|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 11, 2010 14:34:14 GMT -5
Okay, rather than distract the other thread by chasing rabbits, let me address this here where it can get fair treatment. Kevin posted:
"Stop drinking Lew Rockwell's Kool Aid. "
This statement is intended to compare the current events and historical news posted on LewRockwell.com to poison. Kevin then indicates that I should stop seeking truth via this particular web site.
Previously, Kevin had posted the claim that he was open minded and had altered his views on many topics in the recent past, indicating that he was open to alternative views and had an ongoing commitment to fairly and sincerely studying other views.
It seems that your openness and continual study of alternative views would compel you to seek out other sources rather than censor them.
Kevin, how does your openness to other views and your commitment to a continual pursuit of truth coincide with your censorship of alternative news sources?
|
|
albpilot
Ace of Aces
Red Baron Fight XVIII Champ
I'm not frightened of terrorism, so please don't go and create a police state on my account...
Posts: 1,181
|
Post by albpilot on Mar 11, 2010 21:26:59 GMT -5
Okay, rather than distract the other thread by chasing rabbits, let me address this here where it can get fair treatment. Kevin posted: "Stop drinking Lew Rockwell's Kool Aid. " This statement is intended to compare the current events and historical news posted on LewRockwell.com to poison. Kevin then indicates that I should stop seeking truth via this particular web site. Previously, Kevin had posted the claim that he was open minded and had altered his views on many topics in the recent past, indicating that he was open to alternative views and had an ongoing commitment to fairly and sincerely studying other views. It seems that your openness and continual study of alternative views would compel you to seek out other sources rather than censor them. Kevin, how does your openness to other views and your commitment to a continual pursuit of truth coincide with your censorship of alternative news sources? Before you get too far into this thread, I'm going to chip in at this point of the rather lengthy and disjointed discussion. A is A. This is a simple summation of reality made famous by Ayn Rand. Simply, it means that a fact is a fact, a thing is what it is, and what we wish it was or was not is irrelevant to the fact. From this point, humans enter into it. Speaking in a generalization, it is not the FACT of something that is the cause of discussion or dispute, but rather the INTERPRETATION of the item/idea/fact etc., that causes disagreements. I think that perhaps (I hope) we can all agree on that. As an example: Christians are people who believe that Jesus Christ came to earth, died for the redemption of our sins, and thereby made it possible for human sin to be erased so we can be reconciled with God (again, a paraphrase on my part). A relatively simple concept....but if it is that simple, why are there so many competing Christian sects? Interpretation. To further illustrate the point: Jesus said "No one comes to the Father but through me." What exactly does this mean? a)that you must PHYSICALLY pass through the body of Jesus? b)that you must approach life as Jesus did? c)that you must have Jesus 'vouch' for you? d)all of the above? e)none of the above? f)other? Hopefully the above lends a bit of context to the discussion. If not, one other example: No matter how hard I wish it to be, a chemical compound of 1 part sodium and 1 part chlorine is not copper-even if I choose to CALL it copper. So, with the above in mind: I think that any exercise of debate on the internet is slightly amusing, but will never resolve anything, because one person arguing from an emotional stance and another arguing from a logical stance will never convince the other - since the medium itself is not ideal for communication. None of the visual or aural cues needed for complete communication are available. With this in mind, I think that Stephen's suggestion that we try to keep things impersonal is a good one, because it allows us to try to narrow the interpretation gap to a some degree and still come out of it being civil to one another. So, when we are discussing stuff like has been discussed over the last few days, perhaps a good place to start might be to try to explain more fully the premises behind the starting points we take....does that sound reasonable to everyone? |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 12, 2010 11:15:01 GMT -5
No matter how hard I wish it to be, a chemical compound of 1 part sodium and 1 part chlorine is not copper-even if I choose to CALL it copper. What you are claiming is that truth is independent of our ideas. That is the fundamental basis for any discussion and until that much is established, all else is hot air. I would agree in general practice but not in theory. I believe that intelligent, mature debate is possible (whether it's held on the internet or a lecture hall being irrelevant). However, it requires mutual agreement to some basic rules of civility, the basic rules of debate, and a commitment to staying on topic. What this forum lacks is not good topical content. The topics here are fascinating to everyone, of interest to each of us, and profitable for discussion. What is lacking on this forum is some basic civility and adherence to standard debate rules. Whether I prefer toxic beverages is not relevant to the debate