# What is the point...



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

.... of trying to debate an ideologue? What's the point of trying to have thoughtful discourse with people who will either ignore what you say, or just call you a fool for saying it?

What's the point of trying to get a point across when all you're getting in return is words put in your mouth, insults spat at you, or rhetoric thrown in your face?

What's the point of discussing anything here?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Hey...is this another one of those threads about "nothing"? 

If so...I predict it will run to twenty pages or so. And Dr. G will spend much of it talking about doxies in quick two line posts while rapidly jacking up his "score". (ten thousand soon, Marc! Then you get the PRIZE!) 

If, on the other hand, it's actually about the intractable position that some of us seem to take here...especially when faced with overwhelming evidence of how truly terrible our chosen political party has failed...or mismanaged...or stolen...or lied to us _WHILE_ stealing...or any combination of the above...

Then, yeah. I agree. Some people around here simply can't seem to see what's right before their very own eyes. And they don't seem to be able to change or adapt, no matter how bad it gets.   

Too bad. Narrow minded, I suppose. Or it's their religion, maybe.  

Evolution has a rather cruel way of dealing with creatures that can't adapt...and that can't tell friend from foe because of preconcieved notions..

They become extinct. Watch and see.


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

MacNutt said:


> If, on the other hand, it's actually about the intractable position that some of us seem to take here...especially when faced with overwhelming evidence of how truly terrible our chosen political party has failed...or mismanaged...or stolen...or lied to us _WHILE_ stealing...or any combination of the above...



Oh My Gawd... MacNutt is finally seeing the Conservatives for what they are and going NDP....


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Actually, I have lived under an NDP government that stole and lied and wasted tax money on a grand scale and drove the economy of my province into the ground.  

And I am currently living under a federal Liberal government that is the most wasteful and corrupt in the history of this country. By all accounts.  

On the other hand...I've lived under a conservative government in Alberta that always kept it's promises and that everyone was quite proud of. Pretty much zero waste or corruption too.

Same goes for the current conservative style government of BC...which has to go by the name of "Liberal" in order to not disturb the religious sensibilities of the truly whacko leftoids among us. Who DO have a vote, after all.

So...let's see....actual factual performance here?

BAD NDP. Truly rotten here in BC. Even after a full decade of trying. 

BAD Federal Liberals. Beyond bad. Even after a full decade of trying. Buncha crooks. Not so good at managing public programs too. Or the military. Or the health care system, or pretty much anything else. 

Good Conservatives in Alberta. Brilliant, really. 

Good Conservatives who are labeled as "Liberals" here in BC. Almost as brilliant. No scandals of any real sort in EITHER of these two right wing parties. Both places have a very bright future too. 

Hmmmmm...now do I vote for one of the "BAD" parties because my mommy or my schoolteacher told me many years ago that I wouldn't ever go to heaven if I didn't?

Or...do I vote for one of the right wing parties that have done so many amazingly good things without hardly a hint of scandal or waste?

Gosh...hard choice. Let me think about it for a while, okay?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacNutt said:


> Good Conservatives who are labeled as "Liberals" here in BC. Almost as brilliant. No scandals of any real sort in EITHER of these two right wing parties. Both places have a very bright future too.



What planet do you live on?
No scandals?

http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=927


> Political Connections
> 
> Political Connections Archives
> Liberals' Implosion Is All in the Family
> ...


BC Liberals are called "Liberals" because they sullied their old ultra facist moniker "social credit" so badly they had to abandon it. They are not called Conservative because of the Progresive Conservative / Alliance schism, not because of the sensibilty of "Lefties" ( give us a break please!) 

No the "BC Liberals" are not hyper honest as you propose. They are just as filthy as the rest of BC politics.


Of course this doesn't even mention my personal favorite Gordon Campbell scandal:
http://dawn.thot.net/campbell_dui.html


> BC Premier, Gord Campbell Arrested for Drunk Driving
> 
> 
> STATEMENT FROM PREMIER GORDON CAMPBELL
> ...


Got to the above link for the mug shots! They are classic!

{sarcasm}What integrety!{/sarcasm}

I'm sure I could go on with this bastard's scandals but I'm sure you actually know the truth but will say anything to whitewash your side.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

PosterBoy said:


> .... of trying to debate an ideologue? What's the point of trying to have thoughtful discourse with people who will either ignore what you say, or just call you a fool for saying it?
> 
> What's the point of trying to get a point across when all you're getting in return is words put in your mouth, insults spat at you, or rhetoric thrown in your face?
> 
> What's the point of discussing anything here?



Hey I shut him up once! You just need to back up what you say.

take a look at this thread:
http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=26310&page=8


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

Bless you martman for taking the time, but our resident Nutter doesn't actually read bad press about his super heroes. Still, I'm glad you posted those facts. I've done the same in the past. 
I mostly enjoy MacNutt's posts, he's not a bad guy at all, but when he makes up his mind up he's like a Jack Russell Terrier tugging on a sock. You can tug like crazy, swing him around, lift him in the air, and he will NOT let go. Trust me on this.  

Speaking federally now... the funny thing is, if the Federal Conservatives rule for a couple of terms, there'll likely be a bunch of scandals that will arise out of those terms too. Perhaps then we'll all realize that it's Canadian politics, in general, where the problem lays.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

*"Evolution has a rather cruel way of dealing with creatures that can't adapt...and that can't tell friend from foe because of preconcieved notions.."*

Oh that so that's what happened to the Conservatives.......2 seats.

errata - I see Chuck Guite said the political awarding of contacts began with Mulroney...... 

