Comments on: Scorched-Earth Politics

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 05:59:00 +0000

Jason: Sometimes being fair is about winning. As a result of working as an attorney, I have become convinced that my best chance to persuade a judge is to first convince the judge to trust me. What’s the best way to do that? By putting my opponent’s best foot forward in my own argument.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen attorneys presenting a straw man version of their opponent’s argument, only to cause the judge to sigh and roll her eyes.

If you’ve got something solid to offer, then, by all means, state your opponent’s argument clearly and vigorously. State it even better than your opponent can. Then show why your argument is superior. Sometimes, of course, you can’t do this. Whenever that happens you should consider that maybe your argument is not stronger than that of your opponent after all.

By: Ebonmuse

Ebonmuse — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 04:53:55 +0000

Hi all,

I’d specifically point “about the CT” and anyone else who’s interested to my Loose Marbles series, a response to one particular 9/11 conspiracy documentary.

As far as Michael Moore, I don’t know if he actually said such a thing, but if so, I’d have to disagree. I don’t think American voters are stupid. I do think that they tend to be apathetic, and distressingly ignorant (not the same as unintelligent) about the rights that this country grants them. Just look at those surveys that routinely find only a small percentage of people who can list even a few of the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, for example. (I can’t help laughing about the quote from that page that “one in five also believe that the right to drive is guaranteed by the First Amendment”, although maybe I should be weeping instead.)

I don’t know if this ignorance is a failure of our public school systems, if most people are intrinsically uninterested or cynical about politics, or what. But when only 10% of American citizens realize that freedom of the press is a right, it’s not hard to understand how demagogues who sling mud and wrap themselves in the flag can win elections on the strength of empty promises.

By: Doug Purdie

Doug Purdie — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:23:45 +0000

Deb,

I understand that you still lack respect for us, but my comment was about Michael Moore’s view. He claims to have changed his mind. But, until he’s retracts that statement, I’ll take his supposed change of heart with a grain of salt.

At least you are honest about your view of conservatives and Republicans. Still, you seemed to have missed Adam Lee’s point about civil discourse. There are literally millions of highly intelligent and knowledgable people around the world, who, regardless of their high IQs and elevated education levels, still disagree. It’s simply immature to insult the intelligence of people merely because they vote differently.

By: Thanks

Thanks — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:16:47 +0000

I knew I was in the right place, thanks Klarmy, and schemer (ebon). Unfortunately, I think I saw the gleam of religious insanity in my friend’s eye, I hope Ebon’s musings will help exorcise my friend of the CT demons.
-Scholar

By: grumpypilgrim

grumpypilgrim — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:13:05 +0000

about the CT writes: “He also questioned the size of the whole in the pentagon, saying it was too small for a plane, and I responded that maybe the wings didn’t have enough momentum to knock down the walls, only the fuselage and main body did.”

Wings are mostly just aerodynamic gas tanks — they have relatively little solid structure and virtually no ability to crash through a reinforced concrete wall.

By: schemanista

schemanista — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:11:33 +0000

CT: check out Ebon’s blog at http://www.daylightatheism.org He’s got one of the best take-downs of 9/11 conspiracy theories I’ve ever seen.

By: Dan Klarmann

Dan Klarmann — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 05:03:19 +0000

About the CT: Iron (all steel alloys) change phase and soften at a few hundred degrees. You don’t need to melt them to guarantee structural failure. The heat of collision wouldn’t add much, compared to thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel.
If you have 20 stories of building drop the distance of one floor, this is an energy (1/2mv²) that will easily crush any building weaker than a modern bomb shelter.
The Pentagon got lucky: They had been beefing up the strength of the outer walls to survive truck bombs, starting with the one the plane hit.
I know a guy who “knows” that we couldn’t have put a man on the moon (but my father was a NASA flight director).
I know people who “know” that the world is younger than some pottery found at archaeological sites (but I’ve worked on 3 different archaeological dating methods applicable to pottery, so I know their accuracy).
Your best armor against crazy theories is to learn the basics of math and science. At least, watch documentaries on PBS instead of Fox.
One hint about the planes and planted explosives idea: They tried taking the towers down with explosives in 1993, and failed. If they (either they) could do it with explosives, why bother with a plane?
What the current administration is doing to our country is quite bad enough without trying to attribute the attacks to them.

By: about the CT

about the CT — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 02:03:04 +0000

I need some information about the 911 conspiracy theory. Is it BS or not? My first reaction on seeing the conspiracy theories was to disregard them because they sounded ridiculous. A close friend recently told me that he “knows” that the towers could not have fallen the way they did without explosives planted beforehand. Then he said it was not “physically possible”. Further, my friend cited the maximum burning temperature for jet fuel and said that it wasn’t hot enough to melt steel. I told him that when objects collide, heat is generated, but he looked at me like I was a ghost. He also questioned the size of the whole in the pentagon, saying it was too small for a plane, and I responded that maybe the wings didn’t have enough momentum to knock down the walls, only the fuselage and main body did. He again spoke of the “laws of physics” but had no specific evidence in terms of science.

If anyone (erich/grumpy/jason/etc) has already written on the subject, or has any good links to share, I would really like to enlighten myself, and my friend.

Scholar

By: Deb

Deb — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:46:01 +0000

Any group of voters that would elect George W as head of their country are indeed, “the dumbest people on the face of the plant” and I’m ashamed (even though I voted against him BOTH times). Moore doesn’t need to retract that statement, it is true.

By: Doug Purdie

Doug Purdie — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:09:15 +0000

It’s very cool that Mr. Moore is making nice now. Undoubtedly, he has retracted the statement he made to the German people that we (American voters) are “… the dumbest people on the face of the planet.”