if Bush and Kerry were very persuasive, we would probably have seen some live love-fest on TV That'd be gross yet interesting! :evil:

Cheers.

theres not much debate among conservatives/rightwing nuts/hypocrites because they march in lock step.

an example of this is any vote in the house ... republicans will vote the same way ... WITHOUT thought.

these people dont stray far from the talking points which are
1) america is number one and gwb sits at gods right hand
2) your with us or against us
3) we decide who is a terrorist
4) we have NEVER done any wrong
5) we are the moral guide of the world
6) its bill clintons fault
7) did i mention clinton
8) see 6 and 7
9) refer to 8
10) 6 and 7 ... when in DOUBT 8

I vaguely recall a conversation I had with someone who blurted out
"you liberals (small note here, I am not a liberal) listen to right wing radio to get a sense of what we
are thinking ... we onthe other hand have no desire to listen to left wing radio"

I told him point blank:
if thats the case, then its because "we" are
1) NOT threatened by your ideology
2) ARE free thinkers ... willing to hear other point of views if they are RATIONAL
3) ARE not robots or mindless drowns without intellectual curiosity

He babble some idiotic talking point before adding a new one:
the WAR on christmas

MORONS

MORONS

Now, see, rombios...this is part of what I'm talking about. You did raise some valid, if not slightly hyperbolic points about many conservatives, but you negated it with this single word. If you had stopped your response 6 letters shorter, I would have probably pegged you with an insightful.

rombios is an odd case. Sometimes he claims to be in a south American country embittered by US intervention, and other times he talks about the US in the first person, as if he is here and a citizen. The one fact seems to be he refuses to get an account and start blogging, which makes me think maybe we already know him and the IP thing is a problem...

It could be that liberals if not in essence unwanted on JU, they might at least feel they aren't taken seriously.

steven,

I don't mind saying you're one of the liberals I wish we'd see more of (the stuff of substance that you used to produce with greater quantity). While this may be your reason for not blogging here, the question I would pose to you is: why DO you blog? And why let our opinions keep you from expressing yourself? (they're rhetorical questions, really...I'm hoping you'll think about it, as this site COULD use a little more balance).

theres not much debate among conservatives/rightwing nuts/hypocrites because they march in lock step. an example of this is any vote in the house ... republicans will vote the same way ... WITHOUT thought. these people dont stray far from the talking points which are 1) america is number one and gwb sits at gods right hand 2) your with us or against us 3) we decide who is a terrorist 4) we have NEVER done any wrong 5) we are the moral guide of the world 6) its bill clintons fault 7) did i mention clinton 8) see 6 and 7 9) refer to 8 10) 6 and 7 ... when in DOUBT 8

I am considered by most here on JU and other places, to be an "extreme" right-winger. And I'm here to tell you that you couldn't be more wrong if you tried on all 10 lines.

I think the main difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives believe in moral absolutes, and liberals don't, for the most part. And when conservatives STATE their beliefs, they're accused of being bigoted by liberals who want affirmation for their vices.

When conservatives frustrate me, though, is when they attempt to legislate all of their moral positions. I can believe something's wrong without trying to outlaw, it, frankly.

But I hope not to be arrogant enough to consider that I know everything.

Non-arguable axiom.

but you negated it with this single word.

Agreed.

And why let our opinions keep you from expressing yourself?

I don't, but I have other writing interests, but as Baker implies at election time I'll leap out of my spider web!

steven,

good to know. You are missed around here.

republicans will vote the same way ... WITHOUT thought.

This is the kind of thing that infuriates conservatives--lighten up. Of course, many of them are guilty of the same witless comments.

"I think the main difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives believe in moral absolutes, and liberals don't, for the most part.

I'd have to disagree with that wholeheartedly. In almost every issue modern American liberalism imposes a subjective "truth". Whether it is environmentalism, abortion, the death penalty, war etc., you don't have many shades of grey at all, only untouchable rights and outright condemnation.

They eek by without much notice because they don't have a slab of rock or a book to cite for their morality. Their moral absolutes seem to get a pass because they make them up off the top of their heads instead of falling back on traditional values. That doesn't make them any less absolute, though.

I think the main difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives believe in moral absolutes, and liberals don't, for the most part. And when conservatives STATE their beliefs, they're accused of being bigoted by liberals who want affirmation for their vices

Relative morality need not support "vices." The true thrust of morality is to assess whether absolutes are arbitrary or substantially relevant to daily living.

