A Question of, ‘Civility’, Between Opposing Ideologies…

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Hahaha, this place wouldn't be the same with outcha Jim!

Two or three of the guys wanna have my baby.

 

[Austin8]

Two or three of the guys wanna have my baby.

who knows he might be prezedent one day!

 

[amicus]

Oh, I understand Amicus.
I agree with you in general, it's just that I feel that showing civility to others respects their rights to be a weird as they want to. I was just joking about the voices in your head.

One problem with living your life, "Full Throttle" is that sometimes on a curvy path, you run off the road. Moderation in all things is a good maxim.

The problem in political arenas is that hammering on a fringe point alienates those who might otherwise be your allies. Also you loose their attention.[/QUOTE]

~~~~

"Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" Patrick Henry, just before the Colonies revolted against the Crown.

If you think the Virginia House of Commons, where that speech was delivered, was a polite and civil gathering; think again.

I would bet my best 'shooter' ( a marbles term from my youth), that neither Liar nor Pure would approve of the content or intent of Henry's words, nor would they ever utter such words of passion but would choose to retain their pristine purity in polite conversation as they lowered the noose over my neck.

Not to demean the ladies, cuz I love their silly little ways, but I classify Progressive left wing liberals as, 'feminine', because lacking the strength, or intelligence to combat an idea head on, they attempt to talk their opponent to death.

'Civility' is one such method of suffocating an opposing argument. You openly advise me that you are going to force me to provide services and that you will dictate the terms and conditions. Let us suppose I happen to be a Medical Doctor and you are convinced you have the power to 'force' me to provide healthcare for you.

Have you heard that 45% of American Doctors, almost half, have stated that they will stop serving the public, retire, or change professions rather than submit to Obamacare, a pejorative for Socialized Medicine?

I have mortally wounded the progressive leftists here on the forum, by attacking the heart of the issues they represent; the use of force to impose their will upon others.

They know that I would never agree to submit to their grandiose altruistic plans for my enslavement. They also know that I, personally, represent just the, 'tip of the iceberg' of resistance that lies beneath the surface.

Right here on this forum, this microcosm of a much wider stage, just bubbling up now and then, are those still, 'independent thinkers', who are just beginning to understand the filth and evil nature of collectivism, altruism and the total loss of individual identity.

I rather think the poem I quoted is appropo, with the 'Night', ...do not go quietly into...,is the black hole of socialism, the sacrifice of the individual soul to the will of the collective. It was death the poet was addressing; it is the death of individuality to which I refer; the anology holds, thank you.

Amicus

 

[amicus]

Civility most certainly is important. Indeed, it's indispensable. Civility is not merely attachment to a set of empty gestures, though—it does not necessarily involve curtseys and elaborate hand-waves and calling each other by our titles and last names. It includes such things as refraining from outright lies, too.

I could get all academic about that and make a long lecture about Gricean Maxims, Daniel Dennett, the principles of critical thinking, and a host of other things, but in this place, I'd get calls of 'idiot!' just the same, so I'll save myself the trouble. Suffice it to say, civility, covering more than just 'manners', is a prerequisite of rational discourse, and when that prerequisite breaks down, all one gets is … braying.[/QUOTE]

~~~

I would not disagree that civility is important, Verdad, for certainly it is; and as politics has been described as "the art of compromise', civility has a place in political discourse...up to a point.

The point I made, purposely evaded, the Ghetto's of Warsaw, Poland, the Siberian execution farms of the Soviets, at what point does discourse become uncivil and how will you recognize that point of no return(movie, Bridget Fonda)?

There were those in both Russia and Germany, who recognized the coming evil and knew they could not 'civilly' respond to the threats. They either left, or in the case of some European Nations, became Resistance fighters, and not very civil ones at that.

I make a good point in this thread, it would behoove one to at least acknowledge it lest the darkness creep up and grap you while you sleep.

Amicus

 

[amicus]

Rhetoric is the art of using words to persuade.

I the context of the thread as I understand it, "civility" implies a certain rhetoric and the manners to debate politely.


