Color me clueless
Bookworm on Apr 18 2009 at 8:39 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
Can anyone explain to me in non-obscene terms what gays mean when they refer to “teabagging?” At Power Line, Scott has noticed that more and more CNN and MSNBC employees and talking heads have been making chortling references to teabagging. I knew about the chortling references, but thought they simply were snarky comments about how silly tea bags are as a political weapon. Apparently, though, there’s a larger subtext.
Read the Power Line post if you will, and then please get back to me with a politely phrased (clinical or euphemistic) explanation about what’s going on here.
Related posts:
Email This Post To A Friend
109 Responses to “Color me clueless”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
There is no way, Book, to explain it in non-offensive terms. Tea-bagging involves one gay man lying on his back while another squats over him and lowers his genitals into the first man’s mouth — like a teabag.
Sorry, but I can think of no other less offensive way to explain it.
That MSNBC and CNN keep bringing it up is beyond disgusting. Edward R. Murrow must be turning over in his grave. What has the once-great news network come to? These are not the tactics of informed adult debate. They are more like the rantings of a snarky teenager trying to cut a rival who just beat her out for a place on the cheer leading squad.
CNN and MSNBC have given up any pretense of providing news to an adult audience. They are, rather, cravenly seeking to entertain an audience of sick minds.
I hope that’s not sugar-coating it too much.
Do you drink tea made with tea bags.
If “yes”, then we can proceed. If “no”, you need to get somebody who does help you here.
If you drink tea made from tea in tea bags, picture the sequence. (I am ignoring here the canard that women can not visualize spacial relationships–if that turns out to be wrong, you may need to collect some stage-props for this exercise.)
When _I_ make tea I either fill the cup with hot water (not boiling, the experts say–mine is usually boiling when it arrives in the cup), or I fill it with cold water and put it in the microwave until it boils.
Now pay close attention. I take the teabag out of any packaging that might haqve contained it and lower it (in its string) into the cup (of hot water)–and either let it rest, or (in an attempt to speed things up) I dip it up and down it the cup (full of water).
Now, in your minds eye (or using the stage props if you rather) replace the cup with a willing and friendly human mouth (male or female, or even human might vary depending on local laws and proclivities) in the same posture as the cup.
Now picture the teabag as having been replaced with a scrotum.
Here is an advertizement that might help.
What’s amazing about the snide references to “tea-bagging” is that aside from the total lack of class or professionalism they show, they demonstrate for the lebenty zillionth time how leftists think that if they can insult your argument they’ve refuted it.
And, Charles, their preoccupation with one facet of life as being the only important one worth discussing…
The other thing is that Liberals seem to think that because most conservatives are social conservatives to some extent, and have the position that sexual activity should have some limits – even if it’s just one of insuring the privacy of that activity – that therefore any overt sexual references will just simply expose all conservatives as hypocrites and/or straitlaced idiots. Sort of like expecting to train your puppy to be housebroke by rubbing his nose in his mess…
First, the sexual act of teabagging is not limited to homosexuals.
Second, why didn’t anyone do any research before they started blaring this and 2m4m all over the airwaves?
Third, why must those who see no problem with the sexual act of teabagging be forced to stoop a level of prudishness that always seems to be demanding silence?
The problem here seems to be the level of cluelessness that assumes the mental state of “being offended” is anything other than a choice.
And this is a dangerous road. In this case, the offense seems to be at grappling with a collective ignorance that chokes of the inflow of vital information.
Such as the definition of teabagging.
It’s no longer the 18th century. Please join us, and support our president.
Charles Martel: “…how leftists think that if they can insult your argument they’ve refuted it.”
Good point that needs to be emphasized.
And perhaps more to the point, they think they refute your argument by insulting YOU.
Aren’t you glad you asked?
Try not to develop a mental picture.
They can denigrate the tea parties all they like, but I consider them a very encouraging sign. I noticed that most people who had the chance to talk were pretty well informed, were polite and were committed.
Conservatives are not used to public protests, but we can learn.
It has to discourage the media and the dimocrats a little bit when they pick out a Joe the Plumber, or a Norm, and try to turn them into negative stereotypes; only to find they have actually spotlighted someone who thinks about issues and can articulate their positions.
Okay, I get it. And if people want to do that in the privacy of their own home, fine. Not a big deal.
What is a big deal is major news brokers using sexual double entendres to denigrate a grassroots movement. It turns every newscast into a Monty Pythonesque “nudge nudge wink wink” routine. It cheapens things at every level: the story being reported, the reporters, and those audience members in on the joke.
It also ties in with something I first noticed when I tuned into blogs, which is the liberal obsession with poop. Rather than arguing at the idea level, liberal blogs and comments tend to revolve in terms of insults framed using words such as turd, sh*t, etc. Excrement figured largely in the insults. Since that’s not going to work on national TV, the liberals have switched to a similar tactic, but this time using sexual innuendo.
Thinking about it, though, the whole thing is a peculiar inversion of a practice that’s clearly pleasurable to those in the gay community and probably those in the straight community too. That being the case, why is it being used as an insult? I would think people would want to keep the two concepts separate. One gets bizarre mental images of two people in the midst of sexual passion, contemplating the idea of “teabagging,” and suddenly being drawn up short by horrific images of conservative protesters in front of federal buildings.
All of this is too confusing for me.
Marioth:
Third, why must those who see no problem with the sexual act of teabagging be forced to stoop a level of prudishness that always seems to be demanding silence?
I see the issue otherwise. Why should a political issue repeatedly be given a sexual innuendo? What does it say about those who repeatedly bring sexual innuendo into a political issue? It reminds me of young children obsessing over potty jokes. I have a similar view of the maturity level of those who keep bringing “tea bagging” up, such as 51 times in 13 minutes at MSNBC.(Powerline link)
It’s no longer the 18th century. Please join us, and support our president.
Such arrogance helps explain why I do not. I wonder how many of those who voted for Obama were aware that there was only one other President who shared the following experience metric with Obama: US Senate experience, no Vice Presidential experience, no US Cabinet experience, no Governor experience, no military experience. That President would be Warren Harding. Stellar company, no?
It occurs to me that there is enough irony here to start a steel mill.
The leftists think we think sex is dirty, verboten, something we would not do.
When they aren’t teeing off on the Palin clan who seem pretty rightst, and pretty much OK with sex (just look carefully at Todd and Sarah, you don’t need to bring the youngsters into it.
And the implication that somehow it is a gay thing. Or that we would agree with them that either is bad.
And on and on and on.
Please do not confuse me with somebody who thinks the adherents of Pschobabble are onto anything meaningful, but the leftists of whom we speak do, so to speak, think they are, so it is instructive to pick up one of their textbooks (protective gear suggested) and read about there view of the stages of development and their view of where that focus on poop is most pronounced.
