Anyone feel queasy when they realize they voted for Bush?

[_barrelomonkeys]

There will be no more discussion with this grossly dishonest intellectual hack. As of yet, he has posted not a single shred of evidence supporting the AGW theory. He has engaged in an endless ad hominem smear against any scientist dissenting from his Sierra Club fantasy of capitalist-greed-destroying-the-planet doom fantasy and has equated them with holocaust deniers. Like the typical intellectual Lenninist he is, as he has not a particle of evidence or any rational argument by which to support his assertions, he falls immediately into personal attacks, special pleading, and ideological breast beating.

He has nothing. Nothing whatsoever but his emotion based political hatreds and troglodyte economic superstitions. Tarski is a poster child for the North American Left in all its anti-intellectual, slogan chanting glory.

Tarski is a very good textbook example of just what we face when we face the true believers in AGW. The anti-rational emotional ferver, the blind ideological conformity to political dogma, The 'us against them" mentality that sees even the most reasonable of skeptics as heretics who must either be made to recant or be relegated to the status of near sub-human evil, the detestation of anything smacking of conservatism (limited government, Judeo/Christian moral values, low taxes, free market economics), and the ever present scent of the desire for control over the lives of others-no matter what the cost.

All very, very textbook.

Coggins, I've read every word you've written for the last few days. I was so intrigued by your political ideology I even went back and read some of your earlier posts. I think you are a textbook example of an ideology as well. I don't really know where I am anymore in the political sphere but I do find the us v. them mentality just as much on the right.

I was going through my father's files the other day. He writes for some conservative publications and is very vocal in his support of the Republican agenda and conservatism. I found an article my father had written decrying Clinton's policy in Iraq and other military entanglements because they violated the Powell Doctrine. :) Actually he decried pretty much anything and everything Clinton did because he was a "them". Funny that the things he had written were the exact opposite of his view now on Iraq. The only thing that changed was that his guy was now in charge.

I recall the foaming at the mouth because of any military maneuvering that Clinton did and now that Bush has completely ignored the Powell Doctrine there is a rather large cricket chirp coming from the right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine

My point? Us v. them mentality is not helpful and I think everyone needs to calm down a little bit and think things through without relying on the lil platforms to tell us what we think.

The left does it too. Funny how we have such ingrained ideas and if our guy says otherwise we can flip right over and rationalize how it's now okay to no longer hold that long firm opinion.

I hope you take this post in the spirit I intended it. :)

[_barrelomonkeys]

Barrel, get rid of that link!!!

Sorry! I suppose Bond fixed it? Thanks Bond!

[_Coggins7]

Coggins, I've read every word you've written for the last few days. I was so intrigued by your political ideology I even went back and read some of your earlier posts. I think you are a textbook example of an ideology as well. I don't really know where I am anymore in the political sphere but I do find the us v. them mentality just as much on the right.

First of all, I'm a political philosopher. Tarski is an ideologue. The difference between the two kinds of minds is virtually abyssal. The reason I've continued in a heated manner with Tarski is for a very good reason and a reason I freely admit to: calm, critical, reasoned debate with him, at least on this subject, is impossible. So I'm just fighting fire with fire.

Tarski descended into ad hominem slander, name calling, and well poinsoning not too far beyond the very first post in the thread. I responded in kind to his war of his experts against my experts, his use of credentialism to shut me up before the debate had even began, his ad hominem circumstantial smears against competent and eminent earth scientists, and intellectual dishonesty in general.

Go back to the Terrestrial room and look at my present debate with marg. Anyone who wants to disagree with me and debate my in a philosophically civil and substantive way has my utmost attention, and I will always respond in kind.

My approach here, ideologue against ideologue, was approached this way on purpose, as I knew at the outset that what I was up against was an ideologue beyond reasoned discourse. Therefore, I stated my facts, attacked him with both facts and polemically, and had done with it.

An ideologue like my opponent here sees all political questions as great, cosmic conflicts between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. It is an all out war in which one side must utterly destroy the credibility and moral veracity of the other.

It seeks no compromise or quarter. Everything is black and white, and its opponents are charactered, not understood. The ideologue sees all questions of human organization and social structure as primarily political, and sees politics in near religious terms. Hence, opposition to AGW not only cannot be rational and principled, it cannot be moral or ingenuous.

