Watch CSPAN Sometime....

[CFLarsen]

There is no harm in gay marriage. The only arguments against are slippery slope arguments or argue with a religious basis; but I guess you have no problem with that, being a skeptic and everything? Oh, wait.

How do you rationally assess that there is no "harm"?

Did you just ask that question? Seriously?

Global warming, war, economy...

Just about everything the public takes seriously...

The public takes psychics, astrology, faith healing, dowsing and other paranormal beliefs seriously.

Are you seriously going to say that no political issue can be helped by rationality? Wow. Just seriously. Wow.

"Helped"? What is your argument? That politics should only be about issues that can be determined rationally, or helped by rationality?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Can we get back to discussing the hot chick on CSPAN?

 

[Reager]

Can we get back to discussing the hot chick on CSPAN?

Seconded.

 

[Lonewulf]

How do you rationally assess that there is no "harm"?

Occam's Razor, coupled with a requirement of evidence to make the claim that there is harm.

Please demonstrate evidence that there is harm in gay marriage.

The public takes psychics, astrology, faith healing, dowsing and other paranormal beliefs seriously.

All of which have no rational basis, no scientific evidence of any sort, and are ideas that would fizzle and die in light of a rational debate.

What's your point, CFLarsen? This is getting tedious.

Do you actually want to keep paranormal beliefs, psychics, or astrology unquestioned? You're an intriguing definition of "skeptic".

"Helped"? What is your argument? That politics should only be about issues that can be determined rationally, or helped by rationality?

That politics should not be only about ad hominem attacks or emotional rhetoric. What is so hard for you to understand about that?

Logical fallacies have no place in a reasoned debate. And a lack of rationality means only irrationality. If you publish a magazine advocating skepticism and attacking woo-woo beliefs, I ask you: What about irrationality is preferential? Please answer this question, Larsen, and stop sliming your way out of it. I answered your questions, it's about high time you came in and told us why we should just have platforms based on, "Nuh uh! YOU smoked marijuana, therefore you're wrong!" attacks. Please explain, in detail, the perfection of the U.S. system.

 

[CFLarsen]

Can we get back to discussing the hot chick on CSPAN?

Let's get back to your OP. You are not too enchanted with democracy?

Occam's Razor, coupled with a requirement of evidence to make the claim that there is harm.

Please demonstrate evidence that there is harm in gay marriage.

It could be argued (I'm not) that it undermines society as we know it.

All of which have no rational basis, no scientific evidence of any sort, and are ideas that would fizzle and die in light of a rational debate.

What about health care? Social benefits? Crime?

What's your point, CFLarsen? This is getting tedious.

Do you actually want to keep paranormal beliefs, psychics, or astrology unquestioned? You're an intriguing definition of "skeptic".

That, OTOH, was a strawman: You are jumping to the conclusion that I do hold this view. I don't.

That politics should not be only about ad hominem attacks or emotional rhetoric. What is so hard for you to understand about that?

But is it only about ad homs or emotional rhetoric?

Logical fallacies have no place in a reasoned debate. And a lack of rationality means only irrationality. If you publish a magazine advocating skepticism and attacking woo-woo beliefs, I ask you: What about irrationality is preferential? Please answer this question, Larsen, and stop sliming your way out of it. I answered your questions, it's about high time you came in and told us why we should just have platforms based on, "Nuh uh! YOU smoked marijuana, therefore you're wrong!" attacks. Please explain, in detail, the perfection of the U.S. system.

"Sliming my way"? Isn't that an irrational, ad hominem, emotional rhetoric?

I am simply asking what you would put in your current system's place.

 

[Lonewulf]

It could be argued (I'm not) that it undermines society as we know it.

Evidence?

What about health care? Social benefits? Crime?

What about them?

That, OTOH, was a strawman: You are jumping to the conclusion that I do hold this view. I don't.

Then your questions are meaningless and a waste of time.

But is it only about ad homs or emotional rhetoric?

most of the debates or advertising I've seen involving local politics have been ad hominem attacks or emotional rhetoric. Yes.

National debates often are, as well. Why else do the personal lives of those at the podiums come up? Why else do politicians need to defend such things as smoking marijuana as a child?

"Sliming my way"? Isn't that an irrational, ad hominem, emotional rhetoric?

Since when was I a politician or involved in politics?

I am simply asking what you would put in your current system's place.

A system that was more based on rationality.

I do not have any ready answers, though I do have ideas. Regardless, there is nothing about the current system that is beyond criticism. Please stop acting like there is, and please stop with the meaningless questions unless you have a point to make. M'kay?

 

[corplinx]

CSPAN has a hot info-babe? I'm all over that now!

