Just to keep you all up to speed in with my virtual adventuring…
Things have slowed down rather dramatically in the past week or so. Where I had been moving multiple levels upward each day, now I’m more or less ignoring level entirely as I have focused on learning the more complex aspects of the game, particulary the optimization of combat options. But I have also spent a good chunk of my online time working on making my characters profitable meaning that they make more virtual money than they spend. I’m not quite there yet. I thought I was but then I got my behind whupped pretty good in a player vs. player duel that I should have won, and it became clear that my generally middle-of-the-road equipment was simply not going to cut it in the “Twinked” world of player vs. player combat. So I went to the auction house and spent virtually all of my fortune on new weapons and armor. I had not been doing that up until now because I didn’t want to blow 100 gold pieces on items that would only be good for a couple of levels. But, as they say in business and sports, don’t expect to compete if you don’t have the right tools. The upgrade has significantly improved my day-to-day combat, but I haven’t gone back to PvP since then, so I don’t know if it will have that much of an impact where it really counts. Regardless, I’m more or less broke again now.
I have been advancing a second character (a gnome mage) up the levels and managed to get that character up to level 17 so far. I created that character specifically to allow me to work on the same level as the Cosmic Daughter or other characters from other players that I know. Last night I used that character to take the CD on a wide-ranging tour of the world of WoW, helping her to complete her druid quest which allows her to take a new form (I think the form is “Sea Lion”).
Having said that, I do want to take a minute to talk about the actual “World” of “World of Warcraft.”
I think I’m usually a fairly harsh critic of game design, having designed and written some of my own. And there is plenty to find fault with for sure. Sometimes I think my natural career would have been in computer or board game design, but I never found a way to make enough money at it. The bottom line is that I am pretty quick to spot issues in a game that I think should easily have gone better. I was a particularly harsh critic of EQ in that way, as much as I enjoyed the game otherwise.
Having said all that, and understanding that the graphics in WoW are a few generations behind modern heavy-client game programs (like Oblivion, for example) I still have to say that the game designers in WoW did a remarkable job of making the world an engaging one. They really managed to convey a sense of epic proportions that can sometimes nearly take your breath away.
For example, the city of Ironforge is almost certainly my favorite part of WoW right now, from a pure game-design perspective. Whoever designed the “dwarven” parts of WoW, whether it is Ironforge itself (the capital of the Dwarven race) or if it is the dwarven tunnels that take you between the different areas of the game, the result simply oozes dwarvishness. Even something as simple as a dwarven tunnel is done on an epic scale, with precision and style. Dwarves in WoW build BIG. In fact the obvious conclusion to draw after visiting typical dwarven architecture is that the dwarves over-compensate for their shortness of stature with epic architecture that can only be described as “grand.” This feeling of gargantuan scale is best found in Ironforge, where the walls loom overhead like great cliffs of precisely laid and cut stone. Great rivers of molten metal run throughout the “great forge” of the city, dwarfing the inhabitants. A dwarven dam built nearby is on the scale of the Hoover dam but the water erupts out of the dam to the valley below through the open mouths of truly monumental dwarven heads. The visual result, even with the resolution limitations of the WoW engine, is quite overpowering and impressive.
Traveling from the dwarven realm to the realm of the night elves reveals that where the dwarven architecture is all about precision, power and colossal scale, the architecture of the night elves is thoroughly organic and radiates a balance with nature that is palpable. The elvish buildings meld and merge into the general woodland scenery. The scale of things is modest and the structures open and airy. The difference in architectural style is well thought out and I actually find it to be mood-affecting. In the dwarven realm I tend to be more aggressive and direct as I interact with the WoW world, while in the elven realms I tend to be more sneaky and laid back. Everything is green and brown and dappled with muted lighting which filters through foliage.
I have to assume the above things are intentional, and as such, I have to give kudos to the desgners and implementers of the game. I believe that they have set out to create pretty much exactly the reaction that they get from me, and when taking the Cosmic Daughter through realm after realm, from her reaction I could tell that the effect was more or less the same for her as it was for me.
The main reason I am so impressed by all this visual detail and the planning and thinking that went into it is that most of it is superfluous to the game engine and game mechanics, and as such they game designers really didn’t need to put that much thought and effort into it. That they did demonstrates to me that the WoW design and implementation team take great pride in their creation, and imho, rightly so.
87 users commented in " Yet another WoW update "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackHave you ever had sex with a living woman?
Heh, why? Are you wanting to know what it’s like?
Man, this BetterThanYou chick is weird.
CC, thanks for the Monty Python reference. You might want to start all of your ten paragraph rhapsodies about World of Warcraft with some sort of reference to a normal social life.
Andy, if you’re going to assume everyone you’re talking to has your own problems why don’t you just cut to the chase and start telling me about your male “friend” who could bench-press me?
Better:
I could go all Henny Youngman on you (you do know who Henny Youngman is, don’t you?) and say “normal social life? Hah, I’m married!” But what’s the point…..
Welcome to the blog Better! Try to keep things as civil as you can and you might learn a few things, and we might too!
CC, I have to admit that you’re a gentleman. Maybe I should change my user name to “BetterConservativeThanYou,” as that would be less churlish. I have to admit coming here with a chip on my shoulder, given that the common definition of “conservative” nowadays is someone who thinks the state should have more power to spread political systems abroad and to surveill domestically.
Actually with all the painting I’m just too pooped to argue.
If you hang around here long enough I think you’ll find that we don’t fulfill the normal caricature that is passed off as “conservative” these days. Believe me, you’ll find a lot of Bush and McCain criticism….
Better: You’ll find that, when we’re not poked and prodded with insults, we (and most conservatives) will discuss policy, religion, or whatever politely. We have a tendency to believe, all evidence to the contrary, that rational argument can acutally lead to persuasion.
But, the person with whom we’re “debating” has to actually be open to persuasion, and, frankly, most liberals I’ve met simply aren’t. Even more distressing is the blanket intolerance which is displayed towards any who do not agree with them.
Bush didn’t make a bad decision in invading Iraq (I’m not saying he did) but “Bush lied, people died.”
We’re not “over there” to wage a war against terrorism, we’re (take your pick): 1) Killing defenseless brown people, 2) raping the country for Halliburton and Cheny, 3) waging a war of imperialism, 4) Getting “payback” for Bush 1 … or whatever.
When we make any reference to Obama’s past and current asociations, examine what he actually says, critique his slim resume, we’re not looking at the qualifications and qualities of the person who might be the leader of the most powerful country in the world, we’re “racist.”
If we think that we should build nuclear plants or drill for oil here we’re accused of having no concern for “mother earth” or our own children.
If we think that legalizing marriage between members of the same sex is bad for the nuclear family and, therefore, bad for American society, we’re accused of being “homophobes” or “closet homosexuals.”
If we disagree that on-demand abortion is a desireable thing, we’re accused of wanting women to go back to the “back alley clothes hanger” abortions.
