Hi and bye Andy
Rog Previously:
Obviously our values differ dramatically. I doubt either of us is
totally right or wrong, but as time goes on I am sure we will both learn
and evolve. Thanks for the great dialogue.
Andy:
Well....Your [sic] welcome. I would like to concur that that it has been a
great dialogue, but I usually require that I learn something from a
debate with another. If you find this insulting -- well...sorry.
Rog:
I learned quite a bit from you, and from the web sites you sent me to. Not
always what you hoped that I would learn, but it was good for me.
Andy;
Your [sic] obviously not stupid, but you do put up a lot of mental blocks.
Rog:
Do I? Can you provide examples to help me avoid them in the future? (see my
suggestions below)
Andy:
The problem with this
attitude is that this is what we base policy on. An unrelenting
optimism that humans will solve all problems and crisis's as they are
presented to us. There is no need to anticipate, just keep on keeping
on and t' hell with the naysayers -- nothing but pessimists anyways."
Rog:
Interesting comment considering that you are a self-described fatalist and
your Mr Hanson already seems to have accepted that the future leads to the
untimely death of billions. Even odder considering that I was providing a
suggestion to the problem that you deemed to be a "a step in the right
direction."
Andy:
Dialogue with individuals who hold such attitudes lead nowhere. It only
reassures my fatalist viewpoint. My hope for some more enlightened
views by our younger generation is all there is left. I knew going into
this dialogue with you that it would lead to nowhere, but I wasted my
time anyway.
Rog;
May I suggest the dialogue could be more productive if we stuck to arguments
or facts (which you started with) rather than dogma (which you reverted to).
To be specific, it is hard to make progress when one starts saying that "the
exploitive powers of "American style" capitalism have led the nation
backward" without defining what one recommends as a superior model, or when
one dismisses the entire field of economics because it contradicts one's
views with an explanation that we are brainwashed into some kind of "vice
like grip," or where one makes unsupported statements that America has made a
"lack of contribution to the intellectual level during this time," despite
extensive and specific counters, or where one flippantly dismisses the
validity of any arguments on oil substitution with an unsubstantiated appeal
to superior "knowledge of the natural sciences."
I am not saying that I am the model of proper debate, but I think we can make
a lot more progress where we present facts and avoid ill-defined rhetorical
dismissals.
Andy:
>From now on, while reading the MOQ page from afar, rather
than to responding to such nonesense, I will take the advice of my
favorite departed MOQ'r, killerblade.
"here's what to do if it happens again: take a deep breath, dry your
eyes and say in a loud firm voice, 'OUT OUT DEMON OF STUPIDITY!'"
Rog:
Case in point! May I suggest instead that when you give a position to which
someone else provides specific evidence to the contrary that you address the
issue head on (as you did extremely well initially). It might work better
than the "demon" routine. But, I could be wrong...
Roger
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:18 BST