>Now, see, rombios...this is part of what I'm talking about. You did raise some valid, if not slightly
>hyperbolic points about many conservatives, but you negated it with this single word. If you had
>stopped your response 6 letters shorter, I would have probably pegged you with an insightful.

Gideon ... point well taken!!!

However I have long decided to dispense with any modicum of civility where these matters are concerned.
I call like I see it ... and I see "morons" lacking in logic and thought processes

>rombios is an odd case.

by odd you mean "non conformist" .. fine I accept that.

>Sometimes he claims to be in a south American country embittered by US intervention


I never claimed to be from any South American country. I did say I have friends from all over th world
have similar stories ... thats
CIA/NSA/NGO has been used to topple democratically elected governments that were viewed as socialist,
on who happened to PUT THEIR PEOPLE first before alliances with the USofA

what I have from my friends confirms the stories in Johnsons "BlowBack" ... a good read.

>and other times he talks about the US in the first person, as if he is here and a citizen.

Prove I am not?

>The one fact seems to be he refuses to get an account and start blogging

Has it ever occured to you that I have no interest lin playing this game under YOUR rules Bakestreet?
I love that you continuously raise this point ... you and Dr Guy.

That this continues to be a sore on your side ... is a source of never ending joy for me.

>which makes me think maybe we already know him and the IP thing is a problem...

Whatever dude!
I am surprised you are even bothering to respond to me ... in an earlier post (on a different subject) you said
you would never respond to anything I write on here ... youve folded like a leaf.!!!

You and Dr Guy love to censor and delete posts you dont agree with ... why should I or others bother signing
up?
Your attempts to pigeon hole me and like minded individuals are a waste of time ... I share ideas and view
points with liberals (privacy, sane foreign policy, protection from corrupt business/corporation) and with
conservatives (flat/low tax, small government, right to bear arms).

That so called "liberal" label isnt so fixed ... now is it?

I may not agree with Gideon but I respect him and his willingness to challenge ANY point he doesnt agree
with.

Nuff said!

I hadn't noticed their exodus. It is fair to equate extreme left with the obnoxious extreme right; however, you leave us with the impression that there many more of the arrogant and "enlightened" academicians among the left than the holier than thou, benevolent captains of industry of the right.

That was my intent.  Because there appear to be a lot more extreme left-wingers today than extreme right wingers.  Left-wing speakers aren't being heckled off the stage enmasse.  Left-wing speakers aren't being assaulted in public.  Left-wing speakers don't have their speeches interupted by crazed right wingers.  That isn't to say it never happens but it's pretty bloody rare.

I think the main difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives believe in moral absolutes, and liberals don't, for the most part. And when conservatives STATE their beliefs, they're accused of being bigoted by liberals who want affirmation for their vices. When conservatives frustrate me, though, is when they attempt to legislate all of their moral positions. I can believe something's wrong without trying to outlaw, it, frankly.

I disagree here on many fronts.  First, both sides tend to think that there are moral absolutes. They just choose what those moral absolutes are differently.  Left-wing orthodoxy strikes me as dogmatically religious as right-wing Christian fundamentalists.

And while it is annoying when right-wingers try to push their beliefs on us in the form of law, at least they're using the democratic mechanism.  Left-wingers, by contrast, tend to try to use the courts which are not answerable to the people. 

For example, I'm pro-choice.  But the decision whether abortion should be legal or not should be in the hands of elected officials, not unelected judges.

"I never claimed to be from any South American country. I did say I have friends from all over th world have similar stories ..."

nah, rombios. You and I had a long talk once about how the CIA had been involved in some plot to overthrow your government or something. I'm sure I'm not the only one around here that remembers your ranting about how the US imperialism that attacked your country was now attacking Iraq.

I hadn't noticed their exodus.

Not exodus, ostracization.

Conservatives have a lot easier time dealing with people who oppose them. You didn't read Texaii'a comments very carefully.

You did not read my article very well either.

but you negated it with this single word.

No, he negated it with his single thought.  One cannot make a dog a cat, or a thinking person from a stump.

nah, rombios. You and I had a long talk once about how the CIA had been involved in some plot to overthrow your government or something.

He is a caricture.  When I challenged him to produce proof of his statemenets, he disapeared! He has yet to do so, so I will not let him comment until he stops alleging and starts producing.  Suffice it to say, he will never be seen on my blogs again! By his own admissions. Or lack there of.