If we point to the fact that no raise in minimum wage has EVER resulted in any lasting raise in the standard of living for those on minimum wage (and it can be argued that the reverse is actually more accurate) we’re accused of being “heartless” and told that we can care less if people are living in the streets.
If we attempt to get a handle on the growth of social spending by reducing the rate of growth, we’re accused of cutting spending for elders and forcing them to eat cat food.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
It gets old.
I don’t understand why we can’t just debate RATIONALLY without ascribing base motivations to every single thing upon which we disagree.
Which leads me to your remarks. They seem to be quite typical of a liberal. Attack. Making snap judgments about people. Ascribe base motivations to others. Call them names.
But, never…never…never actually engage them in civil debate about the issues.
BetterThanYou: Hey man, let me apologize. I shouldn’t have taken the sarcastic tone that I did.
I don’t know you, or anything about you. I guess we all have preconceived notions about people, and when someone selects a username like BetterThanYou, it could immediately put others on the defensive…which it did with me.
So please accept my apology. You are most likely BetterThanME…but then…who’s not?
Andy, no harm done – like I said, I came here with a chip on my shoulder (and a few drinks in my system, truth be told) and I apologize for that.
Drax, I have to disagree with you – I’ve met plenty of liberals who are open to persuasion but I’ve yet to meet a single neoconservative who is.
Betterthan: To some degree, it’s a matter of perspective. When it comes down to it, if you have actually thought about and researched a subject so that you can make an informed decision and have done so, it’s kind of hard to “persuade” you that you are wrong.
But, the reality is that most people simply don’t think about why they think the way they do, why they hold the positions they hold, and, when they find themselves engaged in “debate” about those positions, they cling to their beliefs in the face of convincing argument to the contrary when they have no argument of their own to refute it, just belief.
If you stick around here, we’ll soon find out which you are.
Drax, I can actually clear that up for you right away. My conservative beliefs are based on principles as opposed to Ann Coulter or Norman Podhoretz columns. You will not find me arguing that there is anything based on actual conservative thought within the trainwreck that the Republican party has visited on our country in the past five years. If you would like to make a convincing argument to the contrary, please do so – otherwise maybe I should try this World of Warcraft thing myself to see what the hoopla is all about.
Better:
The past five years hasn’t been a total trainwreck for conservatives. We did get John Roberts and Sam Alito out of it. But not a whole lot more. I do support both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars but I believe they were badly mismanaged until Petreus took over.
Overall I don’t consider GW Bush nor John McCain conservatives. I am closer to Ronald Reagan than any of the current crop of Republicans that I can think of. And I think the Republicans have screwed things up so badly in the past seven years that we’re about to get a socialist President as our payback.
Better: “Conservative” is a label which, when applied to an individual, doesn’t really have much meaning when the person applying the label gets to self-define the term.
I’ve had this argument many times. It’s boring. It’s self-evident.
There isn’t a “cookie cutter” template that we can apply to an individual and proclaim them to be either “conservative” or “liberal.” No one is 100% of either as defined by SOMEONE ELSE.
What is commonly understood to be “conservative” or “liberal” today bear almost no relationship to what those terms were understood to mean even twenty years ago, let alone fifty; they are EVOLVING terms which, of course, means that they have very little INDEPENDENT meaning, just what meaning we individually and currently give them.
I look at Bush and don’t think of him as either “conservative” or “liberal” for the most part except for occasional “short-hand” for discussion purposes. I looked at him when he was running and decided to vote for him based on his record and what he said that he would bring to the table, comparing that to my beliefs and how his record/beliefs stacked up against his opponent(s). In the main, I agreed much more with Bush than I did with Gore/Kerry, so I voted for him. I didn’t get hung up on labels or the fact that I DISAGREED with Bush on many issues, just that I agreed with him on the important issues (to me) much more than I did with his opponents.
If I had required that my vote only went to a “conserative” as I defined the term, I wouldn’t have voted at all, so, it is an utterly useless term for anything OTHER than “short-hand for discussion purposes.”
The same is true today. I look at the two people running and find myself in agreement with McCain on ALL the important issues (to me) and in disagreement with Obama on those same issues.
So, I’ll HAPPILY vote for McCain and urge others to do so as well. I’d LIKE to have someone who agrees with me on every issue, but I’m not running.
I just get a little off-put by those who say McCain “isn’t a conservative.” By whose definition? Certainly, not HIS. He thinks he’s a “conservative.” (Just as Ann Coulter thinks she is, and she was going to vote for Hillary…) He just holds some positions which are not in lock-step with SOME people who think that THEIR definition of “conservative” is the one, true definition. (Others, of course, might classify some of THOSE “conservatives” as “facist” or worse as evidenced by a brief glance at the Daily KoS and the like…)
I hardly think that McCain’s position on “torture” of prisoners takes him out of the “conservative” category. Nor do I think his putting together the “Gang of 13″ does. (Even Karl Rove credits the “Gang” with Roberts and Alito getting through the Senate, but also with stopping many Democratic Filibusters on key legislation…) Etc. Etc.
So, if label MUST be applied, McCain would fit the mold of a “conservative” much better than “liberal” ESPECIALLY when proper weight is given to such things as: national security, abortion, SCOTUS candidates, federal judiciary appointments, earmarks and spending in general, and national security, and national security.
BetterThanYou: Thanks for the forgiveness.
Drax & Cosmic: Amens!!! I don’t look at the GW Bush Presidency as a train wreck at all. Maybe a 4 car pile-up…but not a disaster.
I often wonder how I would have navigated these turbulent times if I had my hand on the rudder. While I have been frustrated with President Bush often, I understand that he knows things that I don’t! I don’t get the morning intelligence briefing with my orange juice and scrambled eggs.
Sure, his stupid prescription drug and education thing are just stupid, stupid, stupid.
He wasn’t saved from his folly by the Congress. The Republicans in Congress could have bailed him out by NOT PASSING that junk…but they didn’t…sigh.
He has given us two stalwarts on the SCOTUS. Since we have decided as a nation to allow one branch to dominate the other two…kudos to President Bush.
My only disagreement is with Cosmic. I just can not believe that we are going to have a Hussein Presidency. I could be wrong (news flash), but I refuse to believe it until I see it…that the US public will place their futures in the hands of BarackO’…could be wrong.
CC, you have a point regarding the Supreme Court.
Drax, I’m afraid that I’m really going to have to insist that words such as conservative and radical (a much better antonym than liberal) have objective meanings.
You can “insist” all you like, but until they actually DO have “objective meaning,” all you’re going to do is waste your breath.
But, since you “insist,” do inform us.
Define, if you would, the terms, “conservative” and “liberal” with precision so that each and every other person on the face of the planet may objectively and correctly categorize a person within the bounds of your definition.
Failing that, point to any learned treatise which does so, a learned treatise which is universally accepted as being correct.
Objectively speaking, that is.
Or, since you choose “radical” (and I agree, a better “counterpoint” term to “conservative”) then go with that instead.