Or, perhaps more enjoyably, watch a young puppy develope.
I do not agree with the statement “What is a big deal is major news brokers using sexual double entendres to denigrate a grassroots movement.”
The media is reporting all sides of the event. One side is that it was a PR blunder to use an expression common to people under age 35 and then play the outrage card based on ignorance (“we didn’t know what it meant”) or prudishness (“we don’t talk about that in my family”) or prejudice (“here comes the gay agenda”).
I’m sure everyone here is old enough to remember when gay didn’t mean gay, but instead meant gay. We seem to be recovering nicely from that confusion, as states are now working to acknowledge civil rights. Nate Silver predicts Mississippi will be last, sometime in 2024 – 2026.
I implore you to set aside petty disagreements and join our President. He needs our support, and we are not going to mend unless we mend together.
Q. That being the case, why is it being used as an insult?
A. Arrested adolescence. Shock the bourgeois.
To me, this whole business about “epater la bourgeois” is banal and boring beyond belief. (Psst! Comrades! It’s been done before, going back more than 100 years now. You’re no longer in the vanguard.)
The real counter-culture types, the true revolutionaries these days are persons like trappist monks. Not these one-trick reactionaries.
Funny how those who fancy themselves “transgressors” depend on and implicitly recognize the very norms and boundaries that they oh-so-bravely deride. But they get to enjoy the delicious adolescent sniggering of having secret code words that mark them as part of the in-group.
And when they, the liberal msm, rail against “hypocrisy”, don’t they understand the double-edged irony contained in La Rochefoucauld’s aphorism (“the tribute that vice pays to virtue”?)
P.S. Larry, love the line that “there is enough irony to start a steel mill”.
“The media is reporting all sides of the event. ”
Anybody who believes that is clearly part of the problem.
“Support our President”.
As soon he starts to draw his pension, I’ll be glad to.
>>Funny how those who fancy themselves “transgressors” depend on and implicitly recognize the very norms and boundaries that they oh-so-bravely deride.>>
Very good observation, gpc31. You can’t “transgress” if you don’t know the boundary is there.
On the “irony” line–thanks. That is so good that I probably got it somewhere else, but I don’t remember where.
Does three in a row get me a prize?
“The media is reporting all sides of the event. ”
Anybody who believes that is clearly part of the problem.
Larry, this just isn’t true. I got to this site from memorandum.com, an exhaustive look at all points of view. I deliberately came here to understand what y’all are saying. On that same blogroll were a variety of opinions, hundreds, some for, some agin, most in between.
Perhaps if the tea events had better connected to the events of 200 years ago, but the message was muddled. There was no There, there. So for people under age 40, the next best definition, one with which they have no problem, and one far more relevant to them than Boston Harbor, naturally came up.
I do not understand the vitriol pointed toward Obama. Do you intend to spend the next 4 (and likely
years with your arms crossed and your brow a stormcloud? This is not democracy. It’s a tantrum. He is the president of all the people, and he needs our support.
Can I get a lil’ statesmanship?
Marioth:
The office of the president deserves our respect. Requiring automatic support is not “statesmanship”.
You set up a strawman arguement: either cross your arms for 4 years and throw a tantrum, OR support Obama.
Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.
Approx. 53% of the population voted for President Obama. They, and the minority who did not, are free to change their minds at any time concerning the administration’s policies. We the people can make our voices felt through Congress.
Come on, you can do better than that.
>>So for people under age 40, the next best definition, one with which they have no problem, and one far more relevant to them than Boston Harbor, naturally came up.>>
That certainly speaks to our educational system, doesn’t it.
>>This is not democracy. It’s a tantrum. He is the president of all the people, and he needs our support.>>
Mmmmm…right. Like the Lefties gave Bush???
Suek, RE: Educational System. I could not agree more. It is a national failure that we permit “crumbling schools” in our vocabulary. But we have exactly the educational we want, or it would change. This is he essence of Democracy; we have what we have because we voted for it. We own every single crumbling school. But the reality is: young people are not turned off by conversations about sexual activity, and I do not think this is an educational problem on their part.
gpc31: My plea for statesmanship is more one of approach, and you seem to have it: respect for the presidency. W took an awful beating, and I’m afraid it’s not even close to being done. But his actions caused many to loose respect for the office, and in Truth, it will not full earn back my respect until probably after Obama leaves office. These things take time. But face it we must.
And the office of the presidency needs our support. Don’t stop debating, no. But this wish for failure is a sickeness, and utterly anti-American.
And here’s a tip to any law and order conservative who wants to get the GOP back into the game in anything less than an generation: actively pursue war crimes prosecutions. You cannot lose. A majority support it. If Obama fails, you will have taken back a crucial issue stolen from you by the pardon of Nixon: that we are a nation of laws.
Just food for thought.
>>young people are not turned off by conversations about sexual activity, and I do not think this is an educational problem on their part.>>
Young people never were. Your indication is that they are turned off by discussion about history. That’s the failure.
>>But this wish for failure is a sickeness, and utterly anti-American.>>
Baloney. It didn’t bother the Lefties when Bush was President. ” Dissent is patriotic”, remember?
How can it be wrong to wish that Obama will fail in destroying the very Constitution he swore to uphold?
When somebody wants to take what is mine and give to somebody else, he does NOT deserve my support.
And neither does his office as long as he occupies it.
As a kind of a wrapup of my participation in this hijack of a thread, let me say that the original topic here resulted from “the media” refusing to cover _any_ side of the story.
And the educational system is the result of the leftist control of it for a lot of years and that is a fact.
I’m out.
>>I’m out.>>
Me too… But it did pass the time while I was bidding on a computer on http://www.dellauction.com/ Good deals.
Marioth, since youngsters and progressives have no problem discussing sexual activities, how come CNN and MSNBC aren’t making felching jokes? I mean, are they some kind of prudes?
Also, Marioth, what war crimes are we talking about?
suek: Baloney. It didn’t bother the Lefties when Bush was President.
I see.
So, your response to behavior you do not like is more of the same behavior? This is more arm-crossing, I’m afraid.
suek: How can it be wrong to wish that Obama will fail in destroying the very Constitution he swore to uphold?
This is where I tend to get lost. Which part, exactly, is under threat? What evidence exists that 2/3rds of each House of Congress, and 3/4ths of the State Legislatures are prepared to make *any* changes to the Constitution? Do you have links?
Larry: When somebody wants to take what is mine and give to somebody else, he does NOT deserve my support.