••

Ideologues are cautions against complacency. By correcting the misinformation being promulgated it's a reminder of just what is at stake. ( keep those lips flappin' - seems to working very well )

_Evolution has a rather cruel way of dealing with creatures that can't adapt_

so do discussion forums.........


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

PosterBoy said:


> .... of trying to debate an ideologue? What's the point of trying to have thoughtful discourse with people who will either ignore what you say, or just call you a fool for saying it?
> 
> What's the point of trying to get a point across when all you're getting in return is words put in your mouth, insults spat at you, or rhetoric thrown in your face?


Because there are more readers than posters in any given thread, who will still weigh and consider a thoughtful, interesting post, even when it is drowning in ideologies.

Because ethos* is also an essential part of the art of persuasion, and how you handle yourself in the face of words in your mouth, insults spat at you and canned rhetoric thrown in your face contributes to ethos.

* Part of Aristotle's study of the art of persuasion (rhetoric). In his view, there are 3 types of appeals, all equally important:
1) Logos--appeals based on logic 
2) Pathos--appeals based on emotion
3) Ethos--appeals based on the character of the speaker


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

Sonal: you said it.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Ideologues are cautions against complacency.


Yet, you "complain" about them (eg. Christian leaders, anything remotely right wing) when you are one yourself.

Debating with an ideologue may seem fruitless but I'm naïve enough to firmly believe that it can make a difference in quite possibly making a reader or even in an extremely unlikelihood the ideologue take that it is possible that another idea might be best for the situation at hand.


----------



## Pylonman (Aug 16, 2004)

PosterBoy, don't be so glum.
I like reading your POV. It bringings a smile to my face and make me wish I could get my thoughts down more clearly.

MacNutt just needs a soap box to be heard from his tiny Island. (I think there's something in the water...)


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Chealion



> "An advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology."


YOU are a Christian - I am not, does that make ME an ideologue.??

Arguing a point based on discernable facts, statistics and proven or provable concepts is not an ideological position.
Arguing against a point that is NOT based on those is also not ideological.

An extreme ZPG spokesperson, or an animal rights activist is an ideologue. Many RR preachers are. Proponents of lassiez faire capitalism or pure form communism are ideologues when the proclaim them to be the ONLY way to economic/social transaction/interaction without regard to real world consequences.

An operant concept with no regard to the physical world and no openess to be revised based on new information is ideology.

Clarence Darrow could argue both sides of a position with equal fervour and impressive impact.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

martman said:


> Hey I shut him up once! You just need to back up what you say.


Kudos for trying, but posting actual facts won't shut MacNutt up. He will just ignore them and make up his own as he goes along. Trust me on this. 

As far as the BC Liberals government, here's another recent scandal that you missed. BC Liberal Official Quits Over "Dollars for Access" Scandal



MacNutt said:


> Same goes for the current conservative style government of BC...which has to go by the name of "Liberal" in order to not disturb the religious sensibilities of the truly whacko leftoids among us.


Don't know if MacNutt is unaware of the BC Liberal's history or simply distorting the facts again, but the BC Liberal party was a centrist party that surged to power under Gordon Wilson after the ultra-right Social Credit government collapsed under the scandal ridden leadership of Bill VanderZalm. Former Socreds left out in the cold performed a nasty hostile takeover of the party, taking advantage of Gordon Wilson's personal problems around his marriage and an affair that made the news and installed right wing buddy of Vancouver real estate developers and former Vancouver Mayor, Gordon Campbell as their errand boy.

In the 2001 election, Campbell's party soft pedalled their right-wing ideas and took advantage of a manufactured scandal over former premier Glenn Clark's deck renovation, (where Clark was later exonerated), to win their outsized majority. The true neo-conservative colours of Campbell and the BC Libs have shown clearly since then and they stand to lose a lot of seats on May 17th.

Campbell's personal popularity is extremely low, since he's seen for the packaged, lying, corporate shill that he is. His little incident, weaving through the streets of Maui, completely blotto in his SUV, might have a bit to do with it. Or possibly his give away of a quarter billion dollars in decreased taxes to his pals, BC's very top income earners, within hours of his election, that put BC into a deficit and then paved the way for the cuts and privatisation. Or maybe, his trail of broken promises from 2001. The fact remains that he's the only convicted criminal to ever head the BC Government.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Thanks for the extra info!
I didn't want to spend a huge amount of time on this but couldn't let his whopper of a lie go unchallenged. Since I'm in Toronto BC politics don't occupy as much of my time as Ontario's and Canada's.

I think it is clear to see that MacNutt will say anything without any regard to the truth. How sad really.


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

martman said:


> I think it is clear to see that MacDoc will say anything without any regard to the truth. How sad really.



