I've been in numerous debates where my position has been changed (ie: I have conceded a point), and have been happy to do so, usually because I have been "enlightened" to a degree, and have no problem admitting so

but try dealing with these nut-job liberals

they never admit when they are wrong and never concede anything. How can one negotiate or even enter into basic compromise with such uncompromising idiots?

and I'm a moderate fiscal-conservative (probably one of the best friends of these off-the-wall left-leaning goof balls)

I think a case can be made both ways. In a generic sense, all people are God's children, one example being Acts 17:28 "we are also his offspring", which Paul is using in a universal sense.

<By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.>

He was referring to the previous verse, <He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. >

<It should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Sex and Culture, the classic work of Oxford-educated anthropologist J.D. Unwin, that feminism and loose sexual mores are leading to cultural and civilizational decline in the West.>

Feminism is an outgrowth of liberalism. No liberalism, no feminism. Feminism is but one marching soldier in the army of liberalism, marching through American and causing disease, death and destruction across the land.

<The decline we are experiencing should have been expected by anyone familiar with the works of these great scientists and researchers.>

It was.

Must watch - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wa...

<This article will explain Unwin’s findings, which were published 30 years before the Women’s Liberation Movement.>

In the 1920s and 1930s there was the Frankfurt School in Germany. In many ways, the Frankfurt School influenced German society to be something of a precursor to 1960s decadence (including liberalism, feminism and a shift in sexual morality).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank...

<Even as some biological consequences of a free-for-all sexual market have been staved off by advances in contraception and the legalization of killing unborn children, we have not been set free from the psychological, sociological and societal consequences of a feminized sexual marketplace>

As I often say, abortion is a "necessary evil" of a sexual free-for-all society. Liberalism is the religion of Satan himself. He is pride as sin is pride. The pride seeks first and foremost to please itself and sex is the ultimate gratifying experience. It's how one worships the Self. As Satan told Eve in the garden, eat the fruit from the forbidden tree - because you <want> to. Satisfy yourself and be like God. Liberalism was born that day.

<As much fun as going from girl to girl can be, ultimately that type of behavior leads to the destruction of a culture. >

All sinful behavior leads to destruction.

<The West achieved undeniable and astonishing progress until the time of the sexual revolution. After feminism, the wheels have started falling off the wagon.>

This is a bit misguided, since feminism is but the calling card of liberalism, which is actually a rejection of God. Secularism. Humanism.

Must watch - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wa...

I already watched that video when you posted it last year. It's very depressing.

<In the 1920s and 1930s there was the Frankfurt School in Germany. In many ways, the Frankfurt School influenced German society to be something of a precursor to 1960s decadence (including liberalism, feminism and a shift in sexual morality).>

What you call liberalism is actually cultural Marxism. It seems that cg.com hard core defenders of the Right, like you, <OCF>, and <diceman>, use the term "liberalism" when "cultural Marxism" is more accurate, and this I think causes a lot of unnecessary strife with people who think of classical liberalism when someone says "liberal".

IMO this adds to the cultural atmosphere described by the KGB defector in the video, since there is plenty of information available but no one can make any sense of it because the meaning one person ascribes to a given word is different from the meaning that another person ascribes to the same word.

However, nowadays it seems that true liberalism isn't even advocated anymore by the Democratic Party, so maybe I am the one who should adapt his conception of the terms.

<As I often say, abortion is a "necessary evil" of a sexual free-for-all society. Liberalism is the religion of Satan himself. >

In Western civilization there are 2 main models for explaining the results we have gotten from cultural Marxism.

One I will call the "Satan model", espoused by literal Judeo-Christian interpretation of scripture.

The other I will call the "Evolutionary model", in which it is understood that homo sapiens sexuality evolved in a feral environment where the Darwinian "survival of the fittest" paradigm dictated what traits got passed to the next generation, and what didn't.

Based on what man's scientific knowledge tells us about the age of the universe, Earth, and mankind, I reject the "Satan Model" as myth, and accept the "Evolutionary model". It also is the better model when we apply Occam's Razor.

However, what I find vexing from a scientific perspective, is that no matter which model is correct, the rational panacea propounded by each model is the same!

Relampago Furioso calls the panacea "Bronze Age Wisdom". Civilization did not flourish, in fact could not flourish, until it was made to work for all, or at least the vast majority, of people in the society.

So hypergamy and alpha monopolization of mating opportunity had to be suppressed.

Why? Quite frankly, to get beta male participation. Females, Alpha & Sigma males, and even the Betas, all had to sacrifice something, for the greater good, to make society work.

And don't think Marxists don't know this for a second. They use cultural Marxism to devastate Western civilization, but of course once they have power they impose similar moral constraints on the sexual marketplace in their domains (USSR, for example, repressed homosexuality, often using "hooliganism" as the charge against perverts).

The vehicle that our Bronze Age ancestors used to deliver morality was of course religion. You undoubtedly will disagree with my thesis that it was done for expediency, because you accept it as Truth.

I, on the other hand, accept it as truth (lower case) because it is a necessary good for society. It may or may not be handed down by God from on high, that can't really be known. But I'd like to know more about how it came about. How did moral restraints on human sexuality get thought up? Was it Betas who came up with it, or Alphas?

If Betas, how did they get the Alphas to go along? Did they come to the same conclusion as Relampago Furioso on their own? And voluntarily give up sexual primacy over all the women, for the greater good?