What, exactly, has Obama taken from you and given to someone else? Are you talking about taxes? There is an argument that taxes are a bigger ponzie scheme than Madoff because the vast majority of it (later investors) go to pay old people to complain about how much money they aren’t getting from the govt (early investors). If that’s the case, I’m not sure what the solution is, but I’m quite sure it’s not Obama’s fault.
Maybe you could help him try to change it.
Suek: Young people never were. Your indication is that they are turned off by discussion about history. That’s the failure.
Oooo…this one is touchy, because the truth revealed about history in the information age is that most of history — the vast majority of it — is irrelevant. When you can get every point of view imaginable, and therefore erode bias, no one pathway deserves a “history book,” if you will. So it just doesn’t matter. If they need to know, Wikipedia is a good place to begin the journey of finding out.
And Wikipedia tells them tea parties were about taxes, and there are presently no bills before Congress regarding taxes. Obama plans a tax cut for the large majority of us, should any tax relief pass at all, but that’s not on the agenda of either House for the known future, which they get from govt web sites. And then Fox news blares Teabagging! and, well, history writes itself.
Charles, I have seen enough disquieting evidence to support the appointment of a special prosecutor to examine matters of torture, warrantless data mining, perjury to Congress, obstruction, racketeering, war profiteering and treaty abrogation.
At this point, I really don’t care where the chips fall. It was a national failure, and it has to be investigated, or America’s drain-circling will continue apace.
Because either we are a nation of laws or we are not. Torture is illegal, period. And the rage is seething, from all sides, it seems. I do not believe it will stand.
And thus, a law and order conservative has the perfect opportunity to take control of the issue, one soon to become a firebrand against a weak president and likewise weak Congress.
Question is, who? Timing will be everything.
Ah. Got it now. Professional troll.
I assume that the next comments will be to the effect of “who me??? I’m just trying to support our president. It’s _you_ guys who off the reservation”. And then the slide into no specifics, no admission of facts, just slippy sliding around.
Spin spin spin.
We’ve seen this before. Maybe someone’s back?
I managed to make it to the ripe old age of 72 without knowing that phrase and what it meant. I wish I still didn’t, it’s one of those these not necessary to my life. What a bunch of scumbags of newspeople. And I do know the original meaning of that word. Eww…..
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2009/04/problem-with-priorities.html
suek: Ah. Got it now. Professional troll.
Sigh.
Suek, my name is James Knauer. I live in Los Angeles and work as an information technology consultant. I have never worked for a campaign, nor have I ever been elected to anything whatsoever. Any other questions can be answered at by resume site, jk.myne.com, though I cannot imagine why you’d care.
I am not trolling; I thought I was debating with my fellow citizens. I am concerned citizen who found this blog by complete accident through memorandum.com, and thought I would stop by & share my thoughts.
Can we now focus on the issues, or am I still failing one or more of your litmus tests for civil debate?
You know…I think the biggest thing we’re going to find by the release of these CIA secret torture methods is that they were pretty tame. Baring _that_ secret to our enemies pretty much ends the effectiveness of all questioning.
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/04/17/the-office-of-legal-counsel-released-memos-open-thread/#comments
>>Torture is illegal, period. >>
So…you’re willing to prosecute any members of Al Qaeda that we get our hands on? Say the ones who cut off the heads of various Americans? or the ones who tortured and killed American soldiers? What penalty would you give them – assuming you could convict them?
How about the muslims who stone women to death…is that prosecutable?
>>or am I still failing one or more of your litmus tests for civil debate?>>
Yes. You don’t address the issues.
The issue was – originally – what was teabagging. That question answered, the issue then migrated to why members of the so-called MSM were so irresistibly given over to sophomoric titillation instead of just straight reports about the issues. You then went directly to “it’s not them – it’s you …you’re (those commenting) so old fashioned and prudish” – which has nothing to do with the MSM reporting on events instead of having a good ole boys meeting on tv. And of course, the mandatory “nobody should criticize the president…it’s _so_ unamerican”
>>because the truth revealed about history in the information age is that most of history — the vast majority of it — is irrelevant.>>
You must be very young.
>>I assume that the next comments will be to the effect of “who me???>>
Heh. Was I right or was I right!
Suek, I share your outrage, particularly the treatment women receive even in “civilized” Islamic societies. Completely criminal. Suffrage, someone forgot to tell the mullahs, is universal.
And ask yourself this: Some crazy person (because you’d have to be crazy on some level to cut off someone’s feet), an American citizen is caught doing the same thing. I live in L.A. Much worse happens on a daily basis.
The question is, what happens?
The cops show up, and they do not care about your religion, your life story, or anything other than getting you downtown and into the system. Our judicial system does not care one iota what you think you deserve. Not one.
So why dispense with the rule of law when the same person doesn’t come from this country? It does not matter why. It does not matter what they “deserve” (see above). Arrest, try, convict, and imprison. It’s what we do, and I believe it works, though just barely. It will work much better when marijuana is legalized, for example, esp. in CA.
When we go to war, we do away with the rule of law. When we repeatedly lie to our country about why, we forfeit any hope of victory. When we torture, we forfeit our very soul. And we are paying a dreadful price that is only beginning to become due.
And how does American torture improve this situation? It has had quite the opposite effect, and will for many years to come.
But it’s not too late to resolve it. Prosecutions, I’m afraid, are the only route at this point. What was done was needless, inhumane, and demonstrably illegal. We became the Them we so despise.
This is the image the world has of us, and none of us are going anywhere. The presidency needs our support to dig out of this awful mess.
Because either we are a nation of laws or we are not.
>>or am I still failing one or more of your litmus tests for civil debate?>>
Yes. You don’t address the issues.
The issue was – originally – what was teabagging. That question answered, the issue then migrated to why members of the so-called MSM were so irresistibly given over to sophomoric titillation instead of just straight reports about the events. You then went directly to “it’s not them – it’s you …you’re (those commenting) so old fashioned and prudish” – which has nothing to do with the MSM reporting on events instead of having a good ole boys meeting on tv. And of course, the mandatory “nobody should criticize the president…it’s _so_ unamerican”
>>because the truth revealed about history in the information age is that most of history — the vast majority of it — is irrelevant.>>
You must be very young.
>>I assume that the next comments will be to the effect of “who me???>>
Heh. Was I right or was I right!
Charles, I deliberately did not descend into a litany of charges, my apologies. The torture memos are available online, as are other documents. I assume you know how to search with the Google, yes?
Torture by itself is a huge problem. America signed documents with other countries indicating we would not torture. Any court case even REMOTELY connected to that DoJ is now threatened, because so much of this turns on credibility, the basis for findings of reasonable doubt. This amounts to justice tampering, and it is a serious felony.
