ScottW wrote:
George M. Middius wrote:
I ran across a pithy quote by J.R. Lowell today. Turns out it was part of an
essay on Abraham Lincoln: http://www.bartleby.com/28/16.html
As you know, Lowell lived during a period when intellectuals relied even
more heavily than today on complex thoughts cast in even more complex
sentences. So I'm sure you'll quit reading before finishing the first
paragraph.
Nevertheless, the excerpt I heard that is apposite to boneheads like you can
be found in ¶ 16. (The numbers in the right margin are for reference.)
I find it amusing that you and ssshhhh consistently misrepresent
me, reference eloquent quotes which actually contradict your
position.....and then blame me.
LOL! Learn to read, toopid. What George posted *reinforces* my
position.
Anyway...explain how this quote is in support of the hypothetical
that sssshhhh tried to create comparing Ethiopia/Somalia to North
Korea.
Shhh! tried to make a situation that did not involve Muslims to see if
your passionately-held belief that an attack was warranted held to
other circumstances. You know, the logic behind your emotion.
"It is by a multitude of such considerations, each in itself trifling,
but all together weighty, that the framers of policy can alone divine
what is practicable and therefore wise. The imputation of inconsistency
is one to which every sound politician and every honest thinker must
sooner or later subject himself."
Sssshhhh is the one demanding consistency irrespective of the trifling
detail.
Um, no, toopid. Backwards, and all of that... again.
Shhhh! is the one that you give **** to because he changed his mind,
after great reflection, and retired from the military. BTW, toopid,
Shhhh! is also the one who has been well-trained in making and
assessing *assumptions* (propositions [triflings] made which contribute
to the wise decision or policy which do not have hard evidence to
support them).
Remember? We had a big discussion of assumptions when we discussed
military planning some time ago. (IIRC, you, of course, disagreed. RIP
& etc. & etc.)
What Shhhh! is after are what truths and logic are behind your (and
others with similarly intolerant views) absolute certainty about
committing the military, fighting Muslims, banning immigration, killing
people, and so on, and divining the inconsistencies that necessarily
follow from these 'truths' and 'logic' to arrive at a proper wise
conclusion based on something other than emotional appeal. You know,
like finding out what assumptions that you make (as making them are
inevitable) and testing them to see if they make sense.
Each 'trifling' (proposition) must be carefully considered to come up
with the 'weighty whole' (wise conclusion or decision). And you can't
do that by pulling stuff out of your ass, or going with 'what you
believe to be the case' or emotional appeal.
A point too fine for you, perhaps? That's my conclusion at this point,
since you've danced away from the topic every time that I've asked you
a question.
As an example, Rep. Goode says that Rep. Ellison's election could
create great harm to our Constitution, and that it is the start of our
conversion to Sharia, etc. I find fault with that assumption. i do not
understand the logic behind a statement like this. If you agree with
it, I'd like to hear why. Perhaps I'm missing something.
I have consistently said we do what we can in the circumstances.
i.e., pull stuff out of your ass.
Thanks for the quote....good stuff.
Yes, it was. Too bad you misunderstood its intent.
Here, here's a good quote from Bertrand Russell:
"The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no
good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holder's
lack of rational conviction."
As another example, I have tried to find out from you what truths
(rational convictions) make it OK for you to condone killing people.
You are so adamant, and so completely sure, that there are
circumstances (other than where someone is physically attacked, a la
Pearl Harbor) that make committing our military to go forth and kill
citizens of other nations OK (ILO other options), or to accept that,
e.g., Ethiopia has a right to attack people in another country when it
had not been attacked. I have asked you about this several times, in
several forms. Yet, you have failed to address this very basic question
even once.
Passion is great in the bedroom, toopid. I hope that you and your wife
still have some. Emotional appeals are what induce people to give money
to charities. But they are not a very sound way to make national
policy, or to decide to commit the military, or to decide to kill
someone, don't you agree?