I’m slightly surprised by your assertion that words do not have objective meanings and your request that I tell you what a conservative is. But as I said earlier, the use of the term in popular discourse seems to have followed Alice through the looking glass.
Just off the top of my head, a conservative is one who believes in limiting government power, practicing fiscal responsibility, and solving foreign and domestic policy problems based on a judicious study of reality and in particular lessons learned from the past.
Interesting isn’t it? A post about a video game turns into a discussion of Presidential performance, the importance of words and characterizations of groups, and defining conservatism.
Hey, I might try that WOW thing out…
Everyone who warns you about the addictive potential of online video games is absolutely correct. Of course I don’t think that is any different than home game consoles, or fantasy football, or poker, or any other activity that people will sacrifice in order to participate in, but WoW is certainly on the list of “things you should be careful about”.
But I do enjoy the game, and I enjoy the fact that it is so open-ended. I tend to be extremely goal-oriented and competitive so a game like “Oblivion (Elder Scrolls IV)” which is a computer or game console game, only gives me a few weeks of enjoyment at most before I’ve beaten it a couple of different ways and I don’t get any more enjoyment out of it.
WoW has a vast and challenging world, lots of things you can do just to pass the time, and the very enjoyable pasttime of fighting against other players in set combat. Because of that it keeps my interest up and my sense of challenge eager for more. I suppose I’ll someday reach the top tier and maybe I’ll get bored, but for now I’m enjoying it quite a bit.
And yes, it probably has affected my blogging, but I’m not sure that’s a bad thing…
Betterthan: The reason I don’t agree that the terms are “objective” is simple: they’re not.
Your “examples” (which, clearly are only a portion of what you consider to be “conservative” imperatives) are excellent examples of why:
You say: “a conservative is one who believes in:”
“limiting government power”
Okay. By how much? Can a “conservative” allow the government ANY power and still be a conservative? In what spheres may a person grant government power (and in what circumstances and to what degree) and be considered a “conservative?” If you sign any new bill into law (or introduce legislation) which adds to governmental power in any sphere (say…power to spy on terrorist groups) does that mean you’re NOT a “conservative?” Or if you OPPOSE any law which grows governmental power (say..the Patriot Act…) do you BECOME a “conservative?”
You continue:
“practicing fiscal responsibility”
Is it required that a “conservative” only support a “balanced budget” in order to be defined as such? Does every person who calls for a “balanced budget” BECOME a conservative? If you support new spending above what is currently expended, does that disallow your membership in the “conservative” party, regardless of what the spending is for, regardless of how much it’s for? If you oppose new spending above what is currently expended, are you transformed into a “conservative” regardless of what the spending is for, regardless how much it’s for?
You continue: “and solving foreign and domestic policy problems based on a judicious study of reality and in particular lessons learned from the past”
This one is hard, mostly because it doesn’t have ANY quantifiable terms… “judicious,” “reality,” “lessons learned from the past.” Meaningless terms utterly. Frankly a phrase bereft of any meaning whatsoever.
Reasonable and rational people can look at the same set of facts (past and present) and come to polar opposite conclusions about their meaning. (Global warming, the cause of Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, the effect of our participation/non-participation in Iraq, etc.) and “judiciously” applying their intellect to their perceived “reality” with a view to “lessons learned from the past” and come to utterly different conclusions as to what is the best course for this country.
This is why “conservative” and “radical” are not objective terms. They, at best, describe TENDENCIES along a CONTINUUM which, as the two sides converge on each other along that continuum, it becomes more and more difficult to distinguish one from the other.
They are “handy short-hand” to describe people though, to be sure. But ONLY in a COMPARATIVE sense, not an OBJECTIVE one.
We can look at Obama and McCain and say, without much fear of rebuttal, that, in COMPARISON, McCain is far more “conservative” than is Obama. The same comparison between McCain and Romney would lead to the conclusion that McCain is somewhat less conservative than is Romney overall while being much more conservative on some issues (abortion, spending, the war on terror) and less on others (immigration, health care).
CC: Sorry to hijack this thread! Good conversation with Betterthan, though! Don’t let the game eat your soul, man….don’t…let…it…eat…your…soul!!!!
Drax, well, what’s really important isn’t whether you are “conservative” or “radical” but in the context of this thread, whether you are “Horde” or “Alliance.”
And that is very quantifiable.
Cosmic: Hey, I was just kidding about trying out WoW. Not a gamer. Some of my sons have been in the past, but are kind of off of them now.
My daughter-in-law is a complete video game junkie. I think she has crossed over into the place of addiction. It effects her whole life. I know you, and know you’ve got the maturity to enjoy something without falling into the pit…plus you got too much other crap to handle to let it eat your soul.
My current indoor, stay out of the heat game is…you won’t believe it…foosball! Mrs. Andy’s mother gave my 12-year-old a foosball table for his birthday in June. It’s a good quality one, too! The box said $179, but she said she found it on close-out for $59. I think it probably would have been $179 “assembled.” But we finally got it together, and have been having a blast.
Mrs. Andy was a foosball wizard when we were dating back in high school. She could whip everybody at her church recreation area…and the redneck boys at “The Hole In The Wall” would line up for their chance to take her on. If somebody beat her it was like they had received the Medal of Honor or something.
And…she hasn’t lost a step! She slows down while playing #4 son, but speeds up against me.
I had forgotten how much fun that stupid game is.
Andy and CC: Soory, still nothing about WoW.
Drax, you probably won’t be surprised to hear that I disagree with you. Your statement that words do not have objective meanings reminds me of the quote by an unnamed Bush official to Ron Suskind that “We’re an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality.”
An interesting viewpoint, but wholly unrelated to any recognizable conservative tenets.
Your question as to whether a conservative can allow a government any power and still be considered a conservative is a straw man. Anarchism is not what I had in mind. If you think about this, I hope you’ll realize that a conservative would allow the government power to achieve the goals that are explicitly stated in the Constitution.
Similarly, fiscal responsibility does not necessarily mean a balanced budget. I imagine most reasonable people (in which category I think I can place myself without self-flattery) would settle for not going wildly into debt.
Finally, if in addition to the terms “conservative” and “radical” you do not think that “judicious,” “reality,” and “lessons learned from the past” have any meaning I really have to question whether or not the gulf between us is capable of bridging. But as you do admit, reasonable and rational people can look at the same set of facts (past and present) and come to polar opposite conclusions about their meaning. I submit to you that the reasonable and rational people you refer to are those who judiciously study reality, in particular lessons learned from the past.
What I find most troublesome about your way of thinking is that it has allowed you to describe McCain as somehow being a conservative candidate. Maybe this is a topic for yet another thread-jacking, but I would be concerned about finding myself in that position.
Dadman:
Betterthan: I would like to say I’m befuddled by your continued assertion that the words “conservative” and “radical” have objective meaning and the implied assertion that ALL words have objective meaning (for you say): “Your statement that words do not have objective meanings reminds me of …”
But, I’m not. I long since have given up on understanding why some people cling to an argument long after it is clear that they have lost it.