Your Chinese proverb is a compelling case on which is history *is* history, and who gets to decide? The information age has made quite the soup of it. If you studied the 70 million farmers, one might, at some level, discover 70 million different, albeit closely related, histories. Which one is right?
I think a lot of younger people have simply decided it doesn’t matter. They would tell you to apply the rule of law if you have trouble with your neighbor, though we must ignore they are proudly quoting Doug Louwellan in the process.
>>When we repeatedly lie to our country about why>>
What lies? Be specific.
>>we forfeit any hope of victory.>>
You must have missed the news. We won.
>>we are paying a dreadful price that is only beginning to become due. >>
Oh my. That does sound dreadful. What price? Be specific. When will it come due?
suek:
Your link at comment #34 was spot-on! Interesting to find out Marioth’s response to that link.
Marioth/Knauer:
And Wikipedia tells them tea parties were about taxes, and there are presently no bills before Congress regarding taxes.
I went to Thomas in the Library of Congress website, and typed in “to amend the internal revenue code” for bills in the 111th Congress. THERE ARE THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY EIGHT SUCH BILLS. ( I scrolled through the list, and all/nearly all of them are pending bills.)
And you inform us “there are presently no bills before Congress regarding taxes”?
Maybe “troll” doesn’t describe you, but I am unable to think of any complimentary words to describe such ignorance or misinformation. Lemme tell ya something. People on this site who make undocumented yet easily refuted claims are not respected. It might be said that those who make undocumented yet easily refuted claims do not pass the litmus test for civil debate.
Suek: >>or am I still failing one or more of your litmus tests for civil debate?>>
Yes. You don’t address the issues.
I most certainly did address teabagging. Perhaps you were too preoccupied with the smugness of how “right” you are about me, though you do not, in truth, know me from a block of gub’ment cheese.
Having passed that test, what else must I do?
>>Prosecutions, I’m afraid, are the only route at this point.>>
Why?
>>What was done was needless,>>
Wrong. It served a purpose – we needed intelligence to forestall future losses.
>>inhumane,>>
Eh. Maybe. Maybe not so bad – no permanent damage.
>> and demonstrably illegal.>>
Wrong again. Not by our own laws. That’s why you had lawyers giving legal opinions. If there was no question about the legality, there would have been no “opinions”…it would have been clear cut.
>>We became the Them we so despise.>>
Wrong again. How many died as a result of our actions after they were imprisoned? (don’t even try to count those who chose to die through self-starvation)
>>This is the image the world has of us,>>
And yet they still keep coming.
>> and none of us are going anywhere.>>
Dang right. You could leave anytime and count yourself one of those other “moral” countries…
Marioth, your indifference to the point I was making about Mao’s slaughter is chilling. You are seriously contending that the deliberate murder of 70 million human beings is not objectively wrong, but simply part of millions of narratives that you have consigned to some Information Age soup.
And yet on the other hand, you are almost beside yourself at the possibility that the U.S. tortured some people.
Here, let me take a page from your book: Who is to decide that the U.S. was guilty of war crimes? After all, history is a soup. If we were to look closely at everybody’s thoughts and motivations, how could we possibly determine that anybody did anything “wrong” since your brand of history tells us there is no such thing?
>>Perhaps you were too preoccupied with the smugness of how “right” you are about me, though you do not, in truth, know me from a block of gub’ment cheese.>>
Ah yes. That would be straight to the personal insult level. Typical.
Gringo, the point is, no young person is going to give a hoot about taxes when the plan is reduce taxes for the vast majority.
And I assume everyone is capable of searching for themselves. I do not approach conversations not bent on discrediting those I do not know, but listening to what they have to say. Everyone has their own blogging style, I guess. My apologies for not performing my duties as your personal encyclopedia.
You can woefully attempt to discredit me, and torture is still illegal.
Oh brother.
>>no young person is going to give a hoot about taxes when the plan is reduce taxes for the vast majority. >>
So tell us, wise one…how does someone have their taxes reduced when they pay no taxes in the first place?
Then pray tell, if taxes for the vast majority are reduced while the debt is tripled and quadrupled, how will the debt be paid?
>>My apologies for not performing my duties as your personal encyclopedia.>>
Yadda yadda yadda….
Charles, let us suppose I render a judgment that Mao is guilty of war crimes. By today’s standards, that is most certainly true. And this will be published, and likely outweigh by several parts per 100,000, along side those who support Mao. How do you intend to tell the reader who was right and who was wrong?
I am not debating the morality of Mao. I am describing the reality of the effect the internet has on what is historic.
Gringo’s example was perfect because of what he (she?) chose to type in to refute my weak claims. What if she (he?) had gone to another source and been told differently? Which is the authority in that moment? How many sites For and how many Agin make up a true cross-section of analysis on the subject?
Not only is what we call “history” changing, so are what we used to call “facts.” It means we’re going to have to spend a LOT more time trying to hear each other. And anyone with kids in this era has my sympathies! A lot to mind!
suek, I, too, keep wondering where all of the payback for $10 trillion in debt is going to come from if the “vast majority” have their taxes reduced.
Is there some sort of magic a**hole that government has where it can pull wealth from?
I just told my 24-year-old son the other day that he is now a permanent part-time worker for the federal government. He’s one of those youths that Marioth claims don’t care about taxes.
I predict within a year he’ll care a lot when he sees his buying power obliterated by inflated dollars and a total ramping up of indirect taxes and fees.
Suek: So tell us, wise one…how does someone have their taxes reduced when they pay no taxes in the first place?
Then pray tell, if taxes for the vast majority are reduced while the debt is tripled and quadrupled, how will the debt be paid?
Oh the debt will never be repaid. Cannot be repaid. We’re getting into numbers where the debt will be firmly in place come the swelling of the sun. Any talk of taxes on individuals to fix this mess is a pipe dream.
Because of the way the economy has become a global network, solutions must emanate from and be implemented by everyone. We’re going to sink or swim together, and I do not think most Americans appreciate to what degree we are linked to the rest of the planet. But it appears they are starting.
As for the accounting tricks, we are discussing Washington, right?
Marioth, honest, this is where you place your own arguments in self-defeating twists.
The objective fact is that Mao murdered millions. Nobody disputes that fact. But you dispute whether we can say that Mao was wrong. This means that you do not believe in right or wrong in any objective manner.
OK, I can accept that you are a modern young man who has decided that quaint notions like “facts” and “truth” and “right and wrong” are irrelevant. Yet in the next breath you assert the “facts” and “truth” that the U.S. is guilty of war crimes?
Now how do you prove your assertion? With “facts?” Who says your “facts” are “true?”
Honest, Marioth, aren’t you appalled that you cannot see instantly that what Mao did was evil? That you equivocate when the normal human response would be to gasp in horror and disbelief?