How many of MacDoc's posts have you actually read? If what I think is true, then your above statement is the one that's sad. Or did you mean MacNutt?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm hoping so to


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Don't know if MacNutt is unaware of the BC Liberal's history or simply distorting the facts again, but the BC Liberal party was a centrist party that surged to power under Gordon Wilson after the ultra-right Social Credit government collapsed under the scandal ridden leadership of Bill VanderZalm. Former Socreds left out in the cold performed a nasty hostile takeover of the party, taking advantage of Gordon Wilson's personal problems around his marriage and an affair that made the news and installed right wing buddy of Vancouver real estate developers and former Vancouver Mayor, Gordon Campbell as their errand boy.
> 
> In the 2001 election, Campbell's party soft pedalled their right-wing ideas and took advantage of a manufactured scandal over former premier Glenn Clark's deck renovation, (where Clark was later exonerated), to win their outsized majority. The true neo-conservative colours of Campbell and the BC Libs have shown clearly since then and they stand to lose a lot of seats on May 17th.
> 
> Campbell's personal popularity is extremely low, since he's seen for the packaged, lying, corporate shill that he is. His little incident, weaving through the streets of Maui, completely blotto in his SUV, might have a bit to do with it. Or possibly his give away of a quarter billion dollars in decreased taxes to his pals, BC's very top income earners, within hours of his election, that put BC into a deficit and then paved the way for the cuts and privatisation. Or maybe, his trail of broken promises from 2001. The fact remains that he's the only convicted criminal to ever head the BC Government.


I don't agree with Applesauce's assessment on this. I think MacNutt is closer to the truth.

The BC Liberal party is actually quite centrist but has a solid right leaning economic policy. The BC Liberal party actually got more votes than the NDP in the 1996 election and were by no means a fringe party at that point.

The scandal with Glen Clark was only a small fraction of the issues that BC had with his government. Clark was already quite unpopular by this point. In the case of Clark, his resignation was related to his duties as Premier. However, with Campbell's DUI charge, it wasn't related to government duties.

As far as the 2001 election goes, Campbell did not soft peddle in any way. If anything the criticism is from the other end. He proposed a very comprehensive agenda to change BC. He could have promised nothing and would have still destroyed the NDP. Instead, he was willing to set an agenda and for the most part, he has stuck by it in the last 4 years.

Campbell's personal popularity was already low before the Hawaii incident. The reason it was low is that he is/was viewed (through the eyes of TV) as being somewhat remote and impersonable. The reality is that this is not true. I think the Hawaii incident actually helped his popularity. It showed that he was human has some personal flaws, much like our previous Premiers.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> I don't agree with Applesauce's assessment on this. I think MacNutt is closer to the truth.


Dave, MacNutt said that “[the BC Liberals have] to go by the name of "Liberal" in order to not disturb the religious sensibilities of the truly whacko leftoids among us.” How is that close to the truth?

The truth is that the BC Liberal Party, once affiliated officially with the federal Liberals and of the same political brand, moved far to the right after Campbell’s take over. I guess what you might call “the centre” depends on where you are viewing it from, but I think that most Canadians would not call an agenda of social services slashing, tax give aways to the rich and giving away BC Crown corps to US businesses anything close to centrist. The only real difference in the approach of the BC Libs to something like the federal Cons/Alliance/Reform style is that they don’t court social conservatives, or at least those in their midst have been told to keep their mouths shut.



Vandave said:


> I think the Hawaii incident actually helped his popularity. It showed that he was human has some personal flaws, much like our previous Premiers.


I highly doubt that there is any evidence of it helping his popularity. The fact is that while Campbell was making his tearful press conference, claiming he only had a couple of martinis, his staff was busy actively supressing the information on his actual blood alcohol level when he was pulled over, which was a whopping .17. More like a whole bloody pitcher or two of martinis. A serious criminal act in BC, although not as serious in Hawaii. Also the police report that he was doing 112 kmh or that he couldn’t walk was not available. By the time his actual blood alcohol reading was published, several days after the tearful press conference, polls were out showing that many people in BC forgave him, based on the lie that he told, that he was merely a drink over the line. Many could indentify with that.

When the truth came out, the Campbell friendly Canwest media that rules the province was already dropping its already restrained coverage and even urging people to get over it in their editorials. No more polling was done in light of the new info. Now he or his staff refuse to talk about the incident and how much booze he really had over what he claimed to have had. He has not lived up to his promise to Mother’s Against Drunk Driving to speak up for them or their issues or to do anything at all to combat drunk driving in BC.

That this is a personal matter, while on vacation is irrelevent. He lied to the citizens of BC, while covering up information. He was convicted of a criminal charge and would have received serious jail time for it, if it had occurred in BC. He refused to step down, while still insisting others in his government must step down for any possible taint to their judgement.

The incident in Maui clearly shows the stuff that Campbell is made out of. He could have killed someone on that road that night. The sheer amount of booze he was able to put away that night shows that it couldn’t have been the first time drinking that much and makes one wonder how many times he drove in that condition on the roads of BC. His tears at the press conference were not tears of contrition or repentence, but the tears of a terrified frat boy, caught in an act of stupidity who feared his carreer was over. He play-acted and lied before the cameras in a last ditch attempt to keep his job. It was a disgusting performance.

While I don’t think much of Glenn Clark’s style, he did step down, even though he claimed innocence and was eventually to be proven innocent. And his predecessor, Mike Harcourt, actually stepped down for an incident that didn’t even involve him, out of respect for the office of the Premier. Gordon Campbell remained in office as a convicted criminal.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Dave, MacNutt said that “[the BC Liberals have] to go by the name of "Liberal" in order to not disturb the religious sensibilities of the truly whacko leftoids among us.” How is that close to the truth?


