"Not in my house, you don't !"
Do I dare to try answering you?!?
Since when did this blog become anyone's forum to demand or command me? This is my house. If I ask my guests to remove their shoes at the door, should I not expect my guests to comply? If I ask my guests to not smoke in the house, should I not expect them to respect me enough to go outside? If I've made it clear through my actions, my words, and my profession of faith that the use of drugs at this party is simply not allowed, should I not call the police the moment I find two guests in the bathroom shooting up? It's a question of respect. One either respects the host, or one refuses the invitation.
That 'refusal of invitation' is extended to debate in this, MY forum. I admit I've neglected my duties in this regard-- from the beginning; wanting to give everyone a say, not even caring when the comments got off topic. No more. Up to now, the debate has been less than healthy.
So. What would properly define 'Healthy Debate'? The lack of opposing viewpoints? Obviously not; what kind of debate could one have without a voice from the other side? I contend the health of a debate lies in the truthfulness of its arguments. The moment one or both sides begin to offer rhetoric desirous only of an atmosphere of contentiousness and dishonesty, it is a debate no more, but rather, the tool of perverse wit to the fomenting of strife and disruption-- In effect, to hinder whatever progress was previously being made, and if possible, to destroy any hope of it outright.
Here's an example of what I mean: The argument, "I support the troops, but not the war" is the equivalent of a paradox... an oxymoron... an outright lie painted up pretty to hide the cancer suffused throughout. The same is true of, "I'm remembering Independence Day by celebrating the failure of the flag-burning amendment. long live freedom!"
How does propping up hateful rhetoric support the troops who are deeply and adversely affected by the same hateful rhetoric. How does calling the Commander a liar and a chimp, support the troops who will have to face the enemy with the knowledge that his leaders back home are actively trying to pull down their Commander? The statement, "I support the troops, but not the war" is the equivalent of "I voted for the 20 Gazillion dollars before I voted against it." It's called, politely, 'having your cake and eating it too.' It's called 'putting lipstick on a pig.' But it's really an outright lie by means of subterfuge.
How does claiming to be disgusted by the act of burning a symbol of ones freedom jibe with 'celebrating one's right' to burn that self-same symbol? It's a game of dress-up, pretending to be one thing when it's quite another altogether. The person who believes this is not in possession of a healthy intellect. The intellect such a person DOES possess is brought about by the reasoned and empassioned arguments of seemingly wise men, pure of motive, but secretly, with the intent and purpose of clouding the fabric of honest debate. Quite simply, it is a lie. And anyone who spouts such nonsense forces me to shake my head at their gullible acceptance of the Left's progressive philosophy-- A philosophy that finds good in the abhorrent and the merely distastful, while making a Pariah of Goodness and Truth. And we have American Public Education to thank for this.*
Progressives have been very busy these last 50 years, as evidenced by the complete and utter ignorance of just what the Constitution REALLY says.
Example: The First Amendment...
It's quite elegant in it's simplicity, but cancer isn't content to sit idly by allowing the simple or elegant free reign; cancer must distort and corrupt it-- read into the fabric of its simple beauty what isn't there. As a result, Simple Beauty's DNA over time has degraded to the point that our Founding Fathers would not recognize the body this Nation now inhabits, because the body has seen fit to allow free radicals too much time to work their ills on the whole of this nation. As a result America is dying an ugly cancerous death.
The Left has twisted the Establishment clause. The Left has made gangrenous the Free Exercise clause. And the Left has written into the DNA of the 'freedom of speech, or of the press' clause, things that are Simply. Not. There... Nor implied within the First Amendment's simply beauty.
But all this cannot be laid only at the Left's door. The Right has chosen not to fight for truth. The Right has chosen not to combat the Dishonest and 'Specious' rhetoric of the Left. And the Right did not try to change course when course could more easily have been corrected. Now the best anyone can hope for is that this ship will not altogether sink when the hulls are breached upon the rocks looming all too large before us.
There's your answer... Comment moderation is my Course Correction. Take your shoes off at the door or leave, because I'm no longer interested in trying to change anyone's mind. I'm a bit like Jonah in this; I'll preach the truth till I'm blue in the face, but I simply don't care whether anyone repents or not. God never told Jonah to LIKE preaching to the Ninevites. God simply told him to do it. God expected obedience, and He insisted on it until He got it.
And no, I am NOT God. This is however MY forum. And I dare what I choose.
____________________
* According to CBS News, out of 24 'developed' nations, the U.S. ranks 18.