I take none of these positions. However, to the degree that certain political questions involve serious moral or philosophical principals;es, or threaten to alter social structure in very serious ways, my critique can be scathing. To be scathing does not mean one is an ideologue, however. I prefer critical, civil debate to polemical exchanges such as the one Tarski and I have had. Unfortunately, this is the only kind of thing Tarski is capable of, at least on this subject. If this were not so, he would have ploughed right into what he considers the actual evidence for AGW, and lete me respond with counter evidence.

This, however, is clearly not to be. And that is what arguing with an ideologue is like as over against another political philosopher.

If you have anything you would like to discuss with me, in which you find disagreement, just see for yourself.


I

was going through my father's files the other day. He writes for some conservative publications and is very vocal in his support of the Republican agenda and conservatism. I found an article my father had written decrying Clinton's policy in Iraq and other military entanglements because they violated the Powell Doctrine. :) Actually he decried pretty much anything and everything Clinton did because he was a "them". Funny that the things he had written were the exact opposite of his view now on Iraq. The only thing that changed was that his guy was now in charge.

I recall the foaming at the mouth because of any military maneuvering that Clinton did and now that Bush has completely ignored the Powell Doctrine there is a rather large cricket chirp coming from the right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_Doctrine

My point? Us v. them mentality is not helpful and I think everyone needs to calm down a little bit and think things through without relying on the lil platforms to tell us what we think.

The left does it too. Funny how we have such ingrained ideas and if our guy says otherwise we can flip right over and rationalize how it's now okay to no longer hold that long firm opinion.

I hope you take this post in the spirit I intended it. :)

I protest: it is Tarski and only Tarski who has this mentality here. I know I appear to based on this fire and brimstone debate, but that was a conscious choice based on my desire not to let him get away with the stuff he was posting. I'm done with this thread now, as, with the last time this came up, nobody actually got around to debating me on the weight of the evidence.

One point,, however. Although the "us against them" mentality is, indeed bad as a mentality, we are poorly served when, on a case by case basis based on principle, we fail to discern that which seeks to corrupt and destroy that which we value and work against it. The political and social conflicts; the culture wars, are real,and whichever set of ideas ultimately prevails in that war will have serious consequences for us and our descendants in very substantial ways.

[_Coggins7]

And yes, you're Dad sounds like an ideologue, to a degree. I don't think intellectually serious conservtives go in for that kind of thing though, at least not the ones I read.

I recognized long ago (though both the Clinton's disgust me for a variety of reasons) that Clinton's governance was not, in some ways as bad as anticipated by many. Clinton's sheer Machiavellianism insured that he governed in a more pragmatic manner than say, his wife (well known as a dogmatic ideologue in her own right who tolerates no deviation from orthodoxy). Clinton was a leftist yes, but his political instincts moved him more with the wind, many times, than with ideological orthodoxy. Yes, he signed welfare reform (the third time, kicking and screaming), but he signed it. An ideologue wouldn't have done that, regardless.

Clinton recognized Saddam's threat and threatened military action well before anyone knew who Dubya was. Yet, he ignored a decade of continual terrorism against America overseas and on our own soil.

An ideologue takes positions based on membership in groups (Republican/Democrat, Conservative/Liberal, worker/management etc) and uses this, as Tarski does, as a proxy for serious thought. I think Joe Lieberman's courageous position on the Iraq war is correct and gutsy, having brought upon himself ostracization from his party.

Its that he's right on this issue that matters to me, not that he's a liberal Democrat and I probably disagree with much of what he believes in other areas.

[_Pumplehoober]

First of all, I'm a political philosopher. Tarski is an ideologue. The difference between the two kinds of minds is virtually abyssal.

What school of political philosophy do you subscribe to? What major thinkers have influenced you?

[_barrelomonkeys]

I apologize. You are no doubt a political philosopher and I thought the other evening that some of your posts read like poetry to me. Although I may disagree with your views you obviously spend a great deal of time on political concerns and are extremely well read.

Coggins, I can't say whether Tarski is an ideologue or not. He doesn't strike me that way at all. As a matter of fact the other evening he spoke on a topic where he felt that change must occur slowly and only as public opinion shifts. He didn't demonize those that disagreed with his view and hoped that minds could be changed through dialogue. That doesn't strike me as someone that seeks to destroy his opponents. I think the discourse, for the most part, on this board is pretty shrill and the board is set up in an us v. them mentality when it comes to LDS and this probably follows through with a lot of the political debates.

When I related the story about my father I was not accusing you of being a person that shifts views with a party. I was relaying a personal experience (which just recently occurred and struck me as a perfect example) that showed that not only does the left shift views for advantage the right does too. Perhaps I'm too rigid to understand how some people shift their views when it is advantageous to their party and still have a firm foundation for their beliefs. I just believe if you have a belief that something is true and right it shouldn't change when your party says otherwise. I think this is done on both sides of the aisle.