There are a host of words which DO have objective meaning: Proton, Neutron, Planet, Moon, Pi, Divide, multiply, add, subtract, wood, paper, human, automobile, to name a few.
On the other hand, there are a host of words which do NOT have objective meaning: near, far, close, good, bad, big, small, pretty, ugly, better, worse, high, low, hard, soft etc. These words have no INDEPENDENT meaning only meaning in RELATIONSHIP to something else and contain an essential SUBJECTIVE element.
I really don’t think that this is even debatable — or are you going to say that every person on the face of the planet when asked to stand far away from you will stand EXACTLY the same distance from you as every other person? Or, are you to make the assertion that “high” means the same thing to a 7′ basketball center as it does to an infant?
I am “big” to my 2 year old child, but am “small” to Shaq.
You have continued to skirt around the issue: I asked you to either define those terms in a manner that each and every person on the planet would agree with or point to a learned treatise which does so. The ability to do so is what DEFINES a term as “objective.”
I can go look up “proton” or “pi” and get a definition which is accepted by everyone.
You CANNOT do so with these relational terms which have an essential subjective element.
I am a staunch believer of the aphorism, “Words have meaning,” but don’t confuse that with “all words have OBJECTIVE meaning.”
It brings to mind the story of the professor discussing the meaning of a poem in Literature class. At the end of his discussion, a lone voice raised up the observation: “I don’t think that is what the author meant at all.” The professor huffed, “I have spent 30 years studying this poem, have read all the learned works discussing it, and have reasearched it exhaustively! What qualifications do you bring to dispute me?” The speaker just shrugged his shoulders and said: “I’m merely the author.”
I’m starting to feel like maybe I should include a link to a picture of an orc or something for the other guys…
Drax, your declaration of victory can most kindly be described as premature. I was contemplating this today and I think I’ve realized what your problem is.
You correctly realize that most individuals tend to have complex sets of beliefs and so are best described as being along a continuum.
Your errors are to then conclude that because of this, an individual’s position on a particular issue can not be described as being objectively conservative and that the word itself has no objective meaning. If I understand your demand in the seventh paragraph correctly, you seem to want a degree of precision in the definition that would cover every single policy possibility conceivable to any person on the planet. I’m afraid that this is a rather disingenous request.
Betterthan: It isn’t a “disingenous” request at all, but a simple one. You claim that a word has an objective meaning. I ask that you prove it. One proves that something has an objective meaning by PRODUCING that objective meaning.
You cannot do so because one does not exist.
One man’s “conservative” is another man’s “liberal” or “facist.” One man’s “liberal” is another’s “progressive” or even “conservative.” This is because the terms are, in all important respects, SELF-DEFINED.
This “conversation” is going nowhere.
You say a term has objective meaning. I say it doesn’t. I ask you to produce proof of that objective meaning by producing the definition of it. Unfortunately, it doesn’t surprise me that, rather than simply admit that you cannot do so because it’s impossible to produce something which doesn’t exist, you call the request “disingenous.”
Sigh, I knew better than to enter into this “discussion” after reading your first few posts, but couldn’t help myself. I can do so now.
For Andy and CC:
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/01/13/warcraft1401_wideweb__470x352,0.jpg
Drax, self-definition is exactly the problem with the use of the word in common discourse today. It is used by people who have no idea what it means, and self-applied to people who are about as conservative as Leon Trotsky.
Assuming you’re still here, I’ll give you an opportunity to make a short post. Make of it what you will.
Do you think it is possible to have a conservative position on a particular law or legal decision?
BetterThanYou: Thanks for the picture. I don’t really know anything about WoW, but it does bring back memories of comic book superwomen when I was a kid…they were pretty racy at the time.
I will answer the question you posed to Drax. Yes, I think it is possible to have a conservative position, and make a legal decision at the same time. The two are not mutually exclusive. They may merge, but they may part ways. It is a rare Judge that can rule only according to the law…look at the 4 liberals on the SCOTUS…they rarely (some almost never) separate their liberalism from the law.
At the same time, the 4 conservative Judges rarely do either. But it is possible. It happens occasionally.
Thanks again for the picture.
Betterthan: Thanks for allowing me this “short post.”
There is a difference between holding a “conservative position” and “BEING a conservative.” The first, of course, is a DECISION, the second, a state of being. That’s the problem with defining PEOPLE as “conservative” or whatever, since a person can hold what passes for a “conservative position” today and be considered by most to be a “liberal.”
If we agree that there is a general acceptance of what is a “conservative” as opposed to a “liberal” position on an issue, then, I certainly can agree that a person can hold a “conservative position” IN MY MIND on an issue, but acknowledge that in someone else’s mind that SAME position could be labeled as “liberal” or even “facist.”
Take, for example, domestic drilling. If we assume, for purposes of argument, that no drilling more approximates a “liberal” position and free drilling more approximates a “conservative” position, where along that continuum does one’s position on this issue “transform” from being a “liberal” position into a “conservative” position?
If you allow ONLY one drilling rig in the Gulf Coast and nowhere else, is this no longer a “liberal position?” HOW MUCH drilling must be allowed for a position on this issue to change from “liberal” to “conservative?” Must it be completely free drilling anywhere regardless of the impact on the ecosystem or economy or can a “conservative” position actually take into consideration these (and other) factors? If so, to what degree?
But, in the end, REGARDLESS of the ultimate position anyone takes, it will be characterized by OTHERS as “too liberal” “too conservative” or even “socialist” or “facist.”
That is of necessity, since the terms ARE “self-defined” since there ARE no “objective” definitions of them.
“Conservative” is both an adjective and a noun. As an adjective it is a modifier, meaning it qualifies a noun. A “conservative gambler” is a gambler who is more conservative than your average gambler. However, a “conservative gambler” is almost certainly far more liberal than a “liberal nun.”
As a noun it describes a person’s ideological bent, and as such it can only be applied generally, not totally. In other words a “conservative” may or may not believe that abortion should be legal. So long as in general they hold views more conservative than the norm on other issues. It is completely possible to be socially conservative and fiscally liberal or vice versa.
Most of this back and forth is just quibbling over definitions that are being applied inappropriately.
The quibbling is over an attempt to give “objective” meaning to a wholly “subjective” term.
That’s odd, I had thought the quibbling was over on Tuesday at 5:22 p.m.
Drax, I’m glad that you agree that it is possible for someone to hold a conservative position on an issue. However, I’m not concerned with what may amount to a conservative position in your mind. I’m concerned with what amounts to an actual conservative position – regardless of the extent to which Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter (to name only a couple of the lowbrow misusers of the word in popular discourse) have deluded people.
As for your question, you answered it yourself. If one takes your assumption to be correct (although I don’t), no drilling is the liberal position and more drilling is the conservative position. Hence, one drill would not be a liberal course of action.
Surely you won’t start telling me that “no” has only a subjective meaning?
It is a fruitless exercise to even attempt to persuade you of what is obvious even to the most oblivious.
“one drill would not be a liberal course of action.”