>>I do not think most Americans appreciate to what degree we are linked to the rest of the planet. But it appears they are starting.>>
Do you think this is a good thing?
>>Oh the debt will never be repaid. Cannot be repaid. We’re getting into numbers where the debt will be firmly in place come the swelling of the sun. Any talk of taxes on individuals to fix this mess is a pipe dream. >>
And you’re ok with this too??
Maritoth:
For being called on stating something that was an outright misstatement/lie, that is your response? Definitely a non-apology sort of apology.
No, you owe an apology for stating something that was easily refuted, for presenting misinformation.
Your lack of a sincere apology, which I took as an insult, shows there is no point in further debate with you.
>>let us suppose I render a judgment that Mao is guilty of war crimes. By today’s standards, that is most certainly true.>>
By “today’s” standards? So then 50 years from now, all the standards may be different? So what’s to say that in 50 years torture might not be just fine and dandy?
I do note that you don’t say it’s “wrong”, but rather that it’s “illegal”.
If Mao did nothing “wrong”, was what he did “illegal”? If not, why not?
suek, I’m OK with it because it’s my son and his children that will have to pay it off. Phew, anytime I can shift the load to somebody else, I’m a happy man!
In the meantime, I’ll be getting all my Boomer goodness—Medicare and Social Security, with eternally escalating benefits thanks to my
suckerpatriotic son and his generation.Life is good!
And the good news, Charles, is that as young as “Marioth” seems to be, he’ll be paying for us both!
I’m _so_ glad he accepts that burden so willingly…!
Suek: Wrong. It served a purpose – we needed intelligence to forestall future losses.
I predict it will serve to land the people who authorized it in jail. Your argument has been repeatedly refuted as a matter of law.
Did you read the memos? Is this what you want done to our soldiers? Is this what you want your son or daughter to face in county jail? The image you have of torturing information out of people is a rather sick fantasy.
Made manifest, it is quite illegal.
Charles, I reserve my emotional considerations of Mao’s crimes for other audiences. No offense intended. I was discussing history. There exists a pathway from here to an emergent China where Mao will be all the rage again. I’d say by 2020, 2025 latest. Who will guide children of that era into knowing who Mao *was*?
If we do not stick to the rule of law, the answer, and indeed the point I am trying to make, is no one.
So…we can change the law. There. Problem solved.
>>Is this what you want done to our soldiers?>>
You really are an idiot. Our soldiers go through waterboarding and other “torture” so that they can be prepared in some measure for the possibility of being taken prisoner. Unfortunately there isn’t a heck of a lot we can do to prepare them for beheading.
>>in county jail>>
In county jail????? We’re talking about _WAR_ here…not your local lock up.
Since we’ve all learned about the connection between tea bags and scroti, I propose we create some other sexual euphemisms:
—Frankfurthering: Running a protiable prostitution ring out of a congressman’s apartment.
—Pyscho Delic: Jeanine Garafolo raiding the local Jewish meat counter.
—Coffee Grind: Suggestive hip movements made by a dusky-skinned person.
—Plotz Device: In bed a technique designed to evoke an o**sm.
—Shrink Rapt: A psychological term denoting a man obssessed with the size of his Frankfurther.
—Jump Your Bones: A reference to Medicare investigators putting the moves on one’s doctor.
—Chew the Fat: What Barney Frank’s friends do after they kiss him.
>>I reserve my emotional considerations of Mao’s crimes for other audiences.>>
So…right and wrong are – for you – simply an emotional response?
Sadie…Sadie….
We have another list!!
>>Oh the debt will never be repaid. Cannot be repaid. We’re getting into numbers where the debt will be firmly in place come the swelling of the sun. Any talk of taxes on individuals to fix this mess is a pipe dream. >>
And you’re ok with this too??
What I am OK with, given the kingly sum we’re discussing, is quite irrelevant. Ditto, the world economy. This is the hand we have. We’re just not playing it very well, and complaining about it seems to have accomplished nothing.
Which brings us back to the presidency, still in need of our support. For all the ills now summed up in over 60 posts, he’s still our president. I’m not sure where else to apply the pressure. Congress, too, but they are weak in this era.
Marioth:
When you get a chance, Google the reference “men without chests.” It’s a phrase coined 60 or so years ago by C.S. Lewis.
See if you see yourself in it.
Ok…so for Marioth, laws are immutable, but history is irrelevant and can be changed at will, and the concepts of right and wrong are simply emotional responses.
Dang. Wonder what all those lawyers find to argue about – after all…the law is clear…no?
Profitable, not protiable.
>>Which brings us back to the presidency, still in need of our support. >>
No…what this presidency needs is our ouster.
Would that we had a congress with the teabags to do the job.
In county jail????? We’re talking about _WAR_ here…not your local lock up.
If we do not prosecute torture, we are giving a green light to all law enforcement, and not just in this country.
>>What I am OK with, given the kingly sum we’re discussing, is quite irrelevant.>>
Do you have any concern where the money comes from? I mean…since we have no hope of reducing it, in your eyes? Do you have any idea what happens when a country goes bankrupt? (meaning, other countries won’t loan them any more money because they can’t even pay the interest on what they’ve borrowed. Cuba, for example)
>>If we do not prosecute torture, we are giving a green light to all law enforcement, and not just in this country.>>
This is so wrong on every level.
You have not established that a law was broken.
Federal law is not the same as State law or local ordinances.
NATO has just released 7 pirates who were holding some 20 prisoners because they had no purvue under NATO auspices to arrest them. _THAT_ kind of “not just in this country” law?
The kind of law enforcement the UN is imposing on Iran and N.Korea???? _THAT_ kind of law enforcement???
Charles, I am familiar with the reference, and no, I do not see myself in that role. I have quite the fine chest, thank you.
I do observe that our shared values are expressed, as a People, in the law. It’s far from perfect, and it never will be, because we are a society in constant motion.
If a vote is held, a majority declare a thing legal or not, so goes our values and judgment. The rule of law, then, unites, as Lewis put it, the “visceral man,” and the “intellectual” man. Our judicial system is designed to be the fulfillment of this bargain, though it has horrible flaws. State-sanctioned anal rape asylums affectionately known as “prisons,” for example.
Torture crosses a perilous line, and it sounds like SueK can’t get her (his?) hands on the white hot nails quick enough. And this saddens me. The rule of law is by far the stronger response.