I think MacNutt was only joking here. I found that to be funny.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I guess what you might call “the centre” depends on where you are viewing it from, but I think that most Canadians would not call an agenda of social services slashing, tax give aways to the rich and giving away BC Crown corps to US businesses anything close to centrist. The only real difference in the approach of the BC Libs to something like the federal Cons/Alliance/Reform style is that they don’t court social conservatives, or at least those in their midst have been told to keep their mouths shut.


Health care and education in BC received significant increases in funding during the period of the Campbell government. Some programs were cut, but funding was increased for priorities. The tax cuts were not just for the rich, they were for everybody. I don't know of any Crown Corps that were given away. Are you refering to BC Rail? There are social conservatives in the BC Liberal party mix as this is a big tent party that values the viewpoints of many people. Many Liberal party members, such as Wally Oppal and Carole Taylor are quite centrist and liberal in their social viewpoints.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I highly doubt that there is any evidence of it helping his popularity. The fact is that while Campbell was making his tearful press conference, claiming he only had a couple of martinis, his staff was busy actively supressing the information on his actual blood alcohol level when he was pulled over, which was a whopping .17. More like a whole bloody pitcher or two of martinis. A serious criminal act in BC, although not as serious in Hawaii. Also the police report that he was doing 112 kmh or that he couldn’t walk was not available. By the time his actual blood alcohol reading was published, several days after the tearful press conference, polls were out showing that many people in BC forgave him, based on the lie that he told, that he was merely a drink over the line. Many could indentify with that.


From what I recall, it didn't affect his popularity. His staff were not busily doing anything. The Vancouver Sun knew about this before his staff did. When he got off the plane, he immediately had his press conference. No covers up here.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> That this is a personal matter, while on vacation is irrelevent. He lied to the citizens of BC, while covering up information. He was convicted of a criminal charge and would have received serious jail time for it, if it had occurred in BC. He refused to step down, while still insisting others in his government must step down for any possible taint to their judgement.


I don't think it is irrelevant. He wasn't on government business at the time. Yes, it's a serious matter, but resignation is way too far in my opinion. Show me the last time somebody in BC went to jail for a DUI as a first time offense. 



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> His tears at the press conference were not tears of contrition or repentence, but the tears of a terrified frat boy, caught in an act of stupidity who feared his carreer was over. He play-acted and lied before the cameras in a last ditch attempt to keep his job. It was a disgusting performance.


I believe that he was completely sincere with his tears.


----------



## grafico (Mar 25, 2005)

martman said:


> What planet do you live on?
> No scandals?
> 
> http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=927
> ...


Man, you guys get the best stuff out there in B.C. I am jealous


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> YOU are a Christian - I am not, does that make ME an ideologue.??


MacDoc whether I'm a Christian or not is actually up in the air lately but is of no consequence to the discussion. The reason I mentioned Christian leaders is because they tend to go hand in hand with the farther right wing ideologies that you quite frankly despise.

It's that attitude of complete disagreement with anything remotely right of your beliefs. (You'll live with some but you don't agree with it at all). That is what makes you an ideologue in my mind.

After all, I don't need to point out that Macnutt is just as one as you are but for completely different reasons.

Now I want to make it clear that an ideologue in this instance is not a "bad" thing. It simply means that a person is not about to be convinced of something different. MacDoc's mind is set and he firmly believes what he believes for his own valid reasons.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Chealion, et al...

You might want to note that the "terribly right wing ideologue" who is known here as "MacNutt" openly supports a provincial government that calls itself "Liberals" and also happily endorses a foreign government that calls itself "Labour" in Britain. (the equivalent of the NDP here in Canada, BTW)

Question here....when, exactly, did the well entrenched ehmac ideologue known as "macdoc" ever endorse ANY political party that wasn't anywhere near his chosen position of left/lib or "left-of-center". EVER?? _ANYWHERE on the PLANET??_   (He is also terribly hung up on "labels". As has been noted here on many earlier occasions.)

One is adaptable and ready to wholeheratedly embrace ANY political movement that shows real promise...no matter what it calls itself. 

The other seems to be so indoctrinated that he can't even begin to imagine supporting any political party or movement that does not conform to his preconcieved conditioning. No matter how good they may be.

He certainly cannot imagine ever openly rejecting, or even openly _QUESTIONING_ any of his chosen heroes. No matter how demonstrably BAD they may become. He is, quite simply, stuck in one old groove from a very old record. Unable, or unwilling, to break free.

Now THAT is an "ideologue". An unrepentant one, at that.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> An operant concept with no regard to the physical world and no openess to be revised based on new information is ideology.


er, not exactly, though that's how many people use the term in a somewhat pejorative sense. (e.g., "you're just spouting ideology") Much like people use the word 'rhetoric' in a pejorative to mean empty words, instead of its original meaning, which is simply the art of persuasion.

More generally, however, an ideology is simply a cohesive system of ideas and beliefs.



MacDoc said:


> Arguing a point based on discernable facts, statistics and proven or provable concepts is not an ideological position.
> Arguing against a point that is NOT based on those is also not ideological.


Actually, a favourite soapbox of mine is scientific rationality itself is functionally identical to other ideologies, but to get into that, you have to start getting into a thing about the fundamental nature of Truth (capital T). This becomes an incredibly messy discussion, since everyone starts arguing about which Truth is true and why--but to do this, they use their own truth-systems, and then everyone starts attacking those systems based their truth-systems, confusion ensues. Very messy. Everyone gets bogged down on definition.