Since when did this blog become anyone's forum to demand or command me? This is my house. If I ask my guests to remove their shoes at the door, should I not expect my guests to comply? If I ask my guests to not smoke in the house, should I not expect them to respect me enough to go outside? If I've made it clear through my actions, my words, and my profession of faith that the use of drugs at this party is simply not allowed, should I not call the police the moment I find two guests in the bathroom shooting up? It's a question of respect. One either respects the host, or one refuses the invitation.
That 'refusal of invitation' is extended to debate in this, MY forum. I admit I've neglected my duties in this regard-- from the beginning; wanting to give everyone a say, not even caring when the comments got off topic. No more. Up to now, the debate has been less than healthy.
So. What would properly define 'Healthy Debate'? The lack of opposing viewpoints? Obviously not; what kind of debate could one have without a voice from the other side? I contend the health of a debate lies in the truthfulness of its arguments. The moment one or both sides begin to offer rhetoric desirous only of an atmosphere of contentiousness and dishonesty, it is a debate no more, but rather, the tool of perverse wit to the fomenting of strife and disruption-- In effect, to hinder whatever progress was previously being made, and if possible, to destroy any hope of it outright.
Here's an example of what I mean: The argument, "I support the troops, but not the war" is the equivalent of a paradox... an oxymoron... an outright lie painted up pretty to hide the cancer suffused throughout. The same is true of, "I'm remembering Independence Day by celebrating the failure of the flag-burning amendment. long live freedom!"
How does propping up hateful rhetoric support the troops who are deeply and adversely affected by the same hateful rhetoric. How does calling the Commander a liar and a chimp, support the troops who will have to face the enemy with the knowledge that his leaders back home are actively trying to pull down their Commander? The statement, "I support the troops, but not the war" is the equivalent of "I voted for the 20 Gazillion dollars before I voted against it." It's called, politely, 'having your cake and eating it too.' It's called 'putting lipstick on a pig.' But it's really an outright lie by means of subterfuge.
How does claiming to be disgusted by the act of burning a symbol of ones freedom jibe with 'celebrating one's right' to burn that self-same symbol? It's a game of dress-up, pretending to be one thing when it's quite another altogether. The person who believes this is not in possession of a healthy intellect. The intellect such a person DOES possess is brought about by the reasoned and empassioned arguments of seemingly wise men, pure of motive, but secretly, with the intent and purpose of clouding the fabric of honest debate. Quite simply, it is a lie. And anyone who spouts such nonsense forces me to shake my head at their gullible acceptance of the Left's progressive philosophy-- A philosophy that finds good in the abhorrent and the merely distastful, while making a Pariah of Goodness and Truth. And we have American Public Education to thank for this.*
Progressives have been very busy these last 50 years, as evidenced by the complete and utter ignorance of just what the Constitution REALLY says.
Example: The First Amendment...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It's quite elegant in it's simplicity, but cancer isn't content to sit idly by allowing the simple or elegant free reign; cancer must distort and corrupt it-- read into the fabric of its simple beauty what isn't there. As a result, Simple Beauty's DNA over time has degraded to the point that our Founding Fathers would not recognize the body this Nation now inhabits, because the body has seen fit to allow free radicals too much time to work their ills on the whole of this nation. As a result America is dying an ugly cancerous death.
The Left has twisted the Establishment clause. The Left has made gangrenous the Free Exercise clause. And the Left has written into the DNA of the 'freedom of speech, or of the press' clause, things that are Simply. Not. There... Nor implied within the First Amendment's simply beauty.
But all this cannot be laid only at the Left's door. The Right has chosen not to fight for truth. The Right has chosen not to combat the Dishonest and 'Specious' rhetoric of the Left. And the Right did not try to change course when course could more easily have been corrected. Now the best anyone can hope for is that this ship will not altogether sink when the hulls are breached upon the rocks looming all too large before us.
There's your answer... Comment moderation is my Course Correction. Take your shoes off at the door or leave, because I'm no longer interested in trying to change anyone's mind. I'm a bit like Jonah in this; I'll preach the truth till I'm blue in the face, but I simply don't care whether anyone repents or not. God never told Jonah to LIKE preaching to the Ninevites. God simply told him to do it. God expected obedience, and He insisted on it until He got it.
And no, I am NOT God. This is however MY forum. And I dare what I choose.
____________________
* According to CBS News, out of 24 'developed' nations, the U.S. ranks 18.
from the mind of... Eric | 9:06 AM
4 Comments:
I spray for jerks at my place once in awhile, too.
