nihil, I may not be as well read as some. And perhaps you're correct in asserting that my communication skills are lacking. However, the flaw in your logic is you seem to feel all well read thinkers, and highly educated people agree with you on the many topics we have discussed. And disagree with me. Perhaps in your educratic circles this is the case. I would suggest, for everyone who agrees with you, I can find an equal highly educated great thinker who disagrees with you and agrees with me. All one has to do is link over to the Heritage foundation or Hoover Institute to find hundreds of PHD's aligned with many of my ideas.
So, this PHD sanctimonious envy thing you and a few others like to do is just a bunch of hogwash if you ask me.
The real frustration you have with debating me is that I know how to use the net, to showcast how the logic of your positions are in many ways flawed. A perfect example was the other day, when I linked the government statistics challenging your assertion that revenue was lost during the Reagan tax cuts. What was your response? To obfuscate, to lash out, become rude and drive down that typical nasty road toward me instead of the factual data.
In my work I have seen the same kind of things happen many times whenever someones deeply held mental models and assumptions are challenged. So when you lash out with your
"you are racist", "homophobe", "bigot", "stupid", "idiot", "imbecile" ect. All names you have ascribed to me. I recognize it for what it is. A frustrated mental model and assumption being challenged, and the defensive states that come with not being able to openly dialogue about it.
So instead of being sanctimonious and rude regarding various issues, why not simply discuss/debate/argue the ideas instead of the personalities involved? Because from my point of view, your ideas are not some watershed of uniqueness. They appear to drive down the same liberal pro-Democratic established educratic road I have seen countless times in the press and on talking head shows. Oh sure, you may write them in ways which are uniquely rude. But the ideas are simply re-hashed doctrine to me.
Or, is it instead that you really fear an honest airing of the ideas involved, because underlying an open discussion of those ideas, some of your deepest mental models will be challenged?
I believe the latter.
Michael |
