| Are we feeding on each other now? | ![]() | ||
| Re: Intra, or cross discipline/species socratic intellectual bullying? -- DWA | Post Reply | ![]() |
Forum |
|
Posted by: crossbowman 07/30/2008, 03:06:55 (About author)
Edit |
I thought the aim was to persuade, not destroy. Maybe it's just me, but I can't help thinking the losing parties in such bloody-fisted debates are NOT going to walk away persuaded that their attackers might have had a point. I see nothing constructive in such debate. In fact, all I see from it is macho chest-thumping - one guy jumping up and down and feeling mighty proud of himself for accomplishing exactly nothing, while his defeated foes stomp angrily off, more convinced than ever of their own rightness and now doubly sure that anyone thinking otherwise is a brutish jerk. So Mr. Macho comes here singing the praises of McCain and roundly humiliates anyone who says different - and they promptly go out and vote for Obama just to spite him. He sits before his computer, revelling in his accomplishment, when he actually ended up aiding in the defeat of his chosen candidate. What a truly interesting form of debate that would be. Somehow, I don't quite see the evolutionary advantage in ill-considered roars that stampede the herbivore herds directly over your pack-mates. "Robbins’s claim fails because the Hobbs Act does not apply when the National Government is the intended beneficiary of the allegedly extortionate acts." WILKIE ET AL. v. ROBBINS. David H. Souter, Justice, U.S. Supreme Court
with John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy,
Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito concurring. |
| Post Reply | Email Friend | Alert |
|
Previous | Next | Current page |
|