(ducks down and hides from the incoming)

~~~

I pose you the same question I have others...at what point does the content of civility become more than rhetoric? When do you acknowledge a viable threat to your existence?

How long do you wait before you take action?

If the men. women and children, forced to wear the yellow star in Warsaw, knew what was coming, at what point should they have ceased being civil?

Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Teddy Roosevelt said that the best way to guarantee abuse is to walk away from a fight; and the best way to guarantee an ass whoopin is to be unprepared to fight.

 

[bronzeage]

Well Jim, you do have a certain southern charm...

Now you are just being nasty for no good reason.

 

[ishtat]

Irving Kristol

Irving Kristol was buried today. He more than any other conservative thinker influenced Ronald Reagan and has become labelled as the godfather of neo-conservatism. This man was a pragmatic but radical conservative yet unquestionably never anything other than a civil man . Incivility would have been abhorrent to Kristol yet much of his thinking resulted in real achievement.

I ask the question: How much of Amicus' political and social philosophy will have practical outcomes or is his thinking merely that of an overwhelming ego tilting at the windmills of his own demons?

 

[amicus]

Irving Kristol was buried today. He more than any other conservative thinker influenced Ronald Reagan and has become labelled as the godfather of neo-conservatism. This man was a pragmatic but radical conservative yet unquestionably never anything other than a civil man . Incivility would have been abhorrent to Kristol yet much of his thinking resulted in real achievement.

I ask the question: How much of Amicus' political and social philosophy will have practical outcomes or is his thinking merely that of an overwhelming ego tilting at the windmills of his own demons?[/QUOTE]

~~~

Thank you, ishtat, I had not heard the news.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=106684

To offer an anwer to your question myself, or at least the rational portion of it, 'practicality', probably none.

If you see it as Quioxtic, then fine, do so.

It was my conclusion thirty years ago when I published a small Broadside, "A Call to Convention, A Call to Arms", that the level of corruption within the US Government was so deep and the Constitutional premises, so weakened, that civil political remedies were no longer possible.

The only questioned unanswered, is if the American spirit will pass quietly into history or be revived by a rebirth of individual endeavor.

We shall see.

Amicus

 

[JackLuis]

The only questioned unanswered, is if the American spirit will pass quietly into history or be revived by a rebirth of individual endeavor.

We shall see.

Amicus[/QUOTE]

IMHO, the American people are too "civil" to rebel and take back their government. Or perhaps too coddled by the standard of living we have achieved to adopt a revolutionary course of action. Of course when the unemployment reaches a critical mass maybe then?

Can the Government's course be changed by a true grassroots movement to reestablish the rule of law and prosecute upper level criminals? Too many of our most notorious criminals have been handled with velvet gloves. Ken Lay is the example that comes to mind, with "Dick and W" and the AEI mafia.

I doubt I'll see it in my time.

 

[Verdad]

I would not disagree that civility is important, Verdad, for certainly it is; and as politics has been described as "the art of compromise', civility has a place in political discourse...up to a point.

The point I made, purposely evaded, the Ghetto's of Warsaw, Poland, the Siberian execution farms of the Soviets, at what point does discourse become uncivil and how will you recognize that point of no return(movie, Bridget Fonda)?

There were those in both Russia and Germany, who recognized the coming evil and knew they could not 'civilly' respond to the threats. They either left, or in the case of some European Nations, became Resistance fighters, and not very civil ones at that.

I make a good point in this thread, it would behoove one to at least acknowledge it lest the darkness creep up and grap you while you sleep.

Amicus

Well, Ami, I'm not sure what you're talking about. Like others, I have a hard time deciding if it's civility in discourse or in combat; since the latter doesn't make sense, I keep thinking it's the former. Certainly if someone breaks into my house, I'm not going to be 'civil' to him, unless in this context civility means refraining from excessive and unnecessary cruelty, like slicing him in pieces and feeding him to the dogs. Similar civility is extended to prisoners of war, on a larger scale, but it doesn't mean one will not do his utmost to fight, first.

I don't think that's what we're talking about, though. We're talking about opposing views, or differing political options, in the context of a democratic society, yes? And it's really not helpful to apply the paradigm of mortal combat to that. Not if the society is to maintain its cohesion, at any rate. The 'enemy' here is your people; the 'evil uber-lord' is your elected president. You've got to either settle your differences through civil means, or you're proposing a—(ha!)—civil war.