According to you.
In your universe.
Wherever that is.
All that matters to you is that you have self-defined the terms and think that everyone else just naturally falls into line with you.
Don’t think too much of yourself, do you?
You know, Drax, you claim to be interested in civil debate based only on facts, reason, and logic, but when someone disagrees with you, or challenges your opinions, you’re one of the first to resort to personal attacks. Aside from having a point of view you don’t like, what precisely has BetterThanYou done or said to justify the condescension and sarcasm you’ve directed toward him?
Can’t wait to read your response…
Hmmm…we can start with his/her entrance onto the scene, can’t we?
“Have you ever had sex with a living woman?”
“Andy, if you’re going to assume everyone you’re talking to has your own problems why don’t you just cut to the chase and start telling me about your male “friend†who could bench-press me?”
Admittedly, he/she toned it down after a bit, but, still, if you think that any mild rebuke I wrote was even remotely a “personal attack,” I suppose your definition of such has a very low threshold.
Oh, and Dadman, if you don’t think that Betterthan’s “position” is deserving of condesension and sarcasism, you must have a totally different view of his/her “position.”
As I understand his/her position, it is as follows:
“Conservative and radical are terms with objective meaning, objective meanings which I cannot (or will not) define and ones which can not be found anywhere in the universe, but they ARE objective terms because I say that they are.”
Do you see anything more substantive to his/her “position” than this?
Condescension and sarcasm do little (or nothing) to engender the civil debate you’ve touted as a hallmark of this blog.
Now, now Dadman. If I didn’t know better, I would begin to think that you never personally attack someone or bring sharp rebuke to bear.
But, then, I would just have to read your posts in the past and reassure me that you’re simply finding some method to attack me anew.
Look…
He/She came LOOKING FOR A FIGHT, with a “chip” on her shoulder. She continued to maintain that her “position” was the only position which could possibly be right when her “position” was not only wrong but was EXACTLY wrong — and demonstrably so. When confronted with a request for something, ANYTHING, which even REMOTELY resembled “proof” of her “position” she, rather than providing that proof, called a request for such “disengenous,” and again, like a dog worring a bone, shook the thread to see if any more fight was left in it.
So, if you think that my remarks to her were anything short of “civil,” then, again…you have a very low threshold for “civil discourse.”
Heh… that reminds me of the student who asked the teacher “I don’t understand what was ‘civil’ about the Civil War?”
I know ‘civil’ when I see it and the way you pounch on people who challenge you or disagree with you just ain’t it…
Dadman: I was guilty as charged with being very defensive when BetterThanYou showed up. But after a good sleep, I realized that I was very rude to BetterThanYou. I did my best to apologize in my crude Southern way.
Drax is obviously an “advocate.” I don’t really know Drax, but I imagine him as an attorney. He seems to know way more about the “law” than I do.
Besides that, he’s never really attacked me personally. (Probably because I’m such a wuss!…he probably feels sorry for me.) I’ll take any grace I can get!
Dadman, this blogging stuff just fascinates me. Cosmic starts out with a post about a video game, and all hell breaks loose!
Drax has challenged my opinions, and my obvious lack of knowledge on all things relevant to the survival of modern man…not to mention his complete misunderstanding of great sports heroes.
But I don’t take that stuff personally. Heck, it might not be “civil,” but I haven’t seen the F-bomb flying like I do on other blogs.
Like I said, I am guilty of being very defensive when this mysterious BetterThanEverybody commented.
I guess that “it takes one to know one!” The things that offend me most in other people are the things that I hate most about myself.
Sigh!
Now, now Dadman….
I haven’t said anything which couldn’t be said on television when toddlers watch.
Agree, I don’t suffer fools gladly; never have and never will.
And, when it is apparent that the person with whom I’m arguing is not only not “debating” (which presupposes the potential of persuasion) but is INSTRUCTING, then they sometimes will attract a bit of my ire. I don’t take to being “instructed” very well…or, at least, if I’m going to BE “instructed” then the person doing such had dang well better know the subject.
In this case, I was being INSTRUCTED that the words had OBJECTIVE MEANING.
They don’t.
It’s not a “matter of perspective.” It’s not a “position one holds.” It’s a question of FACT, akin to “is water wet?” with the instructor maintaining that, in fact, it is NOT.
It was clear to me that she was simply in it for the fight as she immediately abandoned defending her “position” when confronted and shifted instead to attacks:
“I’ve met plenty of liberals who are open to persuasion but I’ve yet to meet a single neoconservative who is”
” My conservative beliefs are based on principles as opposed to Ann Coulter or Norman Podhoretz columns”
“Drax, I’m afraid that I’m really going to have to insist that words such as conservative and radical (a much better antonym than liberal) have objective meanings.”
“I’m slightly surprised by your assertion that words do not have objective meanings and your request that I tell you what a conservative is.”
“Your errors are to then conclude that because of this, an individual’s position on a particular issue can not be described as being objectively conservative and that the word itself has no objective meaning. If I understand your demand in the seventh paragraph correctly, you seem to want a degree of precision in the definition that would cover every single policy possibility conceivable to any person on the planet. I’m afraid that this is a rather disingenous request.”
“Drax, self-definition is exactly the problem with the use of the word in common discourse today. It is used by people who have no idea what it means, and self-applied to people who are about as conservative as Leon Trotsky.
Assuming you’re still here, I’ll give you an opportunity to make a short post. Make of it what you will.”
“I’m not concerned with what may amount to a conservative position in your mind. I’m concerned with what amounts to an actual conservative position – regardless of the extent to which Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter (to name only a couple of the lowbrow misusers of the word in popular discourse) have deluded people.
As for your question, you answered it yourself. If one takes your assumption to be correct (although I don’t), no drilling is the liberal position and more drilling is the conservative position. Hence, one drill would not be a liberal course of action.
Surely you won’t start telling me that “no†has only a subjective meaning?”
Thus, this “instruction” that “conservative” and “radical” are objective terms comes NOT with a definition of those terms but WITH a put-down of anyone who holds a different definition of those terms than does Betterthan. This, of course, simply illustrates that the terms do NOT have “objective meaning.”
I believe that I have held my ire well in check as I frequently do when confronted by someone who believes what they believe regardless of the objective evidence to the contrary.
Andy! I would never attack you, man! While you hold some positions with which I disagree, you don’t attempt to ram them down my throat or attack me when I level my disagreement.
Besides that, you’re just too dang NICE, heh.
Drax: You wrote “Besides that, you’re just too dang NICE, heh.”
Yea, yea, yea…that’s what Mrs. Andy tells me…
Sigh…
“Don’t think too much of yourself, do you?”
And you were accusing ME of arguing like a liberal? Unbelievable.
I’d have given you more credit for attempting to argue that the word “no” is subjective than I will for your fit of pique upon being made aware of your error in reasoning regarding your oil drilling example.
If you believe that anyone referring to himself as a conservative somehow assumes that quality regardless of his beliefs and actions, do you also believe that the government of North Korea is in fact a Democratic People’s Republic?
