Dawkins and civil discourse

[rogue06]

And nobody has been able to bring up a single example yet... can you show me anything The Tea Party has done that is as bad as stealing aircraft and ramming them into buildings with the sole intent of killing lots of people?

They just got started serving tea instead of kool aid, and they have not formed their militia yet. give them time.

Do you expect to be treated seriously after that?

[Tassman]

Do you expect to be treated seriously after that?

I don’t think this remark was the mere throwaway line you choose to 'judge' as trivial. The Tea-Party absolutist mind-set is not a million miles away from the absolutist mentality of the extremist hijackers.

Just last year Tea Party intransigence took America to the brink of financial disaster by its absolute refusal to shift its position based on its unbending certainty that they were right. This was regardless of the fact that America has raised its debt ceiling many times since WWII without controversy. Suddenly “compromise” became a dirty word among the hardcore of about 20 House members affiliated to the Tea Party. In the worst absolutist tradition they were prepared to put at risk the US's faltering economic recovery – and economies around the world. In short, like all extremist fanatics, a minority was prepared to override the wishes and welfare of the majority based on the certainty they were right.

[rogue06]

I don’t think this remark was the mere throwaway line you choose to 'judge' as trivial. The Tea-Party absolutist mind-set is not a million miles away from the absolutist mentality of the extremist hijackers.

Just last year Tea Party intransigence took America to the brink of financial disaster by its absolute refusal to shift its position based on its unbending certainty that they were right. This was regardless of the fact that America has raised its debt ceiling many times since WWII without controversy. Suddenly “compromise” became a dirty word among the hardcore of about 20 House members affiliated to the Tea Party. In the worst absolutist tradition they were prepared to put at risk the US's faltering economic recovery – and economies around the world. In short, like all extremist fanatics, a minority was prepared to override the wishes and welfare of the majority based on the certainty they were right.

A quick question: Why is it that the Tea Party is said to hake taken "America to the brink of financial disaster by its absolute refusal to shift its position based on its unbending certainty that they were right" and not the Democrats who took "America to the brink of financial disaster by its absolute refusal to shift its position based on its unbending certainty that they were right"? It seems to me that two sides were involved in the impasse and continuing with business as usual (raising the debt level yet again and therefore kicking the can down the road) was becoming increasingly intenable.

Further, IIRC, Congress had struck a deal a week or so before the deadline until Obama inserted himself back into the debate leading to another stalemate. It was almost like that was what he sought.

Finally, to equate that with being "as bad as stealing aircraft and ramming them into buildings with the sole intent of killing lots of people" as Shuny said is way over the top no matter how you spin it.

[lilpixieofterror]

I don’t think this remark was the mere throwaway line you choose to 'judge' as trivial. The Tea-Party absolutist mind-set is not a million miles away from the absolutist mentality of the extremist hijackers.

Really? Perhaps Tazzy Wazzy will show evidence to back his accusation up or (as I suspect) is Tazzy Wazzy full of hot gas and will refuse to back his accusations up with any kind of facts?

Just last year Tea Party intransigence took America to the brink of financial disaster by its absolute refusal to shift its position based on its unbending certainty that they were right. This was regardless of the fact that America has raised its debt ceiling many times since WWII without controversy. Suddenly “compromise” became a dirty word among the hardcore of about 20 House members affiliated to the Tea Party. In the worst absolutist tradition they were prepared to put at risk the US's faltering economic recovery – and economies around the world. In short, like all extremist fanatics, a minority was prepared to override the wishes and welfare of the majority based on the certainty they were right.

Evidence presented, none. Therefore accusation rejected as unbacked and just Tazzy Wazzy blowing out more hot gas.

[shunyadragon]

Do you expect to be treated seriously after that?

I explained this in terms of sarcasm and a play on words, because the Tea Party was brought up 'over the top and off subject. Please read the posts and accept it and go on. Pleeeeeaaaasssseeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Soyeong]

Just last year Tea Party intransigence took America to the brink of financial disaster by its absolute refusal to shift its position based on its unbending certainty that they were right. This was regardless of the fact that America has raised its debt ceiling many times since WWII without controversy. Suddenly “compromise” became a dirty word among the hardcore of about 20 House members affiliated to the Tea Party. In the worst absolutist tradition they were prepared to put at risk the US's faltering economic recovery – and economies around the world. In short, like all extremist fanatics, a minority was prepared to override the wishes and welfare of the majority based on the certainty they were right.