at hand. Marijuana laws have nothing to do with whether the information printed in a given publication is factual or false. Whether I worship Osama Bin Laden or not is irrelevant. Taking the position of one who believes in liberty and making it into a personal slur is not profitable for any of us. Good debate is interesting, enjoyable and educational. But it is rarely possible without some base level of commitment to civility and the standard rules of debate. I will agree to any form, set or method of standard debate that you or anyone else chooses to bring forward. ANYTHING. I will agree to naming Kevin the moderator. Or Michael. Or anyone they wish. I will agree to giving them authority for all rules and rule interpretations. ANYTHING. Two kindergarteners arguing over the color of their crayons is intellectually superior to constantly being accused of loving Osama Bin Laden. So I will gladly accept any rule, format or method suggested. |
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 12, 2010 16:25:58 GMT -5
When you day after day post articles from an incredibly biased source and refuse to accept that they might be wrong, it's very similar to drinking Kool Aid without examining what is in it. Like the articles from the guy who twice claimed to have never experienced extremely similar incidents. You didn't even address that point one bit. Just ignored it because it was inconvenient.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 12, 2010 16:28:54 GMT -5
When someone has a completely NON-objective opinion and repeatedly inserts those non-objective opinions into their news articles, the actual incidents themselves become obscured by the position of the writer. You can't see it because you agree with the writers of those articles. I'm on the outside looking in. You've bought into this whole mindset and have held it for years. My guess is it is far more important to you than friendship or seeking truth. I hope I am wrong. But you will be rude and condescending to anyone who raises issues refuting the stuff put out by the Libertarians, the New World Order conspiracy theorists or the modern militia movement. You've done it to me repeatedly over the years.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 12, 2010 16:32:00 GMT -5
That is why only those interpretations of Waco, Ruby Ridge, or any other incident which fit your worldview are what you are willing to accept.
Like I seriously wonder if you have EVER been willing to accept or believe that David Koresh was a child molesting wacko who was planning to do evil things possibly on a much larger scale than the Jim Jones cult. Instead you focus on the "wicked actions" of the government. That's just an example. Instead in our past discussions you've held him up as some kind of hero or at least someone who was just having church.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 12, 2010 16:38:25 GMT -5
Again for the record I never accused you Stephen of loving Osama Bin Laden. I called into question statements you guys yourselves made practically hailing Osama as a hero and a patriot, and basing your evidence on his own statements.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 12, 2010 17:46:59 GMT -5
When you day after day post articles from an incredibly biased source and refuse to accept that they might be wrong, it's very similar to drinking Kool Aid without examining what is in it. Like the articles from the guy who twice claimed to have never experienced extremely similar incidents. You didn't even address that point one bit. Just ignored it because it was inconvenient. That's because it made no sense to me. I couldn't even understand what you were saying. So, okay, let's say that this particular author - whoever it was - is a chronic, habitual liar on an industrial scale (is that where you're going with all this?). Does that close the book on the entire issue for you? No more need to seek truth. No more need to examine your belief system. Poof. We're done. Is that your point? |
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 12, 2010 18:05:12 GMT -5
When you day after day post articles from an incredibly biased source and refuse to accept that they might be wrong, it's very similar to drinking Kool Aid without examining what is in it. Like the articles from the guy who twice claimed to have never experienced extremely similar incidents. You didn't even address that point one bit. Just ignored it because it was inconvenient. That's because it made no sense to me. I couldn't even understand what you were saying. So, okay, let's say that this particular author - whoever it was - is a chronic, habitual liar on an industrial scale (is that where you're going with all this?). Does that close the book on the entire issue for you? No more need to seek truth. No more need to examine your belief system. Poof. We're done. Is that your point? My point is and always has been the validity of the source and the objectivity of that source. You can read any number of authors who completely reject clear evidence that refutes the position of evolution for example. Their bias that there is no God directly impacts everything they say and their interpretation of evidence. Do you agree or disagree that a person's preconceived notions can cause their interpretation of events to be flawed? |
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 12, 2010 18:06:30 GMT -5