Betterthan…
tsk…tsk…
You are confusing rationality with liberalism.
I merely asked you to PROVE your assertion, i.e., that “conservative” and “radical” are OBJECTIVE terms. You have done, I admit, a rather convincing job of proving that they are SUBJECTIVE terms, but not so much in the way of establishing that they are OBJECTIVE terms.
You say:
“My conservative beliefs are based on principles as opposed to Ann Coulter or Norman Podhoretz columns.” (Both of whom consider themselves to be conservative, a view shared by MILLIONS of others.)
You say: “Drax, self-definition is exactly the problem with the use of the word in common discourse today. It is used by people who have no idea what it means, and self-applied to people who are about as conservative as Leon Trotsky.” (Again, your acknowledgement that millions of people (if not most “conservatives”, since you note the use of the word in “common discourse,”) consider themselves to be conservative when YOU would not consider thems to be so…of course without the niggling detail of providing the definition which proves them to be incorrect)
You say: “I’m concerned with what amounts to an actual conservative position – regardless of the extent to which Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter (to name only a couple of the lowbrow misusers of the word in popular discourse) have deluded people.” (Again, the acknowledgement that these two “conservative” commentators believe themselves to be conservative — and tens of millions of people agree with that conclusion — yet, according to you, they are NOT, but, once again fail to provide that niggling detail of a definition which would prove them wrong.)
So, again. You have done a FINE job of establishing MY argument, i.e., that the term “conservative” is a SUBJECTIVE term and have done absolutely NOTHING to establish YOUR argument that it is an OBJECTIVE term.
Well, you do TELL us that it is. Over and over. And over.
I’m sorry, but your constant shouting of “the earth is flat” will not make it so.
I somewhat prefer your bloviating to your fits of pique, but you missed a question back there.
Andy: I have no personal investment in this thread and actually agree with Drax’s argument. I just think his condescension is sometimes excessive and detrimental to civil discourse. I guess pointing out such a thing makes me un-nice.
Oh well…
Well, I’ve tried to derail it, I’ve tried to laugh it off and I’ve tried to suggest that the enterprise is fruitless, all to no avail. So I’m resigned to it going on until both Drax and BetterThanYou run out of steam.
I too agree that Drax has made a good point, but Better isn’t going to agree and they’ll keep splitting hairs and arguing orthogonally until they get tired of it.
Dadman: “Un-nice?” C’mon man…we all know better! “Nice” is in your DNA man.
To be truthful, Drax and BetterThanYou left me in the dust a long time ago on this one. My once fertile mind is pretty barren these days…obviously.
But I did like the picture of the WoW Woman.
I should post a picture of my female night-elf rogue. She doesn’t show much skin at all. Mostly she’s as armored as I can get her, LOL.
No, Andy, I’m afraid you’ve cornered the ‘nice’ market – at least on this blog.
Dadman: The only problem with cornering the “nice market” is that it ain’t worth nothin’!
You know where nice guys finish…
It is worth, at the very least, the approbation of Drax. Enjoy it.
Dadman: I don’t know whether to be happy, or ticked off…What does “approbation” mean?
Like I said…the once fertile mind is now barren!
Going to cut grass now…it’s 92, but not humid.
Now, now, Dadman….don’t sulk. I think you’re civil all the time even though I’m not a fan of your tone here and elsewhere at times — especially on certain subjects and especially when you choose to call me out.
There’s absolutely no need to poke me repeatedly, especially when you just jump into threads specifically for the purpose of doing so.
But, if you INSIST on “poking” me, just for the heck of it, in threads where you don’t even address what is being talked about, but SIMPLY to “call me out,” I’m going to respond.
I’ll be civil, but I doubt that you’ll like my tone much.
Can’t we all just… get along?
Andy: Yeah, this thread “lost me” a while ago as well. There’s only so many ways one can say “water is wet,” and even hope to entertain yourself.
Drink lots of water, man. It’s HOT out there.
CC: Why try to “derail” the conversation? Why not, instead, simply point out that Betterthan is WRONG. Clearly you (and every person with a rudimentary knowledge of the English Language) know that to be true.
You are losing your touch with these people who jump onto your boards and insult everyone there. It wasn’t too long ago that you would have verbally eviscerated him/her for those initial insults and hammered her/him into the ground for insisting on holding onto a position which isn’t only wrong but is EXACTLY wrong and irrational to boot.
But, I’m the bad guy here? Sheesh.
JSullins: I’m getting along just fine with everyone here, or so I thought. I was merely arguing with Betterthan. Dadman, however, seems to want to start a fight with me personally.
Drax, I wouldn’t say you’re bad, just ill-mannered, smug, and setting a dishonestly high bar for the definition of the word “conservative.”
Well, okay, I guess that’s kind of bad.
You’ll notice that after coming into the site like an ass, I apologized to CC and Andy. I suspect any apology from you for your temper tantrum of 6/28 at 3:50 will be forthcoming at about the same time as you explain whether or not North Korea’s government calling itself a People’s Democratic Republic makes it so, or maybe when you explain the rational basis behind your assumption that I don’t like myself.
Betterthan…
tsk tsk…
“dishonestly high bar for the definition of the word “conservative.”"
I merely asked for A definition since YOU said it was a defined, i.e., objective term.
I have nothing to apologize for. You did.
I didn’t call anyone names or call into question anyone’s manhood. You did.
Even when directly questioning your reasoning here, I merely pointed out that you were alone in your understanding of what “objective meaning” was and haven’t, even now, personally insulted YOU as opposed to your REASONING. Of course, you have.
Smug? Not so much. Right? Indeed.
“Smug,” would be something along the lines of saying that you get to define for the rest of the universe the meaning of the term “conservative,” which, of course, is what YOU are doing.
“Ill-mannered?” Hardly. “Ill-mannered” might be more along the lines of calling someone “smug” or “ill-mannered” or saying that his clearly defined argument (i.e., “you say “conservative” is an objective term, so provide the proof…”) is “disingenuous” or “dishonest.” I merely stated that you are WRONG…exactly wrong, to be sure, but I haven’t personally attacked you. Of course, you have personally attacked me.
It is YOU who have made the assertion that “conservative” has objective meaning. It is incumbent upon YOU to provide proof of that assertion. The way to provide proof is to provied a definition of the term which is universally accepted.
That is the MEANING of the term “objective meaning.”
Since your OWN examples (Hannity, Coulter, me, anyone else in the universe who doesn’t ascribe to WHATEVER your definition of “conservative” is) establish with a high degree of certainty that the term is, indeed, SUBJECTIVE, I don’t know why you insist on stating over and over and over that it is OBJECTIVE.
But, as others indicate, this dead horse has no more legs. It bores me to argue over something which is so plainly evident.
I’m sure that we will find other things to argue over….things of substance, perhaps, or of greater substance than whether or not “conservative” is an objective or subjective term. But, absent getting “called out” again, I’m done with this intellectually numbing thread.