However you want to spin it, if you continue to increase the debt limit without decreasing spending, then you are already heading towards the brink of disaster. If we need to stop of head in the opposite direction, then we can compromise on how to do that, such as dollar per dollar limit increase per spending decrease, but putting off the disaster at the cost of making it that much more inevitable is not an acceptable compromise. A compromise with one side getting what they want with the other side not getting what they want is not a compromise. Also, as much as you want to spin it, not wanting to go with a particular solution because we don't think the solution will work is not the same as not wanting a solution.

[rogue06]

I explained this in terms of sarcasm and a play on words, because the Tea Party was brought up 'over the top and off subject. Please read the posts and accept it and go on. Pleeeeeaaaasssseeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll admit I haven't read the entire thread and started on what was then the last two pages. If you meant it sarcastically I apologize but it certainly wasn't clear that was what you were doing.

[shunyadragon]

I'll admit I haven't read the entire thread and started on what was then the last two pages. If you meant it sarcastically I apologize but it certainly wasn't clear that was what you were doing.

I believe it was, maybe not obvious, but the context was not relevant to the thread and my explanation immediately followed,

[Tassman]

However you want to spin it, if you continue to increase the debt limit without decreasing spending, then you are already heading towards the brink of disaster. If we need to stop of head in the opposite direction, then we can compromise on how to do that, such as dollar per dollar limit increase per spending decrease, but putting off the disaster at the cost of making it that much more inevitable is not an acceptable compromise. A compromise with one side getting what they want with the other side not getting what they want is not a compromise. Also, as much as you want to spin it, not wanting to go with a particular solution because we don't think the solution will work is not the same as not wanting a solution.

A quick question: Why is it that the Tea Party is said to hake taken "America to the brink of financial disaster by its absolute refusal to shift its position based on its unbending certainty that they were right" and not the Democrats who took "America to the brink of financial disaster by its absolute refusal to shift its position based on its unbending certainty that they were right"? It seems to me that two sides were involved in the impasse and continuing with business as usual (raising the debt level yet again and therefore kicking the can down the road) was becoming increasingly intenable.

Further, IIRC, Congress had struck a deal a week or so before the deadline until Obama inserted himself back into the debate leading to another stalemate. It was almost like that was what he sought.

Finally, to equate that with being "as bad as stealing aircraft and ramming them into buildings with the sole intent of killing lots of people" as Shuny said is way over the top no matter how you spin it.

It is not the behavior which is the problem so much as the rigid, absolutist mind-set and refusal to compromise that underlies such behavior. This is the point I was making. And it is of major concern because it is characteristic of all religion-based extremist groups. This is true whether we are talking about the 20% Tea-Party supporters that held 80% of Congress to ransom, or suicide bombers sacrificing themselves for god, or the religious right attempting to impose Christian Reconstructionism on the majority of the population.

See link re the last: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r10.html

The problem arises when a religious minority claims the god-given right to dominate the majority. They do not compromise, because one doesn’t compromise over god’s perceived will, and thus they are dangerous.

[Jaecp]

Indeed.

It's not that its someting Democratic, per say, to raise the debt ceiling. It's something that, up until this weird partisan brinkmanship we've had since Obama got elected.

The debt limit has been raised many times under presidents from both sides of the aisle. The only controversy should be that it was the latest thing that is part of the normal operation of the country that the repubs chose to play politics with.

The Republicans would rather nothing happen than to give any impression that the Democrats are doing a good job. This isn't about specific bad things being targeted, its about anything that the Democrats want is, all of a sudden, bad. It's why Romney has to walk back how Obamacare is especially close to Romneycare. Anything democrats want to do gets opposed on the principle that its democrats trying to do something, not that its bad. There is this idea that government is bad and so we have a bunch of people elected in 2010 who just want to tear it down. Republicans filibustering their own bills, even without that we have the highest fillibuster rate in history.

Meh.

A bunch of randian extremists hellbent on enriching themselves at the expense of the rest of us.

[lilpixieofterror]

I believe it was, maybe not obvious, but the context was not relevant to the thread and my explanation immediately followed,

Figures, Shuny didn't understand my point so he said something rather silly. These two really didn't have much to disagree on so why would Dawkins be that rude? Now, how would he hold up to a person he was more opposed to? That the question nobody seems to want to answer... I wonder why...