Of course, if you start with the idea there's no such thing as capital-T Truth, then the discussion can proceed and get interesting. Always important to get your definitions straight and agreed to before getting into an debate--otherwise, you just end up shouting the same things to each other over and over again.

I should probably mention that I'm far more interested in how argumentation is formed and how it functions than what is actually said.



MacDoc said:


> Clarence Darrow could argue both sides of a position with equal fervour and impressive impact.


I wonder if we should have a bizarro day on ehMac, where everyone (seriously--no mocking or sarcasm) argues the polar opposite of what they normally believe. So MacNutt would be hard-core left wing, MacDoc would be fundamentalist religious, etc. Could be fun.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Sonal said:


> I wonder if we should have a bizarro day on ehMac, where everyone (seriously--no mocking or sarcasm) argues the polar opposite of what they normally believe. So MacNutt would be hard-core left wing, MacDoc would be fundamentalist religious, etc. Could be fun.


You might want to refer to my above reply on this thread, sonal.

And you MIGHT want to check the ehmac archives on this as well.  

I have already openly and wholeheartedly endorsed several political parties that aren't exactly thought of as "radical right wing conservative" here at ehmac. And cheered them on to win! 

You might want to ask macdoc or any of the other left/lib ideologues around here if THEY would ever consider endorsing a party with a radical right wing label. No matter HOW successful or popular they might actually be when they are in power. 

Your "bizzarro day" is a non starter. One side is aready quite flexible. The other is totally stuck in an untractible groove left over from their long lost university days. That was thirty five years ago! But they are STILL hung up on it! And they will NOT listen to any data that discredits this sainted model of perefection. No way, no HOW!

Trust me on this.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

You know, I think the direction this thread has taken only proves my point. What is the point of trying to talk about anything here? I got, what, four on topic responses to my query? Sure, they'll supportive (thanks, btw) but that's pretty sad that only 1/6th of the responses in this thread actually try to answer the question I posed.

Can't we ever have a thread that doesn't turn into a "my wing is better than your wing" bull**** pissing match? Please?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

You might just want to hang up the preconcieved notions of "what WING is BETTER" PB..and actually take a hard look at the history of ehmac here. 

Some people around this place are totally committed to their preconcieved notions. Others around here will wholeheartedly endorse ANYTHING that can be seen to be really working. No matter what political party it comes from. Or what NAME it carries.

One group is obviously flexible and ready to embrace positive change. The other group is rigidly blind to any sort of data that shows "their side" to be losing. Or that shows "the OTHER SIDE" to be winning. They are just stuck in a tired old groove. No matter WHAT comes their way. 

Too sad.

I'm guessing that these tired old untractable ideologues will eventually be left behind by history, as it unfolds.

Many of them already have been.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

I like how you pretend not to be one an ideologue, all the while trying to pull this thread even further off course.

Don't you have anything better to do?


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

No. I don't.  

And I might ALSO want to direct you, and anyone else who happens to be listening, to the ehmac archives. 

They will clearly show that SOME of us can readily embrace a political party that doesn't seem to have a "friendly" name. Once we see it working. 

Others here, can NOT. No matter how bad their chosen religion/party is being ragged upon...or how good the opposition is.

Just the way it is, I guess.

Too BAD!


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt said:


> They will clearly show that SOME of us can readily embrace a political party that doesn't seem to have a "friendly" name. Once we see it working.


This coming from the guy who has been flogging the same party lines since he got here.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

One party actually has demonstrated their ability to "make the system WORK!!"

The other Party....weellll...


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Posterboy, I can't help but smile at what has happened to your thread topic. Your original question was :


> What is the point...
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> .... of trying to debate an ideologue? What's the point of trying to have thoughtful discourse with people who will either ignore what you say, or just call you a fool for saying it?
> 
> ...


The thread immediately was hijacked into another nausiating rant on politics. I feel your pain!  
As for the original topic, your frusration has been shared by myself (and likely many others) on many occasions. I've put this frustration into writing more than once, but it's been to no avail. It seems you can't change the minds of people who know better than you. 
Ever wonder why there are so many members logged in but so few participating in discussions of a "hot" nature?


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

MacNutt, must you turn every thread into a "my wing is better than your wing" pissing match? It's getting tired.

Peter, it wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the mindless rhetoric that seems to in habit all of these threads. :|


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

PB, we have threads on ehMac that don't dissolve into my wing is better than your wing, but on at least one of them, doxies dominate the conversation.  

Besides, the first 4 points seemed to answer the "what is the point" question and then raised other issues--some frivolous, some not--that touched off some nerves.



MacNutt said:


> You might want to refer to my above reply on this thread, sonal.


I think we were writing posts at about the same time--so I didn't see your last response when I wrote my last post. (I write slowly.) My bad.  

Still, I'd like to see a bizarro day where you seriously argue that the current Liberal government should stay in power and NOT call an election now. (Not to pick on you specifically--others need to do this too--but you are the clearest example I can think of.)

Here's why:
1) My personal amusement 
2) Increase understanding of all sides.
3) Possibly create more interesting discussion than seeing the same views from the same people all the time.
4) Improve the quality of debate around here. Right now, there seems to be a lot of attacking of the same beliefs from the same positions--and you'll notice that this typically does very little to change anyone's mind or at least get them to begin to consider an alternate view.