Drax: No sulking going on here and no personal fight desired. I am calling you out on your tendency to condescend, however, and make no apologies for that. I suppose I can now be accused (again) of making a personal attack although that is not my intention. Mostly, I’m just making an observation. I will say that your tendency to ‘eviscerate’ those who disagree with your point-of-view makes posting and commenting on this blog a lot less fun than it might otherwise be…
Dadman…
Your definition of “eviscerate” and mine are wildly divergent.
Sure, I advocate my positions with strong words. Should I use weak ones?
Sure, I point out the weakness of someone’s position in a manner which is not to be mistaken for anything other than doing so. Should I be less clear so to be mindful of your feelings?
Sure, I’m convinced of the rightness of my opinions. Should I be advocating opinions of which the veracity I’m unconvinced?
Once in a while, I might go so far as to say that someone is being unreasonable or irrational. Of course, that’s when they’re being unreasonable or irrational. Should I give credence to unreasonable or irrational positions?
I could hold positions which I refuse to discuss or defend as some do, but I don’t. Should I?
Just tell me what to do Dadman… I surely want your viewings here to be as enjoyable as they can possibly be. (Does it help if I say that I don’t “intend” that to be sarcastic?)
Another farewell bloviation? I bought that the first time but not now.
Drax, after having tossed a few straw men at the characteristics of an actual conservative I provided you, you’ve been chronically long on self-congratulation and chronically short on answers.
If the North Korean state calls itself a People’s Democratic Republic, does that make it so?
What is the rational basis (as you said earlier) for your assumption that I do not like myself?
Heh. Seems you’ve got a couple debates going on at once, Drax.
Look, I’m not going to tell you what to do. You’re a big boy. An intelligent guy. You know what condescension and sarcasm are. You know what disrespect is. I’m content you’ll figure it out by yourself without any help from me. And as for my own enjoyment with respect to posting on this blog, you don’t need to worry about that either. I’ll post and/or comment when I feel like it. Lately, I haven’t much felt like it.
BTW, I don’t think this thread is a particularly good example of a Drax or Cosmic verbal evisceration, I just know that both of you consider it a ‘sport’ of sorts…or have in the past.
I have too. And I’ve lost good friends because of things I’ve said in e-mails fueled by my misguided notion of what was acceptable in a rational, reasonable, logic-based debate. I’ll regret it forever.
Perhaps I’m mellowing with age, but I just don’t have the stomach anymore for debate laced with disrespect, sarcasm and condescension, not just here, but anywhere.
But that’s just me…
Drax: I drank about a gallon of water and didn’t pee once while mowing…I usually do (the peeing thing). It is hot! But I got one of my tasks done for the day.
Hey, I saw a truck a few days ago ahead of me in traffic. It had a license plate that made me think…hey, maybe that’s Drax in there.
I was on Old Minden Road. I thought about trying to cut the truck off, really tick the driver off big-time, and find out if it was you…
But my better angels kicked in.
No, truthfully, I was on assignment from Mrs. Andy to get something from the grocery store (sigh). If I tried to explain to her why it took me two hours, and I came home with a wrecked car only to find out that it wasn’t Drax…well, you can imagine what my life would be like…
Dadman: You can never lose a good friend. It’s not possible. If they love ya’, they love ya’. If they tick you off from time to time… well…it don’t mean that they don’t love ya’.
Andy: It depends on what one means by ‘lose’ I suppose. I’ve seriously damaged previously good relationships with friends with e-mail delivered sarcasm and condescension. The relationship is still there, but it has never quite been the same. I think it is clear we (humans) tend to adopt tones and say things via electronic media that are much less civil than if we were discussing something with another person face-to-face.
Bottomline: There is far too much snarkiness in the world today and I’m actively rebelling against it…
Dadman: Okay…I get what you are saying. I can “amen” that. Heck, when did people quit picking up the telephone and talking to one another?
I’m with you on the “snarkiness” deal. I have made more of my share of mistakes while clickedy-clacking along on this cheap keyboard. I stand “guilty as charged.”
One of the things that bothers me most about the internet is that anyone can be a big old jerk, and not be “found out.” One might be a Federal Judge, a big business owner, or just a low-brow middle-classer like me. But anyone can take on a different persona.
It really sucks in a way.
Yes, my tendency to not only verbally eviscerate people but to enjoy it thoroughly is well known. I think I stated about a month ago that I have grown tired of it, as hard as that is to believe. Frankly I think Drax and Betterthan both are acting in condescending and self-congratulatory ways, but I hesitate to be critical because a short review of some of my posts and comments here on this blog will suffice to show how frequently I do the same.
I’m sort of like Dadman right now, I’m just soooo tired of the constant bickering, even when I’m pretty well convinced that as far as blood combat goes, I’m pretty darn good at the verbal variety. And I’m sure I’ll dust off the old rhetorical brass knuckles again in the future soon enough, but right this moment, I’m really not interested in brilliant demonstrations of why Betterthan’s argument is full of holes, or why Drax’s argument is full of straw men. I’m just tired of it.
I won’t go so far as “can’t we all just get along” but I do hope you two get tired of this sandbox nuclear war soon and we can get back to more “civil” discourse here.
Dadman: CC tells me some of the same types of tales where “friends” were lost over communications which were taken badly or expressed badly or both.
I’m with Andy on this one. If a “friend” ENGAGES YOU IN DEBATE where HE challenges YOUR ideas and YOU challenge HIS, there’s going to be some sparks, since each of you are challenging the one or more of the other’s FUNDAMENTAL beliefs, and BOTH OF YOU believe that the other is WRONG. (Otherwise it wouldn’t be a “debate,” it would be a sing-a-long….)
If you can’t stomach having some sparks fly when you’re discussing IMPORTANT STUFF, then you should refrain from engaging in discussing important stuff…and most especially refrain from discussing important stuff with “friends.” (I have always wondered how the Carvilles can stay together when, on the surface, they have views which are polar opposites of the other…)
I don’t consider it a “sport” to “eviscerate” someone, regardless of what you think you know about me. First of all, you haven’t seen me do that…not here. I HAVE done it, of course. It’s kind of part of the job description in my former profession. Secondly, to the degree that I dissect someone’s opinion, it is deserved. Frankly, some positions are DESERVING of scorn, sarcasm, and condescension…sometimes heaping helpings of all three.
But, I DO let you know when I think that you’re wrong. I DO let you feel my condensension and frustration when you adhere to a postion which is DEMONSTRABLY wrong. (I really don’t care if you THINK you’re right…either defend your position from a position of rationality or be prepared to have some mild scorn heaped upon you.)
I don’t hide my feelings or try to disguise them by saying insulting things then say that they weren’t “intended” to be insulting.
And, this is true whether you’re “in my face” or across the world typing on a computer. I don’t call you names here or in my home. If you advance a position in my sight where you’re trying to convince me of the rightness of your position…if I think you’re wrong…you’ll feel the full sting of my rebuke whether you are in my face or across the world.