The "big tent" is The Left. That's the big tent. It contains the liberals, the feminists/cultural marxists, and moderates.

The Liberalism of which you speak is a frame, a mindset of exploration, discovery, learning, and challenging the (religious) establishment that not only dominated Western civilization at that time, but actually formed it.

The differences that I am referring to are doctrinal, not mindset differences.

As I think about it, I can see your point. The liberal mindset of the enlightenment is a necessary ingredient for what you call <the liberalism we have today.> However, it is not "sufficient". Which is why feminism came many centuries later

You practically equate the two, frame/mindset = doctrine, yet you are able to make the distinction between "church" & "Christianity". We all have our blind spots.

Anyway, based on what I have written, you at least have the information you need to understand what I mean when I say "liberalism".

(Whether you actually have done so, I don't know.)

The Liberalism of which you speak is a frame, a mindset of exploration, discovery, learning, and challenging the (religious) establishment that not only dominated Western civilization at that time, but actually formed it. >

The differences that I am referring to are doctrinal, not mindset differences.>

Liberalism is not a mindset. A person who embraces liberalism has a liberal mindset, but liberalism is a philosophy born out of the enlightenment and postmodernism.

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #323878)

I love it when I can start the day off right. So I did, right here:

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #323883)

Poor <Jim>. His ally had no clue what he was doing, and therefore let the truth out.

His experience is combined with his own independent research into DV and our legal system. Mr. Ball was no academician, but he had common sense and a decent educational background.

As I said, it is very long, and the tragic outcome is disclosed in the beginning, but I just can't stop reading.

I mean, it is funny, but in a pathetic sort of way. It is about me, but I can laugh at myself.

Here it is:

I actually used to believe this! Sincerely and truly, I believed... Liberals care about our rights.

I think of the liberals I know. Very intelligent people. All college graduates, and most of them with advanced degrees in the liberal arts.

I thought they were passionate about freedom of speech.

Why? Why did I believe this, well and truly?

I was projecting!

You see, I have been all over the political spectrum. I started out as very right wing. Reagan wasn't conservative enough for me when I was a teenager.

Later, when I got into the workforce and realized how many sociopaths are in corporate management, I moved very very far left. I was a classic "Tip O'Neil" type Democrat - pro Labor. Workers rights. Unions.

I wasn't a "Trannies in the Girl's Bathroom" Dem, no sir. I was the 1950s-60s kind of Rust Belt Dem.

But all along, no matter what my politics, I was staunchly pro-Bill of Rights (BOR). Even when I was pro gun-control I thought it should be achieved by repeal of the 2nd Amendment! (The idealism of youth)

So, guess what? I was projecting! That's why I thought all the other Libs were pro-BOR.

The past 2 days has been a reminder that the Left hates liberty!

What did I do? I spoke up for the 1st Amendment! I describe the people at the NYT who are attacking 1A as "New Bolsheviks".

And look at the anger - the rage! - to which the Leftists have been incited!

They came scurrying out of the woodwork and descended on me like Jackals!

Anyone who knows the history of the Soviet Union knows that right away, as soon as Lenin and his boys took power, even before they defeated the White Army, they started murdering dissenters.

Thank God for America. Thank God!

<saffuna> is bad enough, but those useful idiots from Europe want to destroy me.

<I think of the liberals I know. Very intelligent people. All college graduates, and most of them with advanced degrees in the liberal arts.>

This is worth serious reflection. One can come to understand the difference between intelligence and wisdom and their relative worth. I almost don't want to comment further on what you wrote so as to make this point even stronger, but I will.

<The past 2 days has been a reminder that the Left hates liberty!

What did I do? I spoke up for the 1st Amendment! I describe the people at the NYT who are attacking 1A as "New Bolsheviks".

And look at the anger - the rage! - to which the Leftists have been incited!

They came scurrying out of the woodwork and descended on me like Jackals!>

Yes, and they have no arguments that actually address the core of your arguments. Instead the opt for rhetoric and sophistry, which is why they can't win debates. Think about that. This is why they say, for instance, <Big Pawn only cares about winning debates etc...>. Yes, they descended upon you like jackals, carrying on, mocking, scoffing and congratulating one another on absolutely nothing.

That's all they have.

<Anyone who knows the history of the Soviet Union knows that right away, as soon as Lenin and his boys took power, even before they defeated the White Army, they started murdering dissenters.

Thank God for America. Thank God! >

That's why I said that all those people marching yesterday want me killed. Government is deadly force, first and foremost. The marchers are marching for one reason: to take away my liberty, my freedom and my rights. How? They want to send their own <men with guns> to my house and forcibly take my liberty from me, against my will, and if I resist, they will shoot me dead in my house and go to the next house.

A real man drinks coffee ;)>

Yeah, but he's having crumpets with it!>

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/how...

You have to see the diagram.

<DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:

u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!

But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like

The author is a self-important dilettante.

is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:

Of course he would say that. He's a senator.

This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.

DH2. Responding to Tone.

The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.

I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.

Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.

So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.

DH3. Contradiction.

In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.

This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:

I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.

Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.

DH4. Counterargument.

At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.

Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.

There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.

DH5. Refutation.

The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.

To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.

While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.

<DH6. Refuting the Central Point.

The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.

Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.

Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:

The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:

<quotation>

But this is wrong for the following reasons...

The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon.

What It Means

Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it's correct. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.

But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.

The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.

Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he's really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.

But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.

If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it. >