To effectively persuade the opposition, you must clearly understand the other side and NOT disagree with their core beliefs. Instead, you must use their beliefs to either force a contradiction, or build your argument based on those beliefs. Even if you convince no one, the discussion gets more interesting.

For example (and I'm going to use a silly example), you could never expect to convince a cat-person that dogs make better pets by insisting that cats are dumb because they won't learn to obey--cat people usually think cats are smarter because they refuse to obey silly commands. You'd be much better off trying to understand what cat people love about cats (their core beliefs), and showing that dogs can provide that and more. Even if you don't get any cat people considering the dog side, you still can get into a more interesting discussion about what qualities are important in a pet and why, instead of screaming "Cats are dumb" and "Cats rule and dogs drool" over and over again.

Though I suppose that means I'd have to express an opinion on one side of the fence or the other instead of going on and on about the quality of the fence.


----------



## iMatt (Dec 3, 2004)

MacNutt said:


> You might want to note that the "terribly right wing ideologue" who is known here as "MacNutt" openly supports a provincial government that calls itself "Liberals" and also happily endorses a foreign government that calls itself "Labour" in Britain. (the equivalent of the NDP here in Canada, BTW)


With apologies to PosterBoy (though I will try to make my point germane to the thread)...

What eludes you, MacNutt, is that a label is merely a label; it's not a magical code that reveals the underlying ideology. 

If labels mattered, then we'd all have cried when the German <b>Democratic</b> Republic imploded, we'd unite in our belief that direct democracy reigns in the <b>People's</b> Republic of China, and we'd all agree that <b>Republic</b>ans don't have imperial ambitions.

With that in mind, I submit to you that in present-day B.C., Quebec and federally, the "Liberal" label has little or nothing to do with the left wing, and in the U.K. Labour has left and right wings internally (and the right has dominated for over a decade now). 

So, if you're going to deny the charge of being an ideologue on the flimsy basis that you support some gentlemen who call themselves lefty-sounding things, please be aware that you aren't fooling anyone (except maybe yourself).


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Sonal said:


> To effectively persuade the opposition, you must clearly understand the other side and NOT disagree with their core beliefs. Instead, you must use their beliefs to either force a contradiction, or build your argument based on those beliefs. Even if you convince no one, the discussion gets more interesting.


Well said Sonal.

I have on a number of occasions tried to get Macnutt to comment on the failure of the Conservative's to provide real leadership and a party that could convince the electorate that they should vote for them. As opposed to vote for us because we aren't corrupt like the other guys.

I think Canada deserves a more representative opposition... I don't think we are getting it and that is why the Liberal's get away with all this nonsense.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

iMatt said:


> With apologies to PosterBoy (though I will try to make my point germane to the thread)...
> 
> What eludes you, MacNutt, is that a label is merely a label; it's not a magical code that reveals the underlying ideology.
> 
> ...


Whoa... couldn't have said it better myself. Chomsky would be proud of that synopsis of the use of language when describing political parties and movements.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

As it is written in "The World According to MacNutt", "We must all face the implications of our personal actions in a world without purpose. We are each responsible for what we are and what we do. With no given human nature which we are obliged to fulfill, a person is free to choose their own values and to make of him or herself whatever they wish, so long as they are willing to strive for this wish, with the understanding that it may not be achieved. However, in the grander scheme of things, failure does not come in not succeeding. Rather, failure only comes to he or she who will not try. A person is nothing else but what they make of themself. Each person is the world's future. Therefore, we should cherish and nurture each person, each living thing, on this Earth. What matters most is being totally involved in making each day a bit better for someone or something. It is up to each of us to give our life meaning. When a person is involved in such a life, he or she shall leave their impress upon so many others, in ways which are unknown in the common moments. Trust me on this."

And just to prove that Macnutt is right -- doxie.  Paix.


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

PosterBoy,

To your original question, what is the point? Debate requires the intelligent and subtle use of the art of persuasion to make a point and to intelligently argue against a point. Who wins a debates is not judged by the debators themselves and the audience takes much into consideration. Regurgitation of old arguments, avoidance of originality, ignorance of facts, unsubstantiated opinions, diversion from answers, etc. are not widely seen as positive attributes of a debater. You tend to win an argument through careful consideration of facts, by recognizing both strong and weak points in your argument and by presentation of new ideas and original perspectives.

If your viewpoints are countered through rhetoric, repetition and ignorance, your point has simply been underscored. There are rules to art of debate that are designed to enhance the quality of information and to prevent "shouting down". If a person chooses not to follow those rules, they also choose to lose their credibility.

Frustrating? Yes. Discouraging? Yes. Effective? Only if you lower your own standards. Fight on your own level and you shall succeed. So far, if anyone is keeping score, I'd say you're well ahead of the other "team".


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

*Mea Culpa*

I apologize for my part in taking this thread off course with my discussion of BC politics.

I was taken in, once again, by MacNutt’s broadcasting of innacurate facts, in his original derailment of this thread. I should learn to not respond so quickly and give the readers more credit in determining what is true and false.

I was trolled again. 

Exactly, PB, why bother?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I apologize for my part in taking this thread off course with my discussion of BC politics.
> 
> I was taken in, once again, by MacNutt’s broadcasting of innacurate facts, in his original derailment of this thread. I should learn to not respond so quickly and give the readers more credit in determining what is true and false.
> 
> ...


