And, again...
I wanted to, again, express myself on some of the arguments. Okiecynic said, "As to defending your off spring, that I would expect of a mother,..." Interesting, really, when I said nothing in my post about defending anyone. I simply stated that a rejoiner of "You're too [young,old,fat,skinny,rich,old,tall,short] is not a valid argument but only an attempt at an insult. One misguided individual once told the world not to trust anyone over 30. There are those out there whose sole view point is based on a physical trait an if anyone disagrees with their positions it must be because of that one thing.
Another interesting thing here is that apparently being related to someone is reason for disqualification in a discussion. Am I to be disqualified if I defend your position because it is disclosed you are my friend? I would ask those who read my blog to find a time when I have defended my daughter's position simply because she is my daughter. You will not find it.
Now, I will blog more succiently - it is an incredible show of misplaced arrogance to slap away an argument as invalid because of the youth of the presenter. Conversely, it is the same thing to do so predicated on the advanced age, or the color, or the ethnicity, or the size, or anything along those lines. Not only is it arrogant, but it is foolish. "...don't close your mind to others' ideas because you can't force yourself to acknowledge the possibility of an error in your thinking. You do a person an injustice when you encourage intellectual arrogance." I choose not to encourage your intellectual arrogance.
You will notice, if you take the time to read my entries, I actually have not taken a position at all. I have not addressed any of the arguments Ms B&W has written nor have I addressed yours. Only those of John and Canoe - I know the relative ages of these men but I never brought it up - immaterial, really. So, before you make a statement about my defending my daughter at all, check your facts. To frame an argument without facts might encourage others to think your other points are baseless as well.
Now...talk amongst yourselves, I'll give you a topic - Al Gore - actor or future president, discuss...
Another interesting thing here is that apparently being related to someone is reason for disqualification in a discussion. Am I to be disqualified if I defend your position because it is disclosed you are my friend? I would ask those who read my blog to find a time when I have defended my daughter's position simply because she is my daughter. You will not find it.
Now, I will blog more succiently - it is an incredible show of misplaced arrogance to slap away an argument as invalid because of the youth of the presenter. Conversely, it is the same thing to do so predicated on the advanced age, or the color, or the ethnicity, or the size, or anything along those lines. Not only is it arrogant, but it is foolish. "...don't close your mind to others' ideas because you can't force yourself to acknowledge the possibility of an error in your thinking. You do a person an injustice when you encourage intellectual arrogance." I choose not to encourage your intellectual arrogance.
You will notice, if you take the time to read my entries, I actually have not taken a position at all. I have not addressed any of the arguments Ms B&W has written nor have I addressed yours. Only those of John and Canoe - I know the relative ages of these men but I never brought it up - immaterial, really. So, before you make a statement about my defending my daughter at all, check your facts. To frame an argument without facts might encourage others to think your other points are baseless as well.
Now...talk amongst yourselves, I'll give you a topic - Al Gore - actor or future president, discuss...
posted by OurayDreamer at 6:27 AM
5 Comments:
So sad, really, when someone cannot look past irrelevant connection and speak to the point. Your post confirmed, again, what I have been saying.
Insight is found in a variety of ways - and perspective is lost through a variety of experiences. Should your arguments be declared invalid because your experience has colored your ability to think logically and without emotion about specific issues? Perhaps you should be written off as a cranky old fart.
But, no, you see I feel it is important to gain perspective and insight by discussing and debating issues and solutions. You said we should call you a cynic, you can call me an optimist. I sincerely believe we can make a difference and, as one of the older people blogging in this particular forum (besides, it is my blog)I simply wanted to point out that your arguments might be stronger without the continual references to youth and inexperience. Those references do nothing to strengthen your position.
I agree the youth in our country need to gain knowledge outside the classroom - I don't know of anyone who disagrees - but that is not what you have been arguing.
I agree with some of what has been said, some I will take issue with if I so choose. Right now I have chosen to point out the weaknesses in your posts. To be certain, we will all think a bit differently 25 years from now but can you not formulate a response without berating the opposing side? (This question is for everyone, really.) Good healthy debate without ad hominem attacks? "Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak." from the American Heritage dictionary on usage.
Example: Our borders should be secured using the National Guard because that is precisely the reason the Guard was formed in the first place. (An interesting position, not much in the way of support but it would be weakened if I added...)This is the only way it can work and anyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot or doesn't have the common sense God gave a goose.
You see, my second statement did nothing to support my position. Rather than waste my time pointing out all the reasons that someone who disagrees with me is wrong simply because they disagree, why not further strengthen my position with facts, appropriate quotes, humorous anecdotes, and a snippet of a Shakespearean sonnet? :-)
Al Gore is really a bit scary to me. He is definately going to run again. He is scary because I overheard a conversation just the other day at work in which two people still
vehemently insisted that he was elected president in 2000. Go figure. Also, I've read several recent reviews of his movie in which he is lauded as a warm, friendly, professor who engages his audience. I think he may well trounce Hilary because he has a base that think he was already elected, and the swing voters who thought he was a cold fish the first time will not be comparing him to Bill but to W.
In regard to my previous posts, I choose not to debate a point of belief with someone - no matter who they are. It is a waste of time because beliefs are not based in fact and reason. Nothing wrong with them, I have quite a few myself and I cannot be persuaded to change them. It is precisely that reason that I did not jump into the Gore discussion at work, though I was invited. I could say nothing to disuade them - there would never be enough evidence to show they were wrong. The discussion would just disolve into name calling and phrases denigrating our respective mothers.
Just for the record, I did not call you a cranky old fart. I mentioned that to do so was would be silly because it would do nothing to advance the debate. I have done nothing but point out weaknesses in your rhetoric - your style. I did not directly address your points. They are apparently welded together.
To inject some levity, I'm glad I don't have the sense God gave a goose. If I did, I would would be walking along the Lake Hefner parkway, naked, crapping in broad daylight & jumping into traffic.
But I'm just speaking from my youth, not actual experience.
We now return to our regularly scheduled 'flame-war' (not to insinuate that the healthly lively exchange of viewpoints that is occuring is actually a flame war, but it just seemed easier to type than a long drawn out explanation)
Canoe - thank you for the levity...it is never good to take oneself too seriously...I learned that from a real life cranky old fart - my dad. What is your take on Bore Us Some More Gore?
Al Gore? Hillary Clinton? George Bush? Gingrich? I'm not sure what concerns me more; democratic sabotage of our economy, or republican sabotage of our foreign policy. I'm leaning towards the former.
I think it is probably safer to elect an incompetant man to office than a smart one. I can't decide where Al Gore lies. Supposedly he has an IQ of 134. But Dolphins have high IQ as well right?
Will Gore run for President again? Of course he will..that is entirely the purpose of this global warming movie, "A Conveniant Lie"...I mean..."An Inconveniant Truth". Gore isn't convincing on a broad range of issues so he is specializing in one that people are unjustiably concerned with. The film also recasts him as a warm, insightful, and professorish. This is all too obvious. Everyone else has already done most of the work on sensationalizing this issue, and Al Gore is just going to ride the wave.
I'm considering a documentary called, "A Conveniant Lie" describing the failure of the Global Warming Hypothesis and the UN's interests in the matter. I'm accepting donations.
Post a Comment
<< Home