When you day after day post articles from an incredibly biased source and refuse to accept that they might be wrong, it's very similar to drinking Kool Aid without examining what is in it. Like the articles from the guy who twice claimed to have never experienced extremely similar incidents. You didn't even address that point one bit. Just ignored it because it was inconvenient. That's because it made no sense to me. I couldn't even understand what you were saying. So, okay, let's say that this particular author - whoever it was - is a chronic, habitual liar on an industrial scale (is that where you're going with all this?). Does that close the book on the entire issue for you? No more need to seek truth. No more need to examine your belief system. Poof. We're done. Is that your point? If the guy is a habitual liar who is just trying to promote a particular worldview, maybe his worldview is also a lie and he's deceived and propagating his deception? |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 13, 2010 11:13:43 GMT -5
Do you agree or disagree that a person's preconceived notions can cause their interpretation of events to be flawed? I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 13, 2010 11:38:07 GMT -5
If the guy is a habitual liar who is just trying to promote a particular worldview, maybe his worldview is also a lie and he's deceived and propagating his deception? That is entirely possible. So I recommend that instead of making baseless assumptions, we actively seek truth. I am willing to make a joint approach to this author (Don Cooper) - you and I together - via conference call, or in person if he lives in this part of the country. I will pay for gas and food so that expenses are not a barrier. The purpose will be to: 1. Make a subjective personal determination of the honesty of the person in question to see if Cooper appears to be a "habitual liar." 2. To personally demand that Cooper produce specific evidence to back up the claims made in the two specific articles that you question. 3. If evidence is produced, you and I agree in advance to personally follow up on all evidence, including obtaining copies of police reports and interviewing the police officers and other parties in question until all evidence is exhausted. Then you and I will make our personal theories submissive to hard evidence and make a truthful, informed judgment on whether Don Cooper is a "habitual liar." Then we will act upon this newfound truth and apply it to our lives, in spite of any previously held personal views. If we find a trail of repeated, indisputable evidence proving that this author is a chronic, habitual liar, I will make a commitment to cease reading his material from this point on and allow this new finding to affect my views. I will also notify LewRockwell.com of our findings and request that they remove Cooper from their contributor list. I will commit to giving a fair and open reading to the publication of your choice at least twice a week for one year. If we do not find a trail of repeated, indisputable evidence proving that this author is a chronic, habitual liar, you will commit to giving a fair and open reading to LewRockwell.com at least twice a week for one full year, accepting what you read there as truthful until proven false, and allow this information to affect your views. I have Don Cooper's email address (don@qaoss.com) and I am ready to begin immediately. Are you ready to seek truth with me? |
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 13, 2010 11:52:41 GMT -5
Stephen, I'm always willing to seek truth. There is no way that both of his statements could have been true. They were entirely similar articles months apart, and both seemed to indicate he'd never experienced this type of thing from government, then proceeded to color his articles with statements that show his worldview.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 13, 2010 12:19:20 GMT -5
If you have already decided that both statements cannot be true, then you are not seeking truth - you are defending that position.
Seeking truth requires setting aside any preconceived notions, including the one you just stated.
Are you ready to seek truth?
|
|
albpilot
Ace of Aces
Red Baron Fight XVIII Champ
I'm not frightened of terrorism, so please don't go and create a police state on my account...
Posts: 1,181
|
Post by albpilot on Mar 14, 2010 15:36:34 GMT -5
That is why only those interpretations of Waco, Ruby Ridge, or any other incident which fit your worldview are what you are willing to accept. Like I seriously wonder if you have EVER been willing to accept or believe that David Koresh was a child molesting wacko who was planning to do evil things possibly on a much larger scale than the Jim Jones cult. Instead you focus on the "wicked actions" of the government. That's just an example. Instead in our past discussions you've held him up as some kind of hero or at least someone who was just having church. If I may throw out for your consideration at this point, this item: Stephen is putting his belief behind interpretations of an event that come from a premise similar to his. Kevin, you are putting your belief behind a premise that comes from more 'established' or 'professional' sources. You are asking Stephen to examine his source material here....are you willing to do the same to the source material from the mainstream media and government? I submit to you that no matter which side you take, as long as you are getting your information from someone else, you are viewing filtered info and thus both sides can be questioned with equal validity. |
|