Ya, good job Applesauce. Before we know you are going to start talking about transferable votes. Bahhh..... Vote NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Trollus giganticus.....myabe THAT's what been roaming BC all this time that people are reporting.!!










something about Picts and caves..........


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Trollus giganticus"??? They are one step below a troglodyte.

Troglodyte comes from Latin 'Troglodytae', a people said to be cave dwellers, and/or from Greek 'Troglodytai', from trogle, "a hole" + dyein, "to enter."

Macdoc, this might just win you that Nobel Prize. We shall see.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I do believe **** floriensis will garner that honour.










Hobbits were REAL!!!!!......JRR would have been delighted.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

Sonal said:


> PB, we have threads on ehMac that don't dissolve into my wing is better than your wing, but on at least one of them, doxies dominate the conversation.
> 
> Besides, the first 4 points seemed to answer the "what is the point" question and then raised other issues--some frivolous, some not--that touched off some nerves.
> 
> ...


There is room for both of us on the fence....nice, pretty strong fence.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sonal, re your comment "...we have threads on ehMac that don't dissolve into my wing is better than your wing, but on at least one of them, doxies dominate the conversation.", I request that you read "The World According to Macnutt". In his treatise on symbolization (i.e., dachshunds are ancient symbols), he contends that "Absolute concreteness, completion, existence as a totality belong to the free and fundamental belief in the uniqueness of each person. Humanity has multiple activities, and thus, each of us have multiple possibilities. Pity the poor dachshund who labors at digging at holes made by others. There is a single-minded purpose to his existence, which the Germans called 'umgreifend' (i.e., 'all-enveloping'). Each person, unlike the lowly dachshund, must go beyond him or herself. We are always planning, and we project ourselves upon this plan. We are beings who are constantly oriented towards the attainment of a myriad of possibilities. The poor doxie has but one goal, and thus one possibility -- to capture the badger."


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> The poor doxie has but one goal, and thus one possibility -- to capture the badger."


Sadly Dr. G., I have to disagree.

I believe that any dog (or doxie) has but one main goal and that is to love, and be faithful and true to its master and family.

Then they worry about the darn Badger.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Very true, Sinc. Thus, the dichotomy among the concepts of absolute concreteness (i.e., a variety of life-purposes), completion (i.e., the attainment of some level of enlightenment or understanding of one's being), and existence (i.e., "I think, therefore I exist"), is a totality which belongs to the free and fundamental belief in the uniqueness of each person and NOT doxies. This is what I feel Macnutt, in his eloquent and articulate manner, was trying to reveal to all of us. I am glad that you have seen "the light" of the Macnuttian Truths. It is one of the passages that one must go through and attain to reach "The Higher Level". As to the essential aspects of this concept, I shall let Macnutt explain its ramifications for you.

Gerry, take it away. The stage is yours. To one and all, I present "The Sage on the Stage".


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Geez, sorry Dr. G.

I just thought I understood dogs. Never occurred to me I would understand fellow Scots!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sinc, the wisdom that is Macnutt's goes way beyond his being of Scottish heritage. It is the wisdom of the ages, part of the essential element of what makes us human (according to Plato). I am seeing the Socratic arguements that Macnutt makes when he sticks fervently to a single point, over and over and over again. This dedication to The Truth is rare in common humans. Read deeply his thoughts if you want to understand why he rants and raves as he does at times. His is the burden of knowing The Truth, and trying to get us all to understand this Truth. "Heavy is the head that wears the crown", be it the crown of a king or queen, or the crown of Knowledge.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Nah - no trolling 'round here. Geez Dr. G that chum is ripe.
That slick is a continent wide.  .....and about 2,500 years long.......


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Careful with your comments, Macdoc. Many more like "Nah - no trolling 'round here. Geez Dr. G that chum is ripe. That slick is a continent wide. .....and about 2,500 years long......." and you too shall be accused of "... talking about doxies in quick two line posts". Caveat emptor. We are ALL comsumers of The Truth. Paix, mon ami.

As it is written in "The World According to Macnutt" -- "Hell hath no fury as an academic scorned."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

is perhaps your middle name Mesmer??


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Macdoc, no amber rods for me. I have seen the light, brother.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Gerry, take it away. The stage is yours. To one and all, I present "The Sage on the Stage".

Gerry...............where are you??????????


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

You make me laugh.....subtle angler thou art. :clap:


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> Gerry...............where are you??????????


Now that _The World According To Macnutt_ is in its fifth printing, he surely must now be devoting a great deal of time to finishing his Great Canadian Novel, an epic work of fiction entitled, _Who Has Heard My Wind?_


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"You make me laugh.....subtle angler thou art." Laughter is the medicine of the common person. As it is written in "The World According to Macnutt", "Better to teach a person to be an effective and strategic angler than to watch him starve on the shore." Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Doug, I have heard rumors of the upcoming novel "Who Has Heard My Wind?", written by our very own Macnutt. However, I always thought that it was just that -- a rumor. This new work of fiction will set the publishing industry into high gear. At least now I know why the New York Times was sending its book critic up to Salt Spring Island. Very interesting. The plot thickens....


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"And Dr. G will spend much of it talking about doxies in quick two line posts while rapidly jacking up his 'score'. (ten thousand soon, Marc! Then you get the PRIZE!)".

Excelsior!!!!!

Macnutt, where are you??????? 