However, this is unhealthy. I respectfully disagree -- if you let me. I argue, respectfully, that these are NOT paradoxes at all. They just make you feel uncomfortable -- and, you disagree with them.
'The argument, "I support the troops, but not the war" is the equivalent of a paradox... an oxymoron... an outright lie painted up pretty to hide the cancer suffused throughout. The same is true of, "I'm remembering Independence Day by celebrating the failure of the flag-burning amendment. long live freedom!" '
Now, as for the run-of-the-mill gutter talk, I'm with ya. It doesn't suot my tastes. Not that I can't cuss a blue streak; I just refrain when Mama is around, or others who might be offended. That's just being considerate.
Perhaps paradox is too strong a word. Philosophically speaking, to my mind it is disingenuous to-- on the one hand --say it is personally distasteful to watch others burn the American flag, then state that as part of one's observance of the 4th of July, a certain someone is celebrating flag burning.
Now, in acceptance of my own Rules of Engagement allow me to explain my argument. The unfortunate use of the word "Celebrating" is at issue here. It's one thing to say, "I find flag burning distasteful, but there's no law against it. Let them be ungrateful fools if they wish". But it's quite another to say "I celebrate" someone's right to burn the American Flag. Let me be clear... To say I celebrate the defeat of an amendment that would have banned flag burning (assuming two-thirds of fifty states ratified it) is the equivalent of saying I "approve" of the act of flag burning. Such a statement is inconsistent, logically, with the qualifying statement, "I personally find the act of burning a flag 'distasteful'.
Words like, "Chimp" "Moron" "Murderer", while an honest reflection of the personal beliefs held by those who utter such tripe, nonetheless demonstrate an inability to think for oneself. 'Herd Mentality', if you will... Talking Points. If a person wants to use such terms, they should be prepared to defend their comments intelligently. All I ask is that people be prepared to leave Talking Points, like shoes, at the front door... they track filth throughout the house.
We disagree on a number of issues, you and I, but both of us recognize this, and for my part, I'm fine with it... I'm not going to crucify you to a cross of my own making simply because we disagree on a few things. We got off to a rocky start sharing our beliefs, but I believe we've gotten past that. Having said that, I firmly believe there's a lot of 'Unhealthiness' in the "Dialog of the Ideologies", in both the real world and blogland. As long as we can debate honestly and intelligently, what more could I honestly ask? That you and everyone in world agree with me? HA!!! Where would be the fun in that!?! But I won't compromise what I know to be true in my heart just to have commentors. I didn't start this blog to have readers; I admittedly got off track in that regard, but the constant debate with people who have no desire to debate honestly-- only clog the comments with idiocy --has worn awfully thin... to quote Bilbo Baggins... "I feel thin, like butter spread over too much bread"
It's time to change direction.
On a completely different tack... How was your Fourth? I grilled some marinated (red wine, pepper, cinnamon) racks of lamb, over honest to goodness, wood charcoal... big difference in taste. No beer (and no, I didn't miss it), and a few other organic treats.
And I don't recall you posting on your read of Ms. Coulter's latest literary treasure. Whad'ja think? I'm only just cracked the book.
:-)
I'll review "Godless"" when I finish it. And it'll be a real review, too - -although the plagiarism stuff is distracting.
(Did I see you reefer Douglas Adams? Cool.)
I'm with ER. While not everyone opposed to war supports the troops, the great majority, I'd guess, do.
An outright lie?
Suppose you had a beloved friend who made the choice to abuse drugs. Wouldn't you say you love your friend but not the drug abuse?
"But drug abuse is always wrong and war is not," you say?
Okay, another analogy, Germany committed all manner of atrocities and war crimes in WWII. Would a good German citizen not be able to claim that he loves the troops - his countrymen - but hates what they are being ordered to do?
Surely you can see some situations where this would be the case?
Well, we may not think that Bush has descended to the level of Nazi Germany (at least I'm not saying that), but we DO think he is committing questionably legal and horribly harmful acts. I wrote letters and essays asking the soldiers to "refuse to obey illegal orders" (which is something they're required to do if the orders are, in fact, illegal). I love our military and don't want them taking part in stuff that will harm them physically, emotionally and maybe cause some to end up in jail (if some of us are correct and this IS an illegal invasion).
I know you disagree with the notion that this invasion is illegal, but don't you understand that if WE think it illegal, then the only loving thing to do is to oppose the war?
Post a Comment
<< Home