“I don’t understand your objection. Are you saying that talent, as in Billy Blythe’s talent for deceiving people or Monica Lewinsky’s talent for being a stupid, ignorant slut are the same thing as intelligence and wisdom?”
Not at all. I find it very hard to believe you are not being deliberately disingenous in saying this, especially as you are so swift in condemning others for putting down people rather than their arguments. The point at issue is whether superior experience, intelligence, wisdom etc affords greater weight to someone’s arguments - which obviously it does, IRRESPECTIVE of your political affiliations. I didn’t mention Billy Blythe (who he?) or Monica Lewinsky, you did.
“There you go again. If you’re going to be conservative, or even hang with them, you’re going to have to stop doing that. It is the hallmark of the leftist who seeks to avoid discussion of the issue by discrediting the opponent.”
Well I could argue that that statement in and of itself is an attempt to discredit me, but I won’t. Actually I think my observation is a perfectly valid one because your argument is so completely specious. You can’t say “this persons opinion is better than yours because he has demonstrated intelligence and wisdom”, and then when challenged to say what this demonstrated intelligence and wisdom actually is, the answer is “he holds such and such opinions!” That is a circular argument. In the same way, you can’t argue such and such a person has no talent or wisdom JUST because his experiences have led him to a different conclusion than the one you hold. Unfortunately, you have to argue that his conclusions are wrong because of points a, b and c that he has overlooked, or assumptions d, e and f that are not valid. In some cases, it may just come down to a judgement call.
“I didn’t claim superior knowledge and experience; I claimed some knowledge and experience.”
I’m afraid you did claim superior knowledge and experience. “I lived for twenty years in a country that was only 2% Christian, of all denominations. I think I know a little about being in a minority. And one thing I know is that driving religion from the public square is not the same thing as protecting freedom of religion.” very certainly trumps “Unlike you I live in a nation with a state religion. It doesnt work. I am a baptist in a country with very few baptists. I AM in a minority, and yes it does change your opinions (actually it just brings some opinions more to the fore).”
But that’s ok. You obviously know more than me on this subject, so I rest.
“I find it very hard to believe you are not being deliberately disingenous in saying this (Are you saying that talent, as in Billy Blythe’s talent for deceiving people or Monica Lewinsky’s talent for being a stupid, ignorant slut are the same thing as intelligence and wisdom?)”
Come again? You’re the one who is claiming that your reference to “talent” is the equivalent of my reference to intelligence and wisdom.
“especially as you are so swift in condemning others for putting down people rather than their arguments.”
So swift in condemning? Utter nonsense. When caught doing something you shouldn’t, the least appropriate response is to attack the tone of the person who called you on it. Further, the word “condemn” is in the same category as the word “ignorant:” that is, it is not a simple descriptive, but a character slur. I could have taken ten years of round-the-clock deliberations, and you would still accuse me of being “so swift,” because you don’t seem to be able to respond appropriately to an accurate description of your conduct.
By the way, what I have been pointing out is attacking people *instead of* their arguments, to avoid discussing the arguments at all.
As long as one discusses the arguments along the way, I think it’s perfectly appropriate to say true things about the opponent. Of course, the true things one says about leftists are...well, pretty bad, because they are scum, so a lot of people get confused by the whole issue.
“The point at issue is whether superior experience, intelligence, wisdom etc affords greater weight to someone’s arguments”
We got sidetracked into a discussion of whether your use of the word “talent” is the equivalent of my use of “intelligence and wisdom.”
“- which obviously it does, IRRESPECTIVE of your political affiliations.”
Okay, then, Story’s interpretation of the First Amendment carries great weight. And that’s where we started.
However, the fact is that the left is wrong, from A to Z. Doesn’t matter what kind of credentials they may have, they should be scorned, ridiculed, and barred from all positions of responsibility.
“I didn’t mention Billy Blythe (who he?)”
That’s William Jefferson Airplane Clintstone’s real name.
“Well I could argue that that statement in and of itself is an attempt to discredit me”
Perhaps you could, but not truthfully.
“You can’t say “this persons opinion is better than yours because he has demonstrated intelligence and wisdom”, and then when challenged to say what this demonstrated intelligence and wisdom actually is, the answer is “he holds such and such opinions!”
Of course not, and I did nothing that even remotely resembles that. It would appear that you are in the habit of accusing people of things like that, but it just didn’t happen.
“you can’t argue such and such a person has no talent or wisdom JUST because his experiences have led him to a different conclusion than the one you hold.”
There you go, using that word “talent” again. I guess I should assume that you mean “intelligence and wisdom” when you say “talent,” though I don’t know why you insist on using the word.
That said, you most certainly *can* argue that a person lacks intelligence and wisdom because he has arrived at incorrect conclusions. The whole point of intelligence and wisdom is that they lead one to the correct conclusions, sooner or later. A fool could hold correct opinions if he was lucky enough to be instructed by the right people, but a person of intelligence and wisdom fights through to correct conclusions even if brainwashed by the left while young.
“Unfortunately, you have to argue that his conclusions are wrong because of points a, b and c that he has overlooked, or assumptions d, e and f that are not valid.”
I naturally assumed that this was step one. That’s how you know that his conclusions are wrong in the first place. I guess it’s just a matter of…hmmm…I need to invent a name for that phenomenon. The further to the left a person is, the less willing he is to believe that anyone to the right of him is an intelligent person acting in good faith who has actually examined the evidence and pondered the arguments. And the more likely he is to assume that anyone to the right of him is stupid, malicious, and closed-minded, and the less likely he therefore is to examine the arguments arrayed against his positions in any meaningful way.
Perhaps we could call it the “Doyle Phenomenon,” after Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, who wrote that “Mediocrity knows nothing better than itself.”
And by the way, no, it’s not symmetrical. While this is true of leftists, it is not true of everyone else.
“In some cases, it may just come down to a judgement call.”
That happens so seldom that there’s hardly any reason to mention it. It generally comes down to factual errors by the left.
“I’m afraid you did claim superior knowledge and experience.”
I’m afraid that you’re so desperate to salvage something from this that you’re making things up.
“very certainly trumps”
Only in a very paranoid imagination.
“But that’s ok. You obviously know more than me on this subject, so I rest.”
Your sarcasm would be more effective if it couldn’t be more appropriately read as a simple statement of fact.