This thread is about how conservatives debate in a belligerent way.

[JMS]

Originally Posted by Rothbardian

]

So, hypothetically, if I choose to only allow white, christian, upper class males into my restaurant, you'd support this?

And on whose side would you if this civil unrest occured?

Funnily enough, civil unrest wouldn't occur, it's that simple. The free market discourages such behaviour, anybody who wished to act in such a way would have a hard time maintaining such an establishment and would forego vast monetary profit, however it is his perogative to do so is he wishes. This in itself would be enough to discourage such behaviour.

sure, as long as it doesnt cause problems.

i think civil unrest would occur, as it has before. thing about segregation being allowed in private business is those businesses serve communities, and the whole landscape changes for the community as a result of the actions of few. tensions can flare, then you eventually have others stepping in, forced integration. i agree with you on the free market, but this argument probably wouldnt have been a valid one back when segregation was the norm.

[Wrathful_Buddha]

Originally Posted by Rapport

Have you ever noticed on this forum, others like it, or even on the political stage that conservatives tend to ignore logic while making their points?

Many times, it is not important to them what you say, but rather that their often untrue viewpoint seems to be the loudest. I like to call it belligerence, and am wondering if anyone else has noticed it.

I noticed that both sides are full of jerks.

[sec]

Originally Posted by Rapport

This thread is about how conservatives debate in a belligerent way.

Have you ever noticed on this forum, others like it, or even on the political stage that conservatives tend to ignore logic while making their points?

Many times, it is not important to them what you say, but rather that their often untrue viewpoint seems to be the loudest. I like to call it belligerence, and am wondering if anyone else has noticed it.

Too funny, so unfounded accusations and personal beliefs aren't attacking???

[Bluebird]

Originally Posted by Rothbardian

Whether or not this is true none of it really matters, you're commiting the exact same fallacy as those you're attacking. I realy don't think this is worthy of a topic though, any "discussion" is purely speculation and rests on a number of sweeping generalizations.

I'm not saying it's not true either, it generally is. Of course, the liberals are guilty too, maybe not to the same extent but nonetheless they do. Although, what I tend to find far more in discussion with liberals is appeals to the emotion, which is also a logical fallacy.

I don't see where I am commiting a fallacy or attacking anybody,what I thought I was doing was giving my honest opinion,and what I have seen and experienced out on the campaign trail.Isn't that what this thread is about?But see,now,I feel like I am being attacked,and having to defend myself.I'll stand by my statements.

[americanbottoms]

Originally Posted by Wally

There is something about the anonymity of the web that brings out the worst in some folks. Many people, conservative and liberal alike, say things on an internet message forum that they would never say in a face to face debate. It is astounding at times.

Wally

Secretiveness can be a source of pride. It is a paradox that secretiveness plays the same role as boasting: both are engaged in the creation of a disguise. Boasting tries to create an imaginary self, while secretiveness gives us the exhilarating feeling of being princes disguised in meekness. Of the two, secretiveness is the more difficult and effective. For in the self-observant boasting breeds self contempt. Yet it is as Spinoza said: “Men govern nothing with more difficulty than their tongues, and can moderate their desires more than their words”

BY ACCUSING others of a crime we committed or are about to commit, we drain all force from any accusation which may be leveled against us. We attach a quality of hollowness and incredibility to the formula of indictment.

RUDENESS is the weak mans imitation of strength.

(Quoted from Eric Hoffer's Passionate State of Mind 191, 192, 241)

[Rapport]

Originally Posted by americanbottoms

BY ACCUSING others of a crime we committed or are about to commit, we drain all force from any accusation which may be leveled against us. We attach a quality of hollowness and incredibility to the formula of indictment.

RUDENESS is the weak mans imitation of strength.

(Quoted from Eric Hoffer's Passionate State of Mind 191, 192, 241)

I like these ideas, but I think that it's more common in politics to see someone committing a crime, while accusing others of a different one. That adds distraction to the equation...

But I will be paying attention to this now. Good post.