[rogue06]

This is true whether we are talking about the 20% Tea-Party supporters that held 80% of Congress to ransom

Yet those extremist Tea Party members had struck a deal with the Democrats until Obama stirred everything up again causing another stalemate.

The Republicans would rather nothing happen than to give any impression that the Democrats are doing a good job.

So what was Obama's motivation for scuttling the earlier deal? That he'd rather nothing happen than to give any impression that the Republicans were willing to cooperate?

[Soyeong]

It is not the behavior which is the problem so much as the rigid, absolutist mind-set and refusal to compromise that underlies such behavior. This is the point I was making. And it is of major concern because it is characteristic of all religion-based extremist groups. This is true whether we are talking about the 20% Tea-Party supporters that held 80% of Congress to ransom, or suicide bombers sacrificing themselves for god, or the religious right attempting to impose Christian Reconstructionism on the majority of the population.

You didn't respond to either of our points; you just continued to mindlessly spout political rhetoric. Are the Democrats really the epitome of nonrigid willingness to compromise? Or would the rigid, absolutionist mind-set and refusal to compromise be just as accurate for Democrats as well? Are there ever any issues on which it is good for someone to be unwilling to compromise? How did not wanting to spend more than we make become an "extremist" position? How is not giving in to their demand for more money holding them for ransom? How are they attempting to impose Christian Reconstructionism on the majority and what does that even have to do with the issue at hand?

The problem arises when a religious minority claims the god-given right to dominate the majority. They do not compromise, because one doesn’t compromise over god’s perceived will, and thus they are dangerous.

Can you point to where anyone has claimed they have a god-given right to dominate the majority or is it just more mindless rhetoric? Can you even point to one person who said the that the main reason they are unwilling to compromise on the debt ceiling is because it is God's will? Perhaps it is just common sense that we can no longer afford to continue increasing or debt without decreasing our spending.

[Tassman]

You didn't respond to either of our points; you just continued to mindlessly spout political rhetoric. Are the Democrats really the epitome of nonrigid willingness to compromise? Or would the rigid, absolutionist mind-set and refusal to compromise be just as accurate for Democrats as well? Are there ever any issues on which it is good for someone to be unwilling to compromise? How did not wanting to spend more than we make become an "extremist" position? How is not giving in to their demand for more money holding them for ransom? How are they attempting to impose Christian Reconstructionism on the majority and what does that even have to do with the issue at hand?


Can you point to where anyone has claimed they have a god-given right to dominate the majority or is it just more mindless rhetoric? Can you even point to one person who said the that the main reason they are unwilling to compromise on the debt ceiling is because it is God's will? Perhaps it is just common sense that we can no longer afford to continue increasing or debt without decreasing our spending.

NO, the rigid, absolutionist mind-set and refusal to compromise would NOT be just as accurate for Democrats as well – and nor would it have been accurate for Republicans before the advent of the Tea Party members. And this is the point. It is a new and dangerous phenomenon.

“…Tea Party, a political movement that didn't exist three years ago, continues to exert control over Republican legislators ………… "Right now the Tea Party caucus in the House of Representatives is the jackass kicking down the barn, but they have absolutely no idea how to rebuild one," Cal Jillson, a politics professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, said Wednesday.

http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/Canada-...iling-crisis/1

But, specific politics aside, it is the rigid non-compromising mindset which is of concern – it is essentially totalitarian. Such non-comprising rigidity is a characteristic of ALL brands of religious fundamentalism - including the Evangelical Right to which the Tea party members belong. And the agenda of the Evangelical Right is that of Christian Reconstructionism. I.e. it advocates the modern-day application of Old Testament law in ''reconstructing'' the Kingdom of God (lost with the Fall) on earth. Constructionism is advocated by individuals, groups, organizations, and churches collectively known as the ''Christian Right.''

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r10.html

Oh, and note the comment by Reconstructionist theologian Rev. Ray Sutton that “Reconstructed Biblical theocracies would be ''happy'' places, to which people would flock because ''capital punishment is one of the best evangelistic tools of a society.''

[Cerebrum123]

“…Tea Party, a political movement that didn't exist three years ago, continues to exert control over Republican legislators ………… "Right now the Tea Party caucus in the House of Representatives is the jackass kicking down the barn, but they have absolutely no idea how to rebuild one," Cal Jillson, a politics professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, said Wednesday.

That sounds so much more like the Democratic party, and they have had the logo to prove it for a LONG time.