With every argument you make, there is a kernel of the truth embedded within it
Not even that much has been true of some of the arguments I have been opposing.
You are extremely ideological while seemingly ignorant of that fact, and you refuse to entertain any concept or idea that you personally haven't experienced.
Ted you are so focused on being against Bush that it blinds you to other ideas.
I am willing to entertain just about any concept or idea and I have shown that willingness hear. Entertain doesn't mean agree with but when I disagree I at least make arguments against the idea. I look at the points, think about them, and then accept, reject, or withhold judgment on them. That is entertaining the concepts and ideas. Many of the people I deal on SI with just dismiss other ideas out of hand. To be fair this doesn't just include people who are more liberal. There are a lot of conservatives on SI who are similarly dismissive of liberals. I am not one of them.
Add that to the fact that you don't want to admit that you might be wrong
The fact that I might be wrong goes without saying. Its a given, but you don't seem to recognize that given for yourself. People who disagree aren't just mistaken they are "blind", or "extreme partisans".
Its much like DR. Instead of admitting that there are potentially fatal problems in Iraq, he suggests we are in a particularly negative phase, and in the end, it will all work out.
The wording of that statement illustrates what I am talking about. You are so certainly right that others must know it deep down and they should admit it to the thread, or perhaps they need to admit it to themselves first. You don't even seem to entertain the thought that you might also be wrong.
Also you positions are not nuanced. Iraq is a muddled situation, maybe it could be considered a mess, but you look at it (or at least post about it as if you did look at it) as if it was obviously a practical disaster and a great moral failing or rare magnitude. You complain about the mote in my eye before removing the plank in yours. If you want to assert that Iraq is such a horrible thing both practically and morally then I am willing to entertain the idea, and I wouldn't call you blind if I continue to disagree. What I would call you blind or unreasonable for, is for being so sure that you are right, that any opinion that dissents from an idea that you hold strongly must be a sign of some sort of failing in the person you are debating with. Similarly Bush in your apparent opinion isn't just a bad president but an evil incompetent president (or one who is so incompetent or weak that he lets evil people around him control things). Not only is that an extreme position but also you don't stick to just arguing your position in rational terms. Your post drip hatred for Bush, and not just for Bush but for those who support him. If you don't hate his supporters here you at least belittle them and consider the fact that they could support him (or even just say certain attacks against him are inaccurate) to be a sign of some personal weakness or failing. If you want to consider Bush "a fired employee" fine, I disagree but I have no problem with your opinion. What I do have a problem with is the though that anyone who doesn't consider him to be "a fired employee" to be limited, highly partisan, blinded, extremely ideological, ignorant, stupid, and/or foolish.
Tim |
