(1) given that the hobby has existed steadily throughout history with no clear harm (apart from issues of competition); and (2) normality probably includes a percentage of deviance anyway, we doubt that it could be called "abnormal".
The weakness of ideological Libertarians is in failing to recognize the cost of maintaining infrastructure. They assume that a system created by humans is going to maintain itself. Apart from that, most denizens of this board probably have strong desires to be left alone by their neighbors.
I’m witnessing a disturbing trend on this board.
It is impossible to take a stand on an issue outside of the politics of the incumbent bullies that dominate this forum. I guess it’s not surprising being it the same inflexible partisanship so onerously demonstrated by national politic’s myopic two party insensibilities.
If a poster quotes or references NBC news he/she is immediately labeled a liberal lunatic. If Fox news is mentioned they are minion of the fascist automaton.
Boys & girls I’m a Libertarian. I have a staunch parochial dedication to the ideals and consequent words put to paper in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. By both ruling factions of our current two party system that would label me as an iconoclast, a trouble maker and possibly to some; an anarchist.
By my way of thinking both ruling political factions have been chipping away at the very precepts and ideals of the Constitution / Bill of Rights from opposing sides for a very long time. Witnessing some of the partisan/intolerant vitriol spewed here by what should be more libertine thinkers gives me reason to believe that whoever would benefit from the demise of a 230 year old contract with the citizens certainly has the “fix” in place.
from the nature of politics, either.
Disagreement, including strong and graphic disagreement, is part of the drill. Some people are very sensitive, and others are not; and some people use either stance as a weapon, and I don't see the harm. We talk so we can avoid shooting, and those of us whose feelings are readily hurt should think instead of the cost of shooting.
One point that you mention, the idea of a 230 year old contract, is interesting. I would point ouot (a) no contract stands separate from its context, which is something you know quite well if you work, eg in contruction; and (b) the Supremes have never decided, and probably never will, whether the consitution is a contract, or a charter; and there are major differences in the way either would be handled...so I guess we will just have to make do as we go along, and that is fine with me...
You're thinking of it as a pure political ploy misses the point.
I have never called anyone here a fascist; not even funlove, or whatever his name was, who definitely believed we had to protect the master race.
I have called Fox channel the Weasel Channel.
If it seems bad, remember that the partisanship that took place in the first decade after the consitution was so bad that the founders thought they had failed.
It isn't from partisanship that the constitution might reach its demise, though it might be related. It would finally be the failure of citizens to hold the government to its contract, perhaps because they are distracted by partisanship.
Distraction is one of the most pervasive of my fears.
It is the basis for the 3 shell Monty con found on so many street corners in so many cities, as well as “outsourcing” US jobs while we fight over flag burning. While we’re watching Tom Cruise jump on Oprah’s couch Congress quietly legislates our freedoms away and then votes themselves a pay raise for doing so..
Spirited, passionate debate is what a forum like this should reflect. It proves to edify and give catharsis. Such debate often calls for thick skin, but no matter how impassioned the debate; it shouldn’t require Kevlar.
most forums will track national patterns of discourse. We note the wide popularity and imitation of Rush Limbaugh, who tends to specialize in political heat more than light; and can't be surprised that people see the need to respond in kind.
I don't think Limbaugh or his like can or should be forced to tone it down, because of the 1st amendment. I'd hope that voters would turn away from him because of his tactics, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
These public icons make millions for incurring the wrath as well as support from the populace.
My focus in starting this thread was us lowly unpaid amateurs at debate or political discourse. We can only profit by gaining understanding of each others challenges and experiences that form our individual politics. Intolerance and debasement serve only to isolate and weaken the whole.
First, they may be paid controversialist, but it doesn't mean that didn't cut their teeth in the amateur leagues. For somebody like Rush, he was hired from obscurity because his opinions were outrageous, but the "eib" network wasn't putting on a freak show with him. They were meaning to rally opinion around him. When it moved that far right with Rush's "infotainment" then conservatives put O'Reilly out there to move it further right. By then, Rush had become a centrist.
Look at Rush Limbaugh's resume before he became national. WTF did he do before that? His only qualification was that he was conservative and a school-yard heckler.
Howard Stern is something else entirely. He wasn't hired because of the way he scowled and scoffed at the left. He wasn't political to begin with.
The reason why we politics is so we don't have war instead. Call me cynical. Before the advent of nuclear weapons, it was impossible for any one side to unilaterally declare peace-- it would have been suicidal. So humankind evolved for warfare.
That is why political discussion can get verbally scrappy. That is why you shouldn't say you're above it all if the other side gets scrappy. The liberals gave the entire political field to the Republicans, who have taken it all and are taking our liberties in the process.
So, I'll go to win the argument lowdown, and I'll strive to win the argument high as well. I realize that you could win high, but no one will even consider it unless you win lowdown, too.
IMHO, the limitations of discussion should be accuracy.
The actual limitations tend to be credibility - and the difference is that most people are more comfortable with what they THINK they know, and are not so concerned about being SURE of what they know. And many people are not so clear about the distinction between their observations, and their opinions.
Example, a hypothetical:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Now, that is a huge hypothetical. Think of areas of doubt that people could have with that statement. Is it self-evident that all men are created equal? Is a creator even self-evident?
The only sense in which it might be factual is if Jefferson believed it was self-evident. He held slaves.
However, let's look at the ideology against which he was arguing: that kings ruled according to the will of God; that God has awarded a King command status over people. That was another huge hypothetical. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson had to argue as to why a war against the king was not also a war against God, or a war against morality. For that purpose, he succeeded.
Now, people lost lives over these hypotheticals. One of them winning out had consequences that could not be foreseen at the time: the end of slavery, for one thing.
Jefferson couldn't know then that other people would read "all men are created equal" and would begin to apply it to political arguments of their own, including things like workers' rights, civil rights, suffrage for women, etc.
-- Modified on 5/2/2006 12:19:50 PM
economic interests and emotional comittments, perhaps?
Another way to explain your hypothetical is to point out that "equality" in a political context has never meant what it does in the mathematical context, ie, an identity.
In the political context, it always means, "we want more of your perogatives and other stuff..." and of course the merits of that argument depend on the POV...
Some posters on this Board Do Seem very sure of their opinions, and some DO SEEM overbearing and quick to give personal insult when someone disagrees.
But don't forget -- it's mostly an open forum. Sometimes it's not pretty, but some isues engage some posters very deeply [fer example, illegal immigration in the last few weeks] so you can't always expect he most gentell mannerisms to predominate.