SueK: Do you have any concern where the money comes from? I mean…since we have no hope of reducing it, in your eyes? Do you have any idea what happens when a country goes bankrupt? (meaning, other countries won’t loan them any more money because they can’t even pay the interest on what they’ve borrowed. Cuba, for example)
Oh boy, since you have been blunt, I will return the favor: it will not matter. The effects of climate change will take over long before any worries over bankruptcy. China won’t let us go under. We need too many Kewpie dolls. Most of the future world economy will be about the ongoing disaster recovery needed to hold back the water. And I really don’t care if it’s man-made. You do not have to be a genius to see putting ice, millions of years in the making and not coming back, into the ocean raises the level of water. The sea ice is gone, and it holds back the land sheets, which are now slipping into the drink. All the models have been wrong. It’s not happening in the future. It’s happening now.
So no, bankruptcy doesn’t bother me a bit, mostly because it will never happen.
>>The effects of climate change will take over long before any worries over bankruptcy.>>
Ah. You mean global cooling due to lack of sun spots?
>>You do not have to be a genius to see putting ice, millions of years in the making and not coming back, into the ocean raises the level of water.>>
Mmm. I propose an experiment. Take a measuring cup – preferably a transparent one designed to measure liquids rather than solids. Pour water into that cup up to the 1/2 cup level. Now add enough ice to bring the level up to the 3/4 mark. Go away and read a book for a couple of hours. By then the ice will have melted. What is the level of the water in the measuring cup?
And this is for good measure…so to speak…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html
>>The effects of climate change will take over long before any worries over bankruptcy.>>
Ah. You mean global cooling due to lack of sun spots?
Call it what you will. The water will be coming.
>>The water will be coming.>>
Proof?
SueK: Go away and read a book for a couple of hours. By then the ice will have melted. What is the level of the water in the measuring cup?
Then you do no understand the problem. It’s the land ice sheets, now without buttress, that are falling into the sea, and this will raise the level of the ocean.
The sea ice is a warning that we freely ignore.
>>The water will be coming.>>
Proof?
You do not require proof. Your mind is made up.
You are, of course, free to torture it out of me…
>>You are, of course, free to torture it out of me…>>
Not possible if the facts are not there.
Didn’t check the link, did you!
The media is reporting all sides of the event.
I have studied propaganda and conducted some basic exercises and analysis on the topic. I can say that that statement is entirely false.
A propagandist knows first off that there are only two sides to an issue. My side and the side that I created for you to believe in.
There are no other sides.
The propagandee, the consumer of propaganda, only ever has two sides to an issue. All they see is their side and the side of the propagandists. They seem to think that this constituents “both sides”, but we are dealing with human perceptions and when people become capable of manipulating human perception, there is no such thing as a “side”. There is only victory and defeat. Belief and disbelief.
In conclusion, when the media reports the Leftist propagandist line and reports what Obama voters think is true, this is not “reporting all sides of the event”. Propagandists understand how this is, even if we do not.
Marioth:
I’m afraid your chest may not be in as fine a fettle as you claim. A man with a chest does not dismiss a calamity like mass murder by calling concern about it “emotional.” (By the way, a man with a chest is not ruled by emotion but by the tao.)
A man with a chest does not deny such a thing as natural law, then in the next breath say that all laws are man-made and can be changed by a majority vote, then fail to see the irony that if we decide by majority vote to make torture legal, he will not not have a leg to stand on.
I’m off to a dinner party.
Marioth, again, welcome to the site. I hope you’ll find this place sharpens your skills and that you come back. It’s always fun to joust with a new contributor.
Rather than arguing at the idea level, liberal blogs and comments tend to revolve in terms of insults framed using words such as turd, sh*t, etc.
They don’t really give much consideration to a methodical analysis of ideas and consequences. This is such because they naturally give greater credence to emotion, not because they thought this over and realized emotion was more powerful than reason, but because emotion controls them and thus why should it not control the rest of us? They cannot envision a different reality. Sure, when the CHomskies and the Soros exist to tell the Left what to do in terms of strategy, they start producing attacks and what not. You may call that thinking, of a sort. But when the puppetmaster disappears, when the strings of the puppet are cut, what you see is their natural reversion back to primal instincts. They revert back to what assume is the most powerful motivation in human affairs: emotional appeal. They do not produce ideas, because that is not what they are used to, Book. They didn’t come up with the ideas of the Left in the first place. They are just the reporters, the editors, the ones that make legal policy, etc. They are not the philosophers or the leaders, just the cannon fodder.
All of this is too confusing for me.
It is all about isolation and divide and conquer strategies, Book. You have studied war. You know about such things.
You set up a strawman arguement: either cross your arms for 4 years and throw a tantrum, OR support Obama.
Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.
But it does work that way. For the Left. Because they never practiced Loyal Opposition, they never went out of their way to limit their criticisms so it did not harm national security, they did not place any effort into a Loyal Opposition. To them, it is either support the President or sabotage him, and thus, the nation.
There is no other option for the Left, because they refused all alternatives from the rest of us. It is, however, indicative of a very primitive and parochial viewpoint. Not very in line with modern views or sentiments or expectations. People that support Obama may as well be living in the 12th century under Kings and military dictatorships. Their amount of enlightenment would be just adequate for that time period.
So, your response to behavior you do not like is more of the same behavior? This is more arm-crossing, I’m afraid.
It is called the moral high ground. We have it, they do not. America has it, the terrorists do not. It is very simple here once the intelligence analysis has been brought in from the battlefields.
Suek: So tell us, wise one…how does someone have their taxes reduced when they pay no taxes in the first place?
How does a serf become free when every day he goes into more debt than the total annual sum of his salary?
It’s called the cycle of slavery, which is something people are not concerned with because they have been diverted by the cycle of violence. People forgot to mention that slavery was one of the best starters for violence.
The Left believes that a top down society is the state of perfection. They believe so because, as they have demonstrated to us, you can’t trust a Leftist without his minders and puppet masters around to tell him what to do. Otherwise he goes dangerous or insane or anti-social. The Left doesn’t trust people because the Left cannot trust its own. And we all know why via history.
However, we on the other hand, do not really see a nation owned entirely by the payments of the rich as being a particularly equal or just state of affairs. We do not want to be owned by those with more money than us and no free man or woman would willingly have a “sugar daddy” come in and take care of all expenses at the expense of liberty and freedom.
This, of course, does not to even mention the fact that the rich Democrats won’t pay a damn thing while we will toil the soil for their benefit.
Thank you all for a spirited debate!
Marioth, you may not be a troll but you are a babbler. Or a babbling troll.
Actually, I suspect you are a college freshman, or maybe a sophomore, with your head recently stuffed with good old fashioned propaganda. Or have I advanced you too far through our educational system?
Or is that you Michelle?