I actually wish there would be more discourse on this issue as it is one I'm pretty interested in. Dependency on foreign oil is something we could probably all agree needs to be addressed. I imagine there could be consensus on quite a few issues.

[_Tarski]

Coggins, I've read every word you've written for the last few days. I was so intrigued by your political ideology I even went back and read some of your earlier posts. I think you are a textbook example of an ideology as well. I don't really know where I am anymore in the political sphere but I do find the us v. them mentality just as much on the right.

First of all, I'm a political philosopher. Tarski is an ideologue.

LOL. OMG!

One thing for sure is that you know nothing about how science works. And as for not posting anything scientific, are freaking kidding? The supporting literature is so vast it would shut this site down!

Instead, I submit the IPCC reports. Now in your own words (not Lindzen quotes or paraphrases) and with your own understanding, debate the science!

If you are not scientifically trained then it is dishonest of you to simply post Lindzen without also posting the massive other side supported by all the professional societies I listed.

How can you, tell that Lindzen is right over and above the massive research that culminated in the ICPP report?

You can't! Your not trained to do so. In fact, you are choosing only on political grounds.


Indeed, how could it be otherwise Mr. "political philosopher"? You aren't trained to do anything else but follow a political ideology.

Since you do not know enough about science, you haven't any rational basis to oppose the scientific majority. Perhaps Lindzen can give some reasons (answered by the majority by the way).
BUT YOU CAN"T. Can you.

You cannot understand the subject well enough to evaluate Lindzen, or apparently even understand the extent of his opposition to the majority. Can you tell me what the professional responses to Lindzen have been? Do you just read the half you like (and can't understand)?

You could no more debate the mechanisms of global warming at a sufficiently deep level than could my granddaughter.
All you can do it apply your political philosophy to figure out who is saying what your philosophy wishes to be true. You cannot and have not debated the science. By your own admission you are not scientifically trained.

Q: Not being scientifically trained, how can Coggins be in a position to judge between Lindzen and his massive majority opposition?


For example, the basis of global warming is at bottom quantum mechanical. To understand the subtleties that make all the difference one must go to this level.
It is in the peer reviewed journals and in the scientific portion of the IPCC report and written in a language, physical, statistical and mathematical; a language you do not understand. You can't understand the physics, the computer modeling issues, the chemistry or the solar science. It's all mathematically and symbolically expressed.

Quit the cut and past charade!

[_barrelomonkeys]

And they're back at it.

I'm gonna go play in my garden.

:D

[_barrelomonkeys]

And yes, you're Dad sounds like an ideologue, to a degree. I don't think intellectually serious conservtives go in for that kind of thing though, at least not the ones I read.

He is no doubt an ideologue!

An ideologue takes positions based on membership in groups (Republican/Democrat, Conservative/Liberal, worker/management etc) and uses this, as Tarski does, as a proxy for serious thought. I think Joe Lieberman's courageous position on the Iraq war is correct and gutsy, having brought upon himself ostracization from his party.

I agree with everything you said except about Tarski. I just don't see him as an ideologue! I think this is just one thing that concerns him and he has strong opinions on this particular subject.


*edited to add*

Why am I defending Tarski?

My posts had pretty much nothing to do with Tarski and I don't know why/how I ended up talking about him?

[_Coggins7]

For example, the basis of global warming is at bottom quantum mechanical. To understand the subtleties that make all the difference one must go to this level.

As Bugs Bunny said, "Quantum mechanical? So its Quantum Mechanical!"


Goodbye Tarski. Go hide behind your credentials and peddle your intellectual corruption to someone who will fall for it. The core issues and principles in the AGW debate can and have been made descriptively accessible to non-scientists by both sides, for many years now. The only reason your taking this cocky, elitist position is because you know full well that the uncertainties in AGW are very large and the evidence is moving against you even as we speak. You're a degreed scientist but, like most other such people who have sold themselves and their scientific integrity to ideology, you act like a petulant adolescent when confronted by laymen who know the scientific issues for themselves and are not impressed with your patronizing intellectual arrogance.

Mark my words Tarski, in just a few more years AGW will be gone ( just as global cooling made way for global warming) and the environmental movement will have moved on, or will be moving on to its next crisis and its next compelling reason why we must transform our society into a socialist, communitarian ant farm.