Doxies = single malt. 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

The Doug said:


> Now that _The World According To Macnutt_ is in its fifth printing, he surely must now be devoting a great deal of time to finishing his Great Canadian Novel, an epic work of fiction entitled, _Who Has Heard My Wind?_


I must have misunderstood....I thought the title was "Who Has Sniffed My Wind?"


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Peter, as it is written, "Many are called, but few are chosen." Take care, mon frere, at whom you cast stones.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> Peter, as it is written, "Many are called, but few are chosen." Take care, mon frere, at whom you cast stones.


???????????????????????????? It was just a cheap joke on hot air with a touch of stinky rhetoric.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Peter, mon frere, you and I know that it was just a cheap joke. However, some in this forum have been riled for much less. Beware, my brother. Beware....


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> Peter, mon frere, you and I know that it was just a cheap joke. However, some in this forum have been riled for much less. Beware, my brother. Beware....


Like, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but "xxxxx" can really hurt me"?
Nahhh! I don't think that's a concern. "xxxxx" has a good sense of humour and has suffered much more abuse than I would ever wish upon him. I like "xxxxx" for who he is. 
On a side note, isn't xxxxx stamped onto the label of some strong cheese? 
My bad!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Peter, mon frere, you have been warned. In "The Way of the Warrior According to Macnutt", it is written that "As Mao oftentimes wrote, 'Know your enemy'. I would contend that you also need never to underestimate your enemy. For in this underestimation comes complacency. And by being complacent, one is confronted with the possiblity that his own 'zeitgeist' may be incorrect when this enemy rises up suddenly and heroicly. From this realization comes doubt and doubt can never be tolerated in a warrior. Trust me on this."


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> ............ I would contend that you also need never to underestimate your enemy.


There are no enemies here....just verbal adversaries. the person in question here may be a fierce Scottish warrior, but he has a sense of humour and knows an innocent jab from an insult. I fear not from any reprisal....even if that risks the error of complacency. Honour among the honourable.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Peter S. said:


> There are no enemies here....just verbal adversaries.


Good quote. EhMax should pin that quote on the top of the Everything Else Forum.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Peter, I was just teasing you. I am sure that Macnutt shall not take offense to your jabs. He is a kind hearted soul, who takes these exchanges as humor rather than insults. I think we shall leave the insults to those who take offense to his points-of-view re various political issues. In a way, the title of this thread says it all -- "What is the point?"


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Back to the point......

Here's the point......



> R&D
> School of Flock
> By Alex Stone
> DISCOVER Vol. 26 No. 05 | May 2005
> ...


To steer a centrist course "loud an opininated" from the edges needs offsetting by equally passionate voices offering a more carefully constructed approach.

The opinion needs to be heard, the "facts" underlying the opinion challenged if wrong......

If a right winger says crime is way up..... a consistent phrase then the actual stats need to be presented to make a rational judgement if putting a few million more into police coffers is justified.

If a far leftie says deficits don't matter.........it equally needs challenging to see if the proposed course of action will bring about the desired social benefits without extensively damaging the economy.

"Wrong in the facts" soon equals irrelevancy.....as we've seen.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

""Wrong in the facts" soon equals irrelevancy.....as we've seen." MacDoc, what if Macnutt IS, in fact, incorrect in his facts, as you contend, or omitting certain facts, as PosterBoy contends??? This would soon become an epistomological nightmare!!!

We would be faced with a new branch of philosophy that addresses the philosophical problems surrounding the theory of knowledge. Macnutt's simplistic ideas have answered many questions concerning what knowledge is, how it is obtained, and what makes it knowledge, and thus, The Truth. You doubters of the Macnuttian Zeitgeist of the world today are starting to scare me. If he is wrong, then what is correct? And how does one find the path to this enlightened correctness??? 

As it is written in "The World According to Macnutt", "It is better to hide your head in the sand than to watch a rich camel try to thread the eye of a needle. Trust me on this." No, I shall stick with the epiphany that comes with full acceptance of the views of Macnutt re politics, social values, religion, wealth, water and doxies.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Dr. G are you retracing the labrynth you just navigated in Da Vinci??? 
The convolutions seem somehow "familiar".


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacDoc, don't shoot the messanger because you don't like the message. Follow closely the words of Macnutt and you shall see the logic of his way of thinking. Once you understand this genre, you shall be able to understand and accept his views on various socio-economic environmental issues. This shall be written down someday as "David's ephiphany on the road to Danforth", or something like that.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)




----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I take MacNutt's posting for what they are. "His opinions".

Period. End of story.

And you know what?

I don't get my shorts all shrunk by worrying about whether he is right or wrong.

Or whether he has supplied a link to "the facts" for that matter.

Some people here are getting their bell rung every day by Gerry. Good on ya Laddie.

Keep 'em off guard.

The rest of you should take a valium!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Horse pucky is a public nuisance what ever the source. 
Maybe westerners have a higher "tolerance" for it.


----------



## Carex (Mar 1, 2004)

How long has Ralph Klein been in office?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

[quote='Doc]Horse pucky is a public nuisance what ever the source. 
Maybe westerners have a higher "tolerance" for it.[/quote]Oh, I doubt that.

One's tolerance for it depends on what flavour of "pucky" is coming at you. 

Some flavours just make me ill, where others of my western brethren seem to happily ignore it, or even willingly lap it up.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

I have no problems with MacNutt's opinions, his facts or lack thereof, or the reactions he generates.

I'm just bored by the repetition.