Liberty is an inherently offensive lifestyle. Living in a free society guarantees that each one of us will see our most cherished principles and beliefs questioned and in some cases mocked. That psychic discomfort is the price we pay for basic civic peace. It's worth it. It's a pragmatic principle. Defend everyone else's rights, because if you don't there is no one to defend yours. -- MaxedOutMama

I don't just want gun rights... I want individual liberty, a culture of self-reliance....I want the whole bloody thing. -- Kim du Toit

The most glaring example of the cognitive dissonance on the left is the concept that human beings are inherently good, yet at the same time cannot be trusted with any kind of weapon, unless the magic fairy dust of government authority gets sprinkled upon them.-- Moshe Ben-David

The cult of the left believes that it is engaged in a great apocalyptic battle with corporations and industrialists for the ownership of the unthinking masses. Its acolytes see themselves as the individuals who have been "liberated" to think for themselves. They make choices. You however are just a member of the unthinking masses. You are not really a person, but only respond to the agendas of your corporate overlords. If you eat too much, it's because corporations make you eat. If you kill, it's because corporations encourage you to buy guns. You are not an individual. You are a social problem. -- Sultan Knish

All politics in this country now is just dress rehearsal for civil war. -- Billy Beck

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

Now THIS is Reasoned Discourse™!

Now THIS is Reasoned Discourse™!

James did indeed print my reply to him (see the post below), and responded.

And then closed his comments.

Here's what I would have left, if he was still allowing comments:
". . . my stated suspicions at the outset were correct – that your honeyed words in challenging me to a debate were bogus, and that you are not remotely interested in meaningful dialogue . . . ."

Except, James, I never even suggested that we were going to be engaged in "meaningful dialogue" - I don't know where you even got that idea. I was quite clear on the fact that I HAD NO ILLUSIONS THAT I WOULD CHANGE YOUR MIND, NOR YOU MINE:
I did not engage you in Rachel's comment thread because I came to it too late, but I now invite you to actually debate this topic. I suggest that the forum for this debate be our two blogs. We can trade posts, or I'll be more than happy to give you guest posting privileges at my blog.

I'm quite serious. And I promise that you will learn things you didn't previously know. I don't expect to change your mind, but I do predict that you will be made uncomfortable by what you learn.


No, James, it's not about "winning" or "losing," it's about the philosophy. As I said above, I don't expect to change your mind, nor you mine. What I want to do is get the discussion out there where "fence-sitters" can find it.

You seem like the type capable of defending his position, and (given your performance at Rachel's) willing to.

You have no idea how rare that is. On my side of the fence we have a running joke about "reasoned discourse" - it's what your side does here on the internet generally when confronted with facts and reasoned arguments. They close their comments and often delete them. I don't think you'd do that.
(Emphasis added.) Obviously I was wrong about the "closing comments" part, and we've yet to see about deletion, but I can honestly say that you you totally mischaracterized what I promised, now you're all butt-hurt and your taking your ball and going home. As I said:
I can guarantee you that I won't quit first!
So much for defending his philosophy.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.