 

[CFLarsen]

Evidence?

If you see the heterosexual family as one of the pillars of society, gay marriages can definitely be argued as being destructive.

What about them?

Can they be determined rationally, with scientific evidence?

Then your questions are meaningless and a waste of time.

Not at all. You express dissatisfaction with your political system, so I ask you how you want to make it better.

most of the debates or advertising I've seen involving local politics have been ad hominem attacks or emotional rhetoric. Yes.

National debates often are, as well. Why else do the personal lives of those at the podiums come up? Why else do politicians need to defend such things as smoking marijuana as a child?

I've just watched the Democratic debate, and there was precious little - if anything - of that.

Aren't politicians discussing what they think the voters want to hear? If the voters didn't want to hear about it, wouldn't they let the politicians know?

Aren't people responsible for their politicians?

Since when was I a politician or involved in politics?

You can do what you won't allow your politicians to do? That's hypocritical.

A system that was more based on rationality.

I do not have any ready answers, though I do have ideas. Regardless, there is nothing about the current system that is beyond criticism. Please stop acting like there is, and please stop with the meaningless questions unless you have a point to make. M'kay?

I'm neither acting like there are things about the current system that is beyond criticism, nor am I asking meaningless questions.

It does, however, strike me as rather pointless to criticize your political system without being able to offer a better solution and argue in favor of it. Simply saying "more rationality" without explaining how that should be achieved is just empty talk.

 

[Lonewulf]

If you see the heterosexual family as one of the pillars of society, gay marriages can definitely be argued as being destructive.

Not rationally.

Can they be determined rationally, with scientific evidence?

Yes.

Not at all. You express dissatisfaction with your political system, so I ask you how you want to make it better.

Why?

Aren't politicians discussing what they think the voters want to hear? If the voters didn't want to hear about it, wouldn't they let the politicians know?

Congrats. You caught a basic tenet of politics. When a majority of population are morons, the politics grow moronic.

Aren't people responsible for their politicians?

Congrats #2.

You can do what you won't allow your politicians to do? That's hypocritical.

I don't make speeches, either. I also don't get elected for being a citizen. That's hypocritical, right?

I'm neither acting like there are things about the current system that is beyond criticism, nor am I asking meaningless questions.

It does, however, strike me as rather pointless to criticize your political system without being able to offer a better solution and argue in favor of it. Simply saying "more rationality" without explaining how that should be achieved is just empty talk.

I do not wish to write essays for you.

 

[CFLarsen]

Not rationally.

Why not?

Yes.

How so? Please explain. Start with health care.

Why?

Because otherwise, you are merely complaining without offering concrete solutions.

Congrats. You caught a basic tenet of politics. When a majority of population are morons, the politics grow moronic.

Ah, but then, you are not complaining about politicians and the political system. Then, you are complaining about the population.

How will you make the population less moronic?

I don't make speeches, either. I also don't get elected for being a citizen. That's hypocritical, right?

Why should politicians live up to an ideal you refuse to live up to yourself?

I do not wish to write essays for you.

I'm not asking for essays, I'm asking how you will solve the problems you outline.

This is a discussion forum. You posted your dissatisfaction in this thread, yet you don't want to discuss?

 

[Lonewulf]

CFLarsen, I was going to respond to you, but honestly, I fail to see this conversation going in any productive direction.

So, not wishing to waste my time, I bid you adieu.

 

[fuelair]

What the hell are you talking about?

So you actually think that it's better to simply engage in negative attacks against everyone else, without explaining your own ideas on the issues?

Negative ads are all I've ever heard in the local elections. No one would tell what their positions were, just that everyone else was wrong, without saying what was right. You think that is better?

Better is not the point on that. Safe is. It is hard to be attacked if you are safe and can avoid any place/voters with real questions.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Can we get back to discussing the hot chick on CSPAN?

Seconded.

CSPAN has a hot info-babe? I'm all over that now!

I'm glad I'm not the only one.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Bump. Greta should be on this morning. I won't know until I get home though.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Let's get back to your OP. You are not too enchanted with democracy?

Democracy is great, at least on paper. The problem is, there are too many stupid people in the world and they vote.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Way late for this, but Greta wasn't on today. Robb is a really great Washington Journal host though. Try tomorrow for Greta. She's really hot.

 

[CFLarsen]

Democracy is great, at least on paper. The problem is, there are too many stupid people in the world and they vote.

What do you suggest, then?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What do you suggest, then?

Making me King of the World.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Greta's hosting today!!! Tune in an check out the anitdote to Paris Hilton.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Did any of you watch Washington Journal the last two days? Greta was host yesteday and today and she was totally hot... and intelligent, composed and informed... but did I mention she was hot?