My OperaThe "good faith" debate.
Sunday, November 16, 2008 2:51:45 AM
The biggest fraud since the personification of God, I think, must be the idea of a "good faith" argument.
The setup is the following: two people who have "lying through their teeth" on their job- description, and who consider any and all issues through the test of: "will being pro or against in this fictional controversy hook us more brownie- points in the short term (with the people who pay for our advertisements)" - will, as a service to the public, lay all their usual tricks to rest, and discuss the issues /for real/. Without, for example, by fielding the presumption that the opponent is a baby- killing socialist psycho- hippie on drugs as the foundation for further intelligent exposition on the substantive issues at hand.
In reality, the "good faith" debate works like this: the challenger says that unless the opponent agrees with him or her on everything, then they are obnoxious, and are not engaging in a good faith discussion. Conversely, the more you agree with the challenger, the more of a good faith debate it is.
Just something to consider, while we all have improved our relationships with those on the right who fail to condemn the tactics or the views you will silently or vocally have to support if you are a "conservative" nowadays - such as torture, deliberate deception, lawbreaking and corruption in the service of Good (in the battle against Bad). I mean, following the clearest repudiation of Bush's presidency, and the politics of fear so far.
Because in order to be a "conservative" now, you need to believe clearly and factually wrong things. Or else you need to support the idea that it's fine to support these ideas, because people are stupid and want to believe in it. Which would be their way of believing in liberty, and your excercising of the same for your own purposes.
There is no debate to be had with these people. It will not work. Obviously, if people were willing to construct arguments, and test them logically, and try to discover what their and others' arguments are based on - then sure, it might be an enlightening debate, and perhaps a stepping stone for further discussion. ("What does he mean by that term, how does this figure in what he believes in").
But there never was, and never will be an argument where both parties are going to put every single proposition and assumption on the table, and say - here's what I think: let's see where that takes us. While the other would say: "Interesting, here is where I differ when it comes to use of words, and where we presumably differ in substance". And then they figure out that wearing blue or red caps is all silly.
Never. Not even in children's television. Expecting that, is the same as expecting the bible to give you Truth, without reading it in any context or relation to other events or words.
In the same way, the argument that will be held is the one that is created out of that particular context - where those two parties exist. And that will be the starting point - not the expressed presumption anyone would declare on beforehand.
The setup is the following: two people who have "lying through their teeth" on their job- description, and who consider any and all issues through the test of: "will being pro or against in this fictional controversy hook us more brownie- points in the short term (with the people who pay for our advertisements)" - will, as a service to the public, lay all their usual tricks to rest, and discuss the issues /for real/. Without, for example, by fielding the presumption that the opponent is a baby- killing socialist psycho- hippie on drugs as the foundation for further intelligent exposition on the substantive issues at hand.
In reality, the "good faith" debate works like this: the challenger says that unless the opponent agrees with him or her on everything, then they are obnoxious, and are not engaging in a good faith discussion. Conversely, the more you agree with the challenger, the more of a good faith debate it is.
Just something to consider, while we all have improved our relationships with those on the right who fail to condemn the tactics or the views you will silently or vocally have to support if you are a "conservative" nowadays - such as torture, deliberate deception, lawbreaking and corruption in the service of Good (in the battle against Bad). I mean, following the clearest repudiation of Bush's presidency, and the politics of fear so far.
Because in order to be a "conservative" now, you need to believe clearly and factually wrong things. Or else you need to support the idea that it's fine to support these ideas, because people are stupid and want to believe in it. Which would be their way of believing in liberty, and your excercising of the same for your own purposes.
There is no debate to be had with these people. It will not work. Obviously, if people were willing to construct arguments, and test them logically, and try to discover what their and others' arguments are based on - then sure, it might be an enlightening debate, and perhaps a stepping stone for further discussion. ("What does he mean by that term, how does this figure in what he believes in").
But there never was, and never will be an argument where both parties are going to put every single proposition and assumption on the table, and say - here's what I think: let's see where that takes us. While the other would say: "Interesting, here is where I differ when it comes to use of words, and where we presumably differ in substance". And then they figure out that wearing blue or red caps is all silly.
Never. Not even in children's television. Expecting that, is the same as expecting the bible to give you Truth, without reading it in any context or relation to other events or words.
In the same way, the argument that will be held is the one that is created out of that particular context - where those two parties exist. And that will be the starting point - not the expressed presumption anyone would declare on beforehand.
