> Mike Lorrey writes:
> > Only in a debate where the parties have no interest in the outcome. When
> > you are betting your life, you sure as hell want to know if the people
> > mean what they say, or only mean it to apply to other people, not
> > themselves. One indicates a potential altruist who walks the walk that
> > their talk describes, the other indicates a closet totalitarian.
> > Allowing totalitarians to hide behind the rules of debate is what has
> > caused the worst crimes against humanity to occur.
> I completely disagree. The rules of debate exist exactly to prevent
> the kind of personal attacks which you are supporting here. I can't
> believe that you are claiming that attacking the personal character of
> your opponent is a better approach than thoughtfully debating his ideas.
> I am curious, though. If you did want to defend this position,
> wouldn't your most consistent strategy now be to attack my character
> and reputation?
You have not previously crossed the Rubicon. Mr. Powers has repeatedly
in the past used the same strategies against myself and anyone who
shares my opinions with respect to several issues. According to him, I
am an ignorant simple minded rude reactionary yokel who belongs on the
Rush Limbaugh show or at a Klan rally (this being a contatenation of a
number of prior comments). He refuses to consider counterarguments as
rational or reasonable. Despite being demonstrated that his ideas are
the worst sort of tyranny, he continues to insist that he's all
sweetness and light, that we can trust him (when he isn't even willing
to walk is own walk) to look out for our best interests, etc.
When people say "there is no hidden agenda" is exactly when I need to
start looking over my shoulder. Such people are not to be trusted to
live by the same rules you and I do.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:38 MDT