One point. The reason people on this forum are not supportive of our President is because we listen to what he says, and believe him. We watch what he is trying to do, and can project where it is headed. We have studied our history; some have lived it. We know what his mentor Saul Alinsky says, and what he means; and from whence his thinking was derived. I recommend you look at the book “Defiance” and read the tactics that the Soviet Union used in Poland in 1939. The description is too chillingly similar to what Alinsky writes, and what we see trying to work in this country right now.
It is fascinating, in the sense that any disgusting act is fascinating, that people who as recently as last year were labeling dissent the “highest form of patriotism”, are now screeching for lock-step support. Get used to it. People who actually have a stake in this country, and have sworn to defend it, are not going to sit idly by and watch it turned into something foreign. We will organize, we will gather to demonstrate our commitment, and we will see you at the polling places sooner than you think.
Ruth H, I understand what you are saying. Isn’t it strange that those attributes formerly known as taste, sensitivity and discretion are all now labeled prudish? What I don’t understand is why these liberated people who have pushed so far beyond “prudish” are not happier with their lives. Like anything else, I suppose, sex becomes stale and new “adventures” are required to stimulate; along with some chemical enhancement to sharpen the experience. Finally, it has no meaning. Even pigs have purpose; only humans have forgotten.
>>We watch what he is trying to do, and can project where it is headed.>>
Because history is _not_ irrelevant…
Oldflyer…
Do you mean this?
“Defiance is a book, first published 1951 in Calcutta, by Savitri Devi.” (from Wikipedia. All other references were to films or plays)
If not, then what?
You do not require proof. Your mind is made up.
As propagandists like to say, everyone’s mind is made up.
Made up exactly to specifications of high and low propaganda.
If we do not prosecute torture, we are giving a green light to all law enforcement, and not just in this country.
If there are no prosecutions of torture, you say that this will produce incidents of torture from law enforcement. Ipso facto, since we have no prosecutions for torture related incidents among military members, there should be a green light to all law enforcement, resulting in numerous incidents. These incidents would have been reported endlessly by the “all sides” media reminiscent of Ghenghis Khan or Abu Ghraib.
Except for the fact that none of the conclusions solidifed, this sounds very logical.
Once you re-engineer the back trail of the logic train, what this tends to mean is that the incidents of torture do not exist to be prosecuted. Not under Bush and not under Obama after Bush.
How many sites For and how many Agin make up a true cross-section of analysis on the subject?
There’s a cultural artifact here.
Classifying sources from an academic or scholarly perspective is not the same thing as classifying sources from a psychological warfare, an intelligence agency perspective, or from a strategic context.
It is a cultural artifact that people related or involved with Marxist-Leninism do not understand or accept that the Left is and has always been at war with the bedrock principles of liberty and economic justice/prosperity. They insist on framing the issues in an academic, Wade Churchill like, Ayers mentality, Multi-Cultural LBGT community symbiosis instead of what it truly is: war.
It is as if they wage war on the orders of the Leftist intellectuals without truly understanding to what Khomeini like end they are really heading towards. Cannon fodder is a popular terminology. But it was never the US military in Iraq that was the cannon fodder.
It means we’re going to have to spend a LOT more time trying to hear each other.
Propaganda is not about hearing each other. No rhetorician stands there and tries to “listen to the audience”, allowing the audience to set the pace. Rhetoric is to speak, to control, and to manipulate the reactions and emotions of the audience. Not the other way around.
There is this confusion that Leftist pseudo intellectuals and mass murdering advocates and socialist democratic mentalities are somehow here to “lead us” to a better future from which equality will spring up. That could not be further from the truth.
Obama’s ability with rhetoric does not allow him to hear any of us. They are not here to lead us to where we need to go.
People insist on staying within the fantasy delusion of believing that their leaders actually are there to listen. They are there to lead, which is not the same thing. But with Leftist Academia, I suppose leading and sitting around in a meeting being bored stiff “listening” is about the same thing in the end. Without the need to contend with reality and the challenges of external threats, leadership devolves into nothing but “debate” and “hearing”. Real communication is left adrift, because if you can’t understand even the power and purpose of rhetoric, how can anyone understand the true potential and dangers of propaganda and psychological warfare?
So many millions of Americans were mesmerized by Obama because they had forgotten that civil liberties in a democracy are not taken away by a Satan like image or a disaster shadowed leader. But even more important than what they forgot was what they had never been taught, never been allowed to learn: the power of propaganda and psychological manipulation. These people devoted to Obama didn’t learn a single thing about the subtleties of how humans can be and are manipulated. Humans don’t change, only the time and the world changes around us. And history is replete with the knowledge of how to manipulate the human species on issues grand and small. Which is why history is now verboten. Only a weak and palsy version of history has been allowed through the fake liberal filter.
So, personally, i’m not going to spend much time trying to hear what people are saying about themselves. Instead, I’m going to devote my energies to where they should go. I’m going to figure out what people’s buttons are and how they are being manipulated and by whom and in what specific fashion. These are the important things. Such are examples and expressions of how power functions in a human hierarchy.
I perfectly understand how those who cannot even grasp basic human emotional manipulation would be so incapable of tolerating physical and physiological manipulation by the name of torture. One must have trainer wheels before the real thing, after all.
The Left are quite familiar with the aforementioned methods. They simply are too cowardly and weak to upgrade their processes in a nation full of armed people. But as history showed, they would not have been so reticent in another time or place.
Honing our arguments…
This morning, I asked a question about the sexual innuendo behind the word “teabagging” (since other bloggers have noticed a sneering, locker room quality to MSM reports on the Tea Parties). To date, there have been 94 comments on that……
In the New Testament, the disciples are admonished that when they encounter somebody who is so totally mired in ignorance and denial that he cannot entertain any sort of argument that challenges him that they are “to shake the dust off their sandals and move on.”
The encounter with Marioth reminded me of that. I don’t think I have run into such a bundle of illogic and self-contradiction since Helen Losse. It’s almost breathtaking how such an intelligent young man (I Googled him and saw that he’s a pretty good computer consultant) can be so obtuse, unable to see the unintelligibility of his arguments or his—to me, demoralizing—almost total lack of knowledge of history or moral reasoning.
What calamity created these “trousered apes,” people so lacking in the knoweldge of (or curiosity about) anything beyond the pap they were fed in college that they can strut their iognorance on our stage and be amazed that we groan instead of applaud?
We are in serious trouble. There are so many like him, clad in the garb of rationality and civility, but really more like 4 year olds playing dress up. It is very hard to reason with a childish mind that, like all childish minds, is convinced it knows all things.
Suek, no I refer to “Defiance” by Nechama Tec. It is based on the true story of three Jewish brothers who escaped into the forests of Belorussia when the Germans invaded Poland. They established a resistance movement that saved many Polish Jews. But, the passage I referred to was from earlier and discusses the methods the Soviets used to undermine Polish government and society in 1939.
