Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
now by control, what is meant?
well, ace, look at your own posts in relation to anyone else's here. to enter into an actual conversation with you requires that one accept your premises, not because they are legitimate (they aren't) but because you are either unwilling or unable to move beyond them. you cannot even articulate the premises of your positions, must less defend them: all you can do is cling to them.
|
An interesting charge against me. If correct what would happen next? Perhaps I would not be responding to your premise. Perhaps I would not be able to state that my original premise in this thread was that "Government should not be in the business of science" and the the SG is a political position in the government. Perhaps all I have done is cling to the premise I can't articulate, without adding any additional value or support. Yes, a very interesting charge.
Quote:
|
the matter of control can work in this way--it does not require domination (your side of the political aisle is increasingly a minority position every day, it seems--no matter that the bush people are still in power--they are increasingly talking to themselves, just as you are)--it can require only pigheadedness, obstinance, etc.: turning your inability to articulate the basis for your own position into a quasi-virtue by confronting everyone who interacts with you here with a choice: you either accept what are--to my mind--idiotic logical and political premises in order to debate you on your own terms, or find oneself in yet another tedious tedious tedious session of talking-past-each-other.
|
Or, my premise could be correct. Or perhaps something is gained by the exchange.
Like I wrote earlier I found value in this thread because it covers an issue I may not have otherwise thought about. Responding to points counter to mine required additional thought on my part and some research on my part. I don't know about you, but I will walk away from this more informed. I walk away a winner.
Quote:
|
so your own technique of non-debate are in a sense a little duplication of what amounts to an attempt to control the terms of debate.
|
You lost me here. Through my non-debate technique, I try to control the terms of debate??? Can you give an example of how this works?
I thought that all I was doing was posting my thoughts on a subject and then responding to those responded to my posts.
Quote:
|
of course, this technique does not work here simply because you have no power. no-one does.
|
Depends on how you measure power. Some here are much more influential than others. I think that is a form of power. The moderators have power. People who initiate threads have power, they set the general direction on what gets discussed. You have some power, since I am taking the time to read and respond to what you write. I seem to have the power to get people pissed off at my idiotic, unsupportable, etc, etc, comments.
Quote:
|
in the context of bushworld, however, cowboy george retains formal power
|
Balanced by the formal powers of others.
Quote:
|
and is therefore in a position to directly or indirectly impose conservative ideological filters on information emanating from any number of administrative positions.
|
As others have power to impose other ideological filters on information emanating from any number of media, legislative, judicial, educational, scientific, industrial, financial, etc, etc, etc. outlets.
Quote:
|
this imposing of conservative ideological filters is an aspect of the conservative surrealism.
|
I have no idea what you mean by that.
Quote:
|
the bush people continue to believe, it seems, that they "make reality" while the rest of us trot along behind interpreting their brave new world.
|
Unless your the lead dog on the sled team, the scenery doesn't change.
Quote:
of course at this point (7/7) that view is ridiculous, but the administration--rather like yourself in this petri dish we swim in--doesnt seem to get that quite.
if we were talking about "the scientific community" as a whole--which we aren't--then the entire discussion would be otherwise.
|
Yes we are talking about the SG, a political cheerleader for the President. Has been in the past and will be in the future. Ooops,
clinging to those idiotic premises again.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
So long as the foods are parked as poison, they are being regulated in a very similar manner to cigarettes. I guess the question would be, what difference do you see between the two?
|
I have no problem with tobacco products being taxed and regulated. People who use tobacco products should have certain assurances and guarantees in regard to safety regulations same as food.
Quote:
|
Do you agree with helmet laws?
|
I am libertarian when it comes to issues like this. I would wear a helmet regardless of the law, because I think the benefits of wearing a helmet are greater than the costs. I also change the brake fluid in my vehicles every two years if they need it or not, I don't need government to tell me that and not everyone would agree that there is value in doing it, they should not be forced to do it. I just think adults should be able to make their own decisions as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.
No, I don't agree with helmet laws.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Deltona Couple
I am APALLED that ANY human being would even CONSIDER legalizing these drugs. Heroin and cocaine have HORRIBLE side effects, and are adictive drugs. That is just insane!
|
1) these drugs have not always been illegal and people managed o.k.
2) the war on drugs has wasted billions of dollars and ruined the lives of countless people. The money and resource would have been better used on drug prevention education, treatment, regulations and controls.
3) if these drugs were made legal, I doubt usage would go up. It may go down.
4) regulate and tax these drugs. Perhaps we can get users off of the streets and in controlled settings.
5) what was the basis for some of these drugs being made illegal, while others are legal?
If these five things are insane and not worthy of discussion to you, I understand.