There is nothing I have said on these boards…not once….which couldn’t be said on television while toddlers are watching. There is not one word which could remotely be considered to be a cuss word. There was not one term I used which even remotely resembled “name calling.”
In other words, although the tone of some of my remarks towards the person who terms herself
BETTERTHANYOU
and came into these boards insulting people left and right
have been sarcastic or even condescending, they have at all times been “civil.”
I’m done defending myself to you. I have my suspicions where your desire to pop into threads and “call me out” without even a passing attempt to address what the thread is currently addressing comes from, but I won’t lower myself to ascribing base motivations to you. (You know…something along the lines of saying that you engage in eviscerating people for sport…)
CC: Condescending?
To point out repeatedly that someone is adhering to an untenable position?
To show repeatedly just why that position is untenable?
To use the poster’s own words and examples to further show just how untenable?
To tire of bashing my head against a brick wall of untenableness?
Sheesh. Maybe you’re right. Rather than have this be a blog about ideas and such where feathers might just get ruffled from time to time, let’s all just talk about things we agree upon, hold hands and sing.
I’ll be back at some later point. Until then, I suppose Dadman can again begin “enjoying” this blog.
Drax:
Consider the irony of your reaction to Dadman’s comments when your whole last few comments are about how people should be able to take criticism of their positions or ideas.
Yes, I do want this to be a place for vigorous debate of issues, but this thread is not an example of that. It started with a rather innocuous post from me about a game I play, and then Betterthan had to come in and make insulting comments about the social proclivities of people who play the game. How that ended up in a fight with you and Dadman is probably an interesting social experiment, but I hope you don’t stop reading and posting here.
I think everyone needs to take a chill pill and just move on to another post. Like the last one I posted. It’s got BOOBS!!!!
“Position” or “ideas.”
Not how you express them. Or, in some cases where you try to disguise your “uncivil” discourse by saying something insulting but say that it’s not “intended” to be insulting.
I’m sorry. I’m not going to be beset by people about being uncivil when I do my level best to BE civil and AM civil in every respect in every post. Of course, “civil” to one person can apparently be “eviscerating for sport” to another.
I really have better things to do with my time than be instructed by Dadman on how to engage in civil discourse…or anyone for that matter.
I have/had no motivation other than to call out and criticize condescension. It is possible to challenge, even critique, the arguments of others WITHOUT resorting to condescension, sarcasm, or ‘scorn’. That’s what you don’t seem to get. But, like Cosmic, I have been guilty of the same and regret casting any stones in your direction…
Dadman. Last post.
You have been guilty of same IN THIS THREAD.
Jeez Drax, we all have, Dadman was trying to offer an olive branch of sorts. I hate it when a thread gets to the point that people’s emotions get involved. That’s why I’ve sort of sworn off this stuff for a while. My life has been emotional enough this last couple of years, I just don’t have enough reserves anymore to get all emotional over internet postings. That’s why I’m trying to tone it down.
I apologize myself if MY comments bugged anyone. I seriously think this has gone far enough, If Betterthan had come here with no intention but to tick us off, he has far surpassed those goals by getting us at each others throats…
I lied, I guess. Not last post. Maybe last post.
I did not come into this thread calling names and insulting people. Betterthan did.
I did not come into this thread simply to instruct someone on how to engage in civil discourse when I’m guilty of engaging in non-civil discourse myself (even in this thread). Dadman did.
On any other board, I wouldn’t care. I would simply respond — or not — and move on. But, I feel this board to be a kind of “home” to me, a place to share ideas, be challenged for my ideas, and to challenge others for THEIR ideas. A healthy exchange of differing viewpoints in the “arena of ideas,” which is aptly named and not an arena for the weak heart, will, or mind.
But, on THIS board, I do care. And I simply REFUSE to be instructed in “civil discourse” time and again when there is absolutely nothing “uncivil” about a single word I have written. In my exchanges with Betterthan, at LEAST the “facade” has been maintained that a “debate” is being had as we exchange barbs. (And, is there ANYONE here confused that it is, indeed, an EXCHANGE of “barbs?”) However, with others, even this “facade” has been discarded — if ever it was donned in the first place — and I have been directly attacked, not for my ideas, but for some perceived lack of “civility.”
CC has seen me being “uncivil.” This ain’t it.
My argument is simply that your ‘heaping helpings’ of condescension, sarcasm and scorn (your word) are not condusive to civil discourse. It ticks people off. Is that such a hard thing to comprehend? Seems self-evident to me…
I apologize for singling you out. I am making a generic observation as much as a person-specific one, at least that’s what I should have done.
Dadman, you write:
“Aside from having a point of view you don’t like, what precisely has BetterThanYou done or said to justify the condescension and sarcasm you’ve directed toward him?
Can’t wait to read your response…”
” I just think his condescension is sometimes excessive and detrimental to civil discourse. I guess pointing out such a thing makes me un-nice.
Oh well”
“You’re a big boy. An intelligent guy. You know what condescension and sarcasm are. You know what disrespect is. I’m content you’ll figure it out by yourself without any help from me.”
” It is possible to challenge, even critique, the arguments of others WITHOUT resorting to condescension, sarcasm, or ’scorn’. That’s what you don’t seem to get.”
“My argument is simply that your ‘heaping helpings’ of condescension, sarcasm and scorn (your word) are not condusive to civil discourse. It ticks people off. Is that such a hard thing to comprehend? Seems self-evident to me…”
And you have the termerity to call ME condescending.
I guess I’m not done posting quite yet. At least not until you’re done with your personal attacks.
And, yes…such sarcastic condescending tones do tick people off. As you can see, I am QUITE ticked off.
Drax, how many times have you graced us with your farewell speech now? Six? Seven?
I thought that a more telling example of your profound weakness of character than your temper tantrum after being told that no means “no” and not “a little” would be difficult to arrange. But you’ve done it.
Maybe you could salvage a shred of intellectual integrity by answering the two questions I have repeatedly posed to you, and which you have repeatedly scampered away from. Remember, even a thousand mile journey starts with a single step.
BetterThanYou:
If you think you’ve been getting the better of Drax in the area of intellectual debate, you are the one who is living in a dream world. Even though this thread has become rather ugly in its fratricidal activities, there is universal agreement (outside of you) that your arguments are the weaker and you have been the one running away from the points Drax has made.
My advice is to let this go and find some other thread to comment on.
Drax: You’ve already admitted to being condescending, sarcastic and scornful toward those whose arguments you don’t respect. So, yes I have the temerity to call you condescending based on your own admission and my own experiences with you over the years. Your roll-up of my comments above fails to include your (and others) comments/questions that preceded them, so they are clearly out of context. But, where they may be interpreted as condescending I apologize for that.
I have to disagree with you there, CC. If Drax was still circling the bowl I was going to ask him if he thought that taking the position that a government has the right to indefinitely imprison and/or torture people was a “conservative” position. Then maybe we could move on to whether or not the belief that it is proper for governments to use military force to export political and/or economic systems is a “conservative” belief…
Leave A Reply