Replies

Truly, though, I think an evolutionist boycott is a very bad idea. Either party who refuses to show up for a trial before a jury of fact finders automatically loses by default.

You can easily think of situations where you wouldn't want your side to participate. Here's an example: Suppose Senators Schumer, Clinton, Feinstein, Kennedy, etc. announced a town hall meeting to discuss if the right to keep and bear arms is a good idea. The program is arranged to have seven participants -- six of whom are flaming dems, and there's a 7th seat for one token conservative. The moderator will be Michael Moore, and the audience will be from the campus of UC Berkeley.

That's the setup. They offer you the opportunity to present your side as the 7th panel member. Would you accept?

Thank you for your reply!

Indeed, you can surmise a number of scenarios where one would refuse to attend a meeting. There is always a cost. The President, for instance, refused to appear before the NAACP. Nothing he said could have changed their minds, so there was a very marginal risk among the NAACP - but a greater risk to the black voters. The refusal to appear there was coupled with other appearances in the community.

OTOH, when it is a public debate - or publicly broadcast - the risk can be much higher. If a candidate refused to appear in a public debate before a biased moderator, a hostile audience - it would be taken as a default.

Appearances before Congress or special committees (e.g. the 911 commission) are of the same type - they are public and the ones grilling the witness may be biased, the audience hostile.

In the case at hand, this is a public hearing called by conservatives. They key word is public.

If Rice had refused to appear before the 911 commission it would have been taken as an admission of some vague guilt.

That's the setup. They offer you the opportunity to present your side as the 7th panel member. Would you accept?

Most definitely. :^) I'd have a field day. I'd love to give those guys a piece of my mind....

I probably would show up. Once I was invited to debate against the Wisconsin Democrat Party, The Wisconsin Republican Party, The Wisconsin Socialist Party, and the Wisconsin Communist Party; I was there to provide balance. (Even the others thought I won as did the audience.)

You can easily think of situations where you wouldn't want your side to participate. Here's an example: Suppose Senators Schumer, Clinton, Feinstein, Kennedy, etc. announced a town hall meeting to discuss if the right to keep and bear arms is a good idea. The program is arranged to have seven participants -- six of whom are flaming dems, and there's a 7th seat for one token conservative. The moderator will be Michael Moore, and the audience will be from the campus of UC Berkeley.
That's the setup. They offer you the opportunity to present your side as the 7th panel member. Would you accept?

The big problem for me is: After the "trial", senators Schumer, Clinton, Feinstein, & Kennedy would repair to the conference room and "make up their minds" based on the evidence presented to them. Oh sure, I'd participate in something like that.