Of course, someone will inevitably say, "Damn straight, and let's not forget Adolf Hitler was lawfully elected too!" And that's just a perfect example of vile, incendiary, meaningless rhetoric we get these days. I could go on an entire tangent about this throwing about of Nazis and Hitlers left and right, how offensive it is, how it only teaches people to forget, reducing the unparalleled horrors of WWII to something like, "Well, Hitler is like, you know, a really mean schoolmaster, or like, a dude you really, really don't like."

But let's leave that aside. Let's examine just that one 'brilliant' comparison. So Hitler was elected, and so was Obama. The similarity sure is striking, so far. But then there are all the other elected presidents of the US, and all the other elected leaders of the modern Western world. Are all of them Hitler, too? Just when are we justified in making the comparison? Is it truly applicable to everyone I 'really, really don't like' and is any evidence necessary, beyond that?

This is how incivility does ugly things to discourse. Some will surely say, "aww, you've just being two sensitive!" but perhaps you, as a believer in rationality, will get my point. It's not about sensitivity, and it's not about my feewings about Obama. Got none, in any case. Incivility helps subvert discourse, though, and by that I mean, it helps subvert rational thinking of the participants. Incivility in discourse is a tool of propaganda, if you will; it increases vulnerability to emotional appeals, to disinformation and manipulation. If you're in business of manipulation—whether as a small-time psycho, pushing the buttons of your acquaintances, or as a big-time crook, pulling the strings of the masses—incivility is your best friend. To a person of reason, however, it is an anathema. I could send you books and articles, but take my word on it: more incivility means less overall acting on 'rational self-interest'.

Now, of course, you can tell me, okay, but what's new about this? For better or for worse, emotional appeals, including those of negative kind, are a big part of doing politics—political rhetoric was rife with them since the dawn of time, and since the advent of television, they're all that matters. Sadly, that is true. I'll leave it to your consideration, though, whether the road to mayhem and totalitarianism goes through critical consideration, respect for other individuals, and respect for institutions of society, or through spreading of ignorance, lies, hatred, fear, and dehumanization and disrespect of your fellow human beings.

To finally answer your question, "Is there a time when one must drop the niceties and fight the evil?" you know very well it's a non-question. "When is that time?" and "What is evil?" is where it's at. If in answering one doesn't consider very carefully, doesn't distinguish one's own aggression and bloodlust from what there's actually outside in the world, one might find himself emerging from a psychosis with a bloody knife, a body of an innocent who suddenly doesn't look like a fiend at all, and the evil, in the form of a nearest Iago or a nearest Goebbels, having a horse laugh.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I cant name anyone who was more courteous and civil and sedate than Abraham Lincoln; without benefit of any advantage, his debates are wonderfully lucid, commonsensical, direct, and honest. And he precipitated a war that killed 690,000 people. Forty-three percent of Americans elected him, and 57% of Americans hated him. I believe the government murdered him. But I love reading transcripts of his debates.

Lincoln was an orator, John Calhoun was an orator, Hitler was an orator. The old newsreels always depict Hitler as a wild man, but his biographers report that his oral violence was most always the caboose of calm, lucid, and logical argument. I study rhetoric. Your points come either at he beginning: FIRE! SNAKE! I HAVE A DREAM! or they come at the end: YES WE CAN! ASK NOT WHAT YOUR COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU, ASK WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY, WE HAVE NOTHING TO FEAR BUT FEAR ITSELF, KILL THE JEWS! Start with a BANG and take your auditors on a roller-coaster ride, or begin in a whisper and finish with an explosion.

But no one pays any attention to quiet debate unless its oratorical. And the rest is entertainment.

 

[ishtat]

Irving Kristol was buried today. He more than any other conservative thinker influenced Ronald Reagan and has become labelled as the godfather of neo-conservatism. This man was a pragmatic but radical conservative yet unquestionably never anything other than a civil man . Incivility would have been abhorrent to Kristol yet much of his thinking resulted in real achievement.

