dagblog - Comments for "Eric"

Your frustration is

Flavius — Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:56:02 +0000

In reply to It truly is depressing. The

Your frustration is completely understandable. As is the sad fact that deep religious convictions caused many good people to vote for the deplorable candidate who promised to put a Gorsuch on the Court . And did.

In part I agree with you. Too

ocean-kat — Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:50:30 +0000

In reply to I wasn't meaning to debate

In part I agree with you. Too often a debate is exactly how you describe it. I have no interest in that type of debate. But I think you have a low opinion of people and especially the people here. Yes there are a couple tedious people here who spin for the win. But there are intellectually honest people in this world and on this site. There are people who won't make an argument they don't believe in. Who don't spin for the win. People who make their best arguments to explain and defend their views and will admit when the other makes a good point. I love that type of debate. Two or more intellectually honest people who are knowledgeable on the subject and the clash of their ideas. I have debates like that every time I read an article on a news site or a book. I have arguments like that in my head as I slowly form my opinions. But the arguments I have in my head as I analyze the information are never as good as the debates two knowledgeable and intellectually honest people have. I learn a lot from watching debates like that.

I never spin. There's no reward for me to do it. I'm not getting paid. Winning here gives me nothing. Accolades for winning from strangers isn't anything I value. I can make a weak or flawed argument but it's not spin and having those weaknesses or flaws pointed out helps me. All I get out of coming here is what ever I learn. While sometimes people link me to a good article I haven't seen mostly I learn here by considering the arguments of others and having my arguments challenged. I learn here from the debates, if they're good debates.

Martin Luther King Jr. had a

rmrd0000 — Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:35:41 +0000

In reply to ¨Taking it in stages¨ meant

Martin Luther King Jr. had a strong rebuttal to hiding behind God as an excuse for doing bad.

In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sideline and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard so many ministers say, "those are social issues with which the gospel has no real concern.", and I have watched so many churches commit themselves to a completely other-worldly religion which made a strange distinction between body and soul, the sacred and the secular.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/060.html

The above is from the April 1963 Letter From a Birmingham jail. God made me do it is not an excuse.

Thanks but I seem to be link

Flavius — Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:30:30 +0000

In reply to Yes, E.M. Forster, he did it

Thanks but I seem to be link challanged.I´ll get the Forster(thanks) comment.

It truly is depressing. The

rmrd0000 — Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:27:12 +0000

In reply to What exactly do you mean by

It truly is depressing. The other thing that happened is that is has become crystal clear that the Religious Right are complete frauds. They had always downplayed racism, but they fully supported a sexual abuser. They are silent while Trump talks about cutting the number of meals funded by Meals on Wheels. If the Christians support Trump, how can we tell the diff between them and the "heathens"? Paul Ryan has been shown to be the economic imbecile that every sane person realized was the case. Republicans cannot get their act together on healthcare or the budget. They have to slash health care funding to pay for the tax cuts they want for the wealthy and the corporations. The Right cant govern and they cannot lecture us on morality. Look at the daily sexual harassment charges coming out of the Pravda of the Right, Fox News. Hillary was correct about the deplorables.

¨Taking it in stages¨ meant

Flavius — Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:22:02 +0000

In reply to What exactly do you mean by

¨Taking it in stages¨ meant doing just what you did.

Not all of Trump´s voters were ¨bad ¨ I disagree with his right- to- life supporters but despite being irreligious I don´t consider it ¨bad¨ to vote to do what you think God wants.

I now understand your

rmrd0000 — Wed, 26 Apr 2017 12:11:17 +0000

In reply to I wasn't meaning to debate

I now understand your feelings about debating. My point is not to convince others, I simply point out what I see. I don't think that Democrats can rely on Trump supporters to change. I don't think Congress is able to hold Trump accountable. I don't think Ivanka is a moderating force. The DOJ investigation is suspect. The courts may be our only hope. I try to be reality based.

Trump is a screw up. He is violating the emoluments clause, but Congress doesn't care. I simply reject attempts to tell me that our current situation is normal and Trump supporters will come to their senses. Instead of facing the stark reality of Trump, we divert to attacking Progressives by telling them they are the problem because they practice "identity politics". It is easier to beat up on marginalized groups than to deal with the threat posed by Trump and his supporters. I think we have to operate based on Trump voters not coming to their senses, Ivanka and Jared continuing to rake in corporate money as advisors to the President, Congress being asleep at the wheel, and Trump continuing to be insane. The new "normal" is insanity.

Trump is not doing what Hillary would do in North Korea because Hilllary has the brainpower to avoid going with the military as the first option.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updat...

Not as depressing as the

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:10:09 +0000

In reply to Better put some

Not as depressing as the carbon monoxide inducing Breaking the Waves - how's that for a pumped up review? ("Two wrists slashed up", say Siskel & Ebert)

I wasn't meaning to debate

artappraiser — Wed, 26 Apr 2017 11:07:27 +0000

In reply to LOL. Classic debating

I wasn't meaning to debate with you, really I wasn't. I was simply trying to say: this is how what you are saying comes across to me, one person, you're getting nowhere trying to convince me. And maybe with others, too.

I actually dislike debating, I think it is mostly a wasteful way to spend time as the two parties ratchet up attempts to "win", they go for more and more advocacy or what I call spin. It's the legal system, it's what trial lawyers do and why people call them liars. The difference though, in a trial there is supposed to be a third party, a judge or jury, deciding where the truth is between the two advocates. And with formal debate, that's just a damn game, scoring who can spin the best.

Yes, E.M. Forster, he did it

artappraiser — Wed, 26 Apr 2017 10:45:36 +0000

In reply to Forster?E.M. Foster? The link

Yes, E.M. Forster, he did it as a speech for a radio show about the situation the world was in at the end of the war as a sort of irony laden pep talk about was needed next. I believe it was titled "Two Cheers for Tolerance"

That link goes to a 2-page PDF, so you might have a problem if you don't have a PDF reader on your device or if a slow connection you have to wait a bit for it to pop up, or you have the PDF reader set to download to your browser and not display.

It's less available in full on Google than it should be, especially as it appears to be sometimes used in high school curricula, I see kid's essays on it online and "flashcards".

Try this link instead.

Here is the excerpt that Wikiquote takes from it:

Tolerance is a very dull virtue. It is boring. Unlike love, it has always had a bad press. It is negative. It merely means putting up with people, being able to stand things.