Really? Is that the only interpretation that phrase can have? He couldn’t, for instance, mean that he finds her work unappealing?
1 Like
In normal life, if one says a position is “thought through,” one is also saying that it’s “correct.”
You seem to be saying as well that since you disagree with him, your own position is not thought through.
As others have basically noted above, your spine must be broken by now, so mighty has your effort become to bend over backwards in defense of an awfully manky bit of conservative trollery.
1 Like
That’s a bit of a leap. In a trial, the defense attorney can think the prosecutor uses well-constructed, thoughtful arguments while disagreeing totally.
Like lower taxes?
1 Like
People who want lower taxes rail about the government taking stuff from them.
I’m sure he will curry much favor with latte haters and other people of great consequence.
2 Likes
Lower taxes aren’t something people are given. You see how backwards that concept even -is-?
So now you’re saying, or maybe acknowledging, that Williamson’s arguments are deceptively manipulative (or if you like, manipulatively deceptive)? If so, in what way?
No, I’m saying it’s possible to think an argument is logically consistent and thoughtful while simultaneously disagreeing with it.
For instance, I understand and respect the NSA’s arguments in favor of it’s massive surveillance dragnet, but disagree with them vehemently.
Government benefits nearly everyone in society. Taxes are what pay for it. The taxes we pay, individually, are our share of the bill for the benefits we gain from government. Tax cuts are a discount for the people who receive them for their share of the cost of government. So yes, tax cuts (a discount on the amount you pay to have a government) are in fact something you are given.
1 Like
They’re just deadbeats who don’t want to pay their civilization bill.
4 Likes
our share to give, willingly or not. Accepting/taking less will not ever be ‘giving’.
Why you used my question as the target of some sort of rant about the necessity of government is quite beyond me. Here, have your straw-man back, I am quite sure you missed my point. Maybe try again.
1 Like
My point is that the people who vote Republican are no less voting based on what they want the government to give them than people who vote Democrat. People who want lower taxes want a discount on government. (To be fair, people who are asking Democrats for a tax cut on certain things are wanting the same.) We all get government. We all have to pay it, just like we have to pay the water bill, the electric bill, and the phone bill, or else bad things happen. If Verizon gives me a 10% discount on my phone bill, that’s something they’re giving me. If the government gives me a 10% discount on my tax bill, that’s also something they’re giving me.
1 Like
I personally find that hard to believe only because you claimed it is reasonable to expect Americans will have universal access to “100% effective” birth control within the next decade. If you grew up with a parent who has a background in reproductive medicine you should know that’s not very realistic for a number of reasons.
5 Likes
That’s Williamson’s argument, not mine. I don’t know how viable it is, though from a little cursory Googling, I don’t think it’s that far fetched.
What I find remarkable is that you are convinced that I’m lying and arguing in bad faith, based on nothing but your spidey-sense.
Well I’m kind of being forced to search for a motive here, because yours is very unclear.
Look, this is kind of silly. You suggested this guy’s writing was worth a closer look, I followed your link and found it pretty damn awful. I’m all for balanced discussion but this guy is to pro-life what intelligent design is to creationism.
Given that we apparently agree on the issue at hand, I don’t see what’s left to discuss, and your insistence that I’m missing something in his work is kind of baffling. I don’t really see where our conversation can go. I like your avatar!
Goodpasture’s posts lend themselves to what I think is the most worthwhile way to talk politics with/about people you fundamentally disagree with. Which starts from a premise that you will never, literally CAN NEVER, convince someone on an opposing side of the conservative/liberal spectrum that you are right, not because they are too dumb or too evil, but because you are NOT right, or rather, they are not wrong and neither are you. Putting aside, for the moment, Republicans and Democrats- actual real dictionary-definition conservatives and liberals are part of a spectrum that will always exist and both, at base, are expressions of feelings; what feels safe, what feels right, etc. And so what is left to us, I believe, is a project whose goal is something like “love thine enemy”, which sounds obviously pretty cliche and abstract, but I, an extremely secular guy, maintain is a very concrete concept and resembles something like this: Can you imagine your enemy (in this case, let’s say someone who opposes all medically unnecessary abortions) as a GOOD person. Not a good person who’s been tricked into endorsing badness, or was just raised bad, etc. etc., but genuinely and wholly good, including all their not-wrong heartfelt beliefs that you so strongly oppose. Someone who you think wants to restrict and oppress you, but to whom YOUR ideas of freedom and liberty look like restriction and oppression.
The endpoint of this, if there is one, being not the dissolution of enmity, but a sort of conceptual wisdom, whatever that’s worth (a lot, IMHO).
Anyhow, TLDR: I think defending people you disagree with from misunderstanding and mischaracterization is noble and mature. It won’t help you win your argument, but you definitely weren’t going to win it anyway.
2 Likes
Yeah, I understand that as an overall concept, and frankly my personal views on this topic are much closer to centre than either pole.
However I did attempt to make that leap on the basis of Goodpasture’s first post, and read Williamson’s article in good faith, and found it very typical of a conservative shill, with little to zero redeeming qualities.
I don’t think the interests of bi-partisanship would be served by me pretending that there was merit in what this individual has to say, when I don’t see it. And again, it was pretty hard to see why Goodpasture was so interested in making this guy’s case for him. It seems at best misguided, to me anyway.
4 Likes
I couldn’t have been clearer. I said, “This argument is a lot more nuanced than the reactions I’ve seen. Check out the original article, I think it’s worthwhile.”
You could have simply said, “You think this is worthwhile? I think this is awful.”
Instead, you said, “You think this is worthwhile? YOU MUST BE LYING.”
I said this. Scroll up.