Charles #97:
I followed the postings between you, suek and marioth. I call them “postings” because I don’t want to call it a debate.
It reminds me of the email discussions I frequently have with a very liberal friend of mine. I believe I remember and make use of his positions. I find him simply stating and supporting his own beliefs, and he almost never seems to even remember my own positions. We spend 10% of our time in actual meaningful discussion, and the rest of the time in restating the same positions over and over.
These days I usually get the debates to boil down back to the same basic positions that we disagree on; then I say we’re back at the same old, same old positions, and call it a stopping point.
My friend is not as bad as marioth, but what I’ve learned is you’ll *never* convince an idealogue that he or she is wrong. So I’d state my arguments for *other* readers who may be looking for answers to their own uncertainties… never at an idealogue such as marioth. It’s a complete waste of time.
My friend is not as bad as marioth, but what I’ve learned is you’ll *never* convince an idealogue that he or she is wrong.
You cannot do so because they lack all self-doubt. And it is only from doubt that wisdom begins.
>>And it is only from doubt that wisdom begins.>>
Hmmm. Doubt? I don’t think that’s necessarily so. Willingness to consider facts that might alter your position, yes – but that’s not the same as doubt. Nobody knows everything – and even if you did, things change and alter what you knew.
But that’s not doubt.
>>These days I usually get the debates to boil down back to the same basic positions that we disagree on>>
Are there any positions on which you agree? Or can you go back on the basic disagreements and find out if there are assumptions that are the source of your disagreements? Or are the assumptions where you start? (for example, the assumption that all people are entitled to food and a roof over their head )
I don’t think that’s necessarily so.
It is necessarily so.
Willingness to consider facts that might alter your position, yes – but that’s not the same as doubt.
Nobody would alter their position unless they doubted that their position was true. Without doubt, where is this willingness to consider alternative realities and facts?
Charles, let us suppose I render a judgment that Mao is guilty of war crimes. By today’s standards, that is most certainly true. And this will be published, and likely outweigh by several parts per 100,000, along side those who support Mao. How do you intend to tell the reader who was right and who was wrong?
it is what wars are for. To decide once and for all, which end of the cycle of justice gets to be the last segment of the piece.
When you kill off all your opponents, or almost all of them, then you will have won. Why do you think Nazism is universally, almost, considered (the Left) to be an evil thing? The truth is, they couldn’t care less about Nazism. But the common perception is that Nazism is evil. And why is that? Because war made it so by killing off a lot of Nazis.
People make big bones about war and how horrible it is, when the very base of their arguments are based upon majority rules, i.e. killing off the opposition.
>>Nobody would alter their position unless they doubted that their position was true. Without doubt, where is this willingness to consider alternative realities and facts?>>
Which came first – chicken or egg?
Let’s say that I’m very sure of my position. I have all the relevant information I need to draw a conclusion, and I have done so. I have no doubt.
You come along and say “Aha! But did you know _this_?” I recognize that I did _not_ know “this”, and it then does raise a doubt in my mind (if I’m a conservative, that is. Libs need not apply – never a doubt regardless of how much new information you give them!). Doubt being raised, I now consider the new information you’ve given me, and decide if my position is still solid, or if I need to reconsider – or whether the new information causes me to look even further.
Initially, however, I did not doubt my position. It’s the new information that makes a difference.
Perhaps what you’re calling “doubt”, I’m calling “willingness to listen to new information”? I’d call that “open minded”. To me, doubt means I’m not sure of my position. I don’t consider open minded and doubt to be the same.
Oldflyer…
Looks definitely worthwhile…
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/European/?view=usa&ci=0195093909
https://www.discountbooksale.com/store/productView.aspx?idProduct=781635&ec=1&ProdId=112&AWTrck=1043758647&gclid=CMTInMSa_pkCFSMSagodpRhJFg
Perhaps what you’re calling “doubt”, I’m calling “willingness to listen to new information”?
It’s a matter of philosophy. Willingness is just a facet of human motivation. A human desire or reward feedback loop. Doubt, however, has certain philosophical connotations.
For example, doubt is part of epistemology. It is part of the theory of knowledge, a system designed to illuminate exactly what is knowledge, how it can be acquired, and how do you determine whether knowledge is knowledge.
You may have heard about skeptics. Well, in philosophy there are Skeptics. Those of the school of thought that believes knowledge is unknowable, that there is no knowledge. I do not mean that wisdom requires that you believe that knowledge cannot be known, thus I use doubt and not skepticism.
Because human nature is flawed, there is always some doubt concerning our judgments. While the Left takes an unhealthy obsession over for this for their own partisan and anti-human objectives, there must always be a sufficient amount of doubt present due to the fact that humans are, by natural law, flawed. Hubris leads to a fall precisely because one has no doubt and thus one does not trouble oneself to seek true knowledge. Doubt sets you on the path to true knowledge, because it causes you to question. A willingness to simply “listen” is not necessarily the same as what causes people to question. Listening is not the same as questioning. But doubt questions and causes people to question, themselves, each other, etc.
I recognize that I did _not_ know “this”
There’s a logical paradox here in the example you presented. If a person believes that he knows everything of worth concerning a subject, he would have to dump his entire conception pool when he accepts that you had brought something new and unknown to him. And he would not begin to accept it until and unless he started doubting himself and the veracity of his prior judgments.
This is related to the Change of Minds related by Bookworm and Neo-Neocon, which was neither easy nor fast.
But, to most people, this never happens. They refuse to accept that it has, you see.
Initially, however, I did not doubt my position. It’s the new information that makes a difference.
Concerning the positions people hold, that has to do with epistemology as well in this fashion. Information, by itself, is meaningless unless processed first through one’s epistemology, theory of knowledge. You see, it doesn’t matter whether a person doubts a fact or a situation or a facet or a report. What matters is how they process it. This is a facet and derivative of propaganda as well. Epistemology concerns itself wholly with how people process information and then decide that this piece is knowledge while the other piece isn’t.
Thus, doubt is not primarily important because it makes people doubt people, objects, sources, information, data, or their own knowledge.Doubt is primarily important because it allows people to question their entire theory of knowledge, in order to improve upon it, fix it, or destroy it entirely and start over.
Thus a person could or could not doubt their position, in the example you raised, but they must always doubt that their theory of knowledge is the correct theory of knowledge if they are ever to keep their feet on the path to enlightenment.
It does not matter whether a person doubts a specific piece of information as being true. That is not nearly as important as a person’s epistemology. It is why the Left can filter so many of what we say out. It does not conform to their thinking, their facts, their reality: their epistemology.