I ask the question: How much of Amicus' political and social philosophy will have practical outcomes or is his thinking merely that of an overwhelming ego tilting at the windmills of his own demons?[/QUOTE]

~~~

Thank you, ishtat, I had not heard the news.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=106684

To offer an anwer to your question myself, or at least the rational portion of it, 'practicality', probably none.

If you see it as Quioxtic, then fine, do so.

It was my conclusion thirty years ago when I published a small Broadside, "A Call to Convention, A Call to Arms", that the level of corruption within the US Government was so deep and the Constitutional premises, so weakened, that civil political remedies were no longer possible.

The only questioned unanswered, is if the American spirit will pass quietly into history or be revived by a rebirth of individual endeavor.

We shall see.

Amicus

Thank you for your response Amicus. In itself it tends to make my point for me. To the first part you acknowlwdged my 'legitimate' question. To the second part which I admit was deliberatly provocative, perhaps even uncivil (for the sake of the argument) you bristle a tad and then dismiss it.

Therefore it seems to me that my provocative inclusion did nothing to advance my original point and in so far as it was noticed it distracted from the original point not least by attracting 50% of the response.

Thus I would conclude that in the course of most debate it is generally better not to be unnecessarily provocative or uncivil precisely because it takes the debate away from the fundamental issue being argued.

However, there are times when events come to the point where this is not appropriate. At those times a reasonable argument can be made that the only way forward is to be as uncivil as possible.

Was Augustus civil when he created the Roman Empire from the shambles of the Republic. Cromwell was not civil when he said to the Parliament "In the name of God, Go." Neither was Napoleon when he subjugated the Directoire. The rhetoric of the American revolutionaries was uncompromisingly uncivil to the British as was Lenin's to Kerensky or Hitlers to The Wiemar republic.

Not all of these men were great and certainly not all good but all of them seized the accepted norms of debate of their own times and bent it to their own convictions - for good or evil.

So far as the current age is concerned I wholly agree with you on one point. I believe that goverment in the West has become hopelessly corrupted. US Congressmen, British MP's, Brussell's aparatchicks are only remarkable for their greed, their venality and the shared conviction that they can fool all of the people all of the time. They all interfere with their judiciaries which in turn restricts the rights of individuals.

I believe that dealing with this corruption is far more important than the traditional debates of right v left.

There will be a reckoning but when I cannot guess. When it does come it will be unexpected and will then spread like a grassfire. Joe Citizen will take so much but when he has had enough the debate, civil or uncivil will be replaced with action.

Until that time I prefer to debate with civility but so far as dealing with 'professional' politicians are concerned, the debate can be as uncivil as you like.

 

[Austin8]

We should be able to hit each other over the head with heavy clubs all day and then stroll off together, arm in arm, and enjoy a restorative drink together (and perhaps a cold compress) and pleasant conversation. IMO

 

[ishtat]

Where the hell is Roxanne anyway? Did she ever show her tits?

I believe Roxanne may have pulled stumps and left after being the brunt of some incivility.

Don't know whether her tits ever got as much exposure as her politics.

 

[oggbashan]

We should be able to hit each other over the head with heavy clubs all day and then stroll off together, arm in arm, and enjoy a restorative drink together (and perhaps a cold compress) and pleasant conversation. IMO

The Member of Parliament at Westminster have to be able to "pair" with a member of the other party if they need time away from Westminster to attend to other duties such as conferences, foreign trips or even family crises. The paired MPs are away together so that the balance of power between parties is maintained. Every Member has to know and work with at least two or three other Members to enable the UK's parliamentary system to operate effectively.

Cross-party cooperation on non-contentious issues is common. Even when the debate is ferocious, the argument ends when they leave the Chamber.

Unfortunately not all political debate follows the rules set out by Erskine May for UK Members of Parliament.

Og

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Most quarrels and debates degenerate to assertions that the opposition are entirely boy buggers. I WANNA SEE SOME PROOF THAT YOU DONT BUGGER BOYS! WHERE'S YOUR LINKS! YOU CALL THAT PROOF!

 

[Liar]

"Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" Patrick Henry, just before the Colonies revolted against the Crown.

If you think the Virginia House of Commons, where that speech was delivered, was a polite and civil gathering; think again.

I would bet my best 'shooter' ( a marbles term from my youth), that neither Liar nor Pure would approve of the content or intent of Henry's words, nor would they ever utter such words of passion but would choose to retain their pristine purity in polite conversation as they lowered the noose over my neck.

How little you know and how much you assume, and how fast you are to belittle and insult. You owe me a shooter.

Of course Patrick Henry could deliver his adress in high passion style. In that stuation and in that culture, that was a mode that worked. We remember it to this day because it was a speech that, in content and style, worked. There and then.

All I've said is that in the decorum you're in, throwing tantrums doesn't work. If your goal in a place like this is to convince others, incivility is counter productive.

Yell all you want if you live under the delusion that you're about to be hanged. It might make you feel good to let off steam. But the fact is that you will convince nobody of anything other than that you're a yeller. The reaction will not be "Oh I see now, amicus is so passionate, he must be right. We must do things his way." It will more likely be "Dear God what a drama queen, let's see if there are any adults to talk about this seriously with instead."

Even if you're right. This is not about who's right or wrong. It's about what kind of communication works. In this situation here. Being a screamer works in some context, and not in others. It's as blatantly simple as that.

 

[Liar]

We should be able to hit each other over the head with heavy clubs all day and then stroll off together, arm in arm, and enjoy a restorative drink together (and perhaps a cold compress) and pleasant conversation. IMO

Nah. Make up sex is where it's at.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

But LIAR, you bugger deaf dumb and blind boys!

 

[Liar]

So guard yer cornhole, jimbo.

 

[Pure]

ami stumbles along

ami wants to discuss whether to be civil in AH, and in ordinary conversations about politics, by saying, in effect,

_i'm going to assume the brown shirts are at my door and a hitler is in power, or about to be._

well, naturally, ami, pick up your uzi and fire away. and if you meet one of us 'libs,' who are actually tyrant supporters, scream 'pinko fascist, die!' and shoot us.

and no, i don't 'debate' someone trying to murder me; but i might well get on with defense instead of yelling "spawn of the devil" and "evil second hander." soldiers eschew rhetoric.

in the real world, the US has free speech, elections, and so on, it's just that the 'moral majority' found it ain't. and they're furious.

contrary to ami's point below, i'm all for impassioned speech, when you're trying to move the public or rally supporters; trotsky, hitler and churchill did. but lacking the emergency of imminent tyrrany (i.e. where dicsucssion and debate is of any relevance), one does best to have, additionally, some substance and logic to one's points. and to give ami credit, he often tries.

but then he starts to lose, and he hurls insults thick and fast; most observers see the situation for what it is.

i favor the most open debate possible at AH; and a colorful terms for the opponent's views are fine. but flaming and abuse need to be curbed; there has to be a modicum of civility for there to be either relaxed socializing or provocative discussion.


ami said,

"Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" Patrick Henry, just before the Colonies revolted against the Crown.


If you think the Virginia House of Commons, where that speech was delivered, was a polite and civil gathering; think again.

I would bet my best 'shooter' ( a marbles term from my youth), that neither Liar nor Pure would approve of the content or intent of Henry's words, nor would they ever utter such words of passion but would choose to retain their pristine purity in polite conversation as they lowered the noose over my neck.

Not to demean the ladies, cuz I love their silly little ways, but I classify Progressive left wing liberals as, 'feminine', because lacking the strength, or intelligence to combat an idea head on, they attempt to talk their opponent to death.

 

[Handley_Page]

But LIAR, you bugger deaf dumb and blind boys!

Sure plays a mean pin-ball, though.

 

[Austin8]

I think of civility and 'political' correctness the same way. I've never had a stomach for all that, it's just not the way I was raised.

I tend to align with the old cowboy way of thinking.

"we'll find em, then we'll drag em, then we'll hang em, then shoot em, and then take all his money."

Why can't we cuss an discuss and everbody get along?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I think of civility and 'political' correctness the same way. I've never had a stomach for all that, it's just not the way I was raised.

I tend to align with the old cowboy way of thinking.

"we'll find em, then we'll drag em, then we'll hang em, then shoot em, and then take all his money."

Why can't we cuss an discuss and everbody get along?

The real purpose of civility is to keep liars and scoundrels from being cussed so much.

This afternoon I watched a lying piece of shit on tv, and everyone acted like his bullshit was Gospel sent from Jesus.