Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
i dont think that moosenose is being defended by ustwo because his arguments are reasonable--i think he is simply being defended beacuse he is conservative. the basis for the defense is that any rejection of conservative ideology, of conservative arguments, is arbitrary--but this argument, like the other quoted above, reverses immediately--it implies that any commmitment to conservative ideology or conservative argument is arbitrary as well--and--sadly, the relativizing move simply functions to confirm that.
|
I don't know if its funny or sad, but I didn't think moosegoose's arguements were arbitrary, and I'm not agreeing with him purely because he's a conservative. I happen to find his arguements reasonable and logical. I think most conservatives would agree. And that's what separates us. To the conservative crowd, these are logical, reasonable arguements, and the basis of the war on terror.
Quote:
|
my sense is that a recurring explanation for the frustration and irritation that flares up in this forum is the flat refusal of conservatives to enter into meaningful discussion about their system of thinking as a system.
|
I was following you up until this point. What do you mean "discussion about their system of thinking as a system?" To me, and I assume most people who think like me, believe our arguements are simple and straightforward and that there is no need for explanation. Maybe there is some room to work on this one though.
Quote:
|
the assymetry turns out to be equally annoying across the board--conservatives think they are put upon, others think they are being obtuse. and things get snippy from that point.
|
I agree with you on this, but might I add one point...Its not only others that think conservatives are being obtuse, conservatives think others are being obtuse as well.
I thought many of shakran's arguements were very obtuse, perhaps it was simply a breakdown in communication and understanding what the other said, but there was constant referring to moosegoose's arguement as "wanting to kill everyone who doesn't like the us" and thats not at all what he was saying. he clairified that several times, but the point just didn't get through.
I just don't think it is all conservative arguements that stifles debate, but a combination of the two sides of the arguement constantly clashing and cancelling eachother out. It goes on like this for days in a thread.
I think most liberals don't understand the conservative arguement that America was not attacked because of our foriegn policy and "meddeling in other's affairs," but because the pan-arab population has been indoctrinated by their leaders (through the media and the supporting of extremist religious views) that america is the great satan. The people have been told this for generations because it is yet another weapon dictators have to keep ahold of their power.
The liberal arguement is that if we change the way we act around the world the terrorists won't have any reason to attack us.
But thats not true. They attack us because they hate us, they hate us because theyve been, for all intents and purposes, brainwashed. Nothing we do, short of killing the extremists, giving people the opportunity to be free so that they can freely be allowed to find all the information (both sides, or more) of a story. Like the story they've been told since birth, that the US is the devil. We give these people the ability to free themselves from tyrants, improve their standards of living (over time) and the personal freedoms we take for granted every day, all the while we are killing the terrorists that hate us and destroy their countryside and then one day, they don't have to like us, but they might not be so willing to blow themselves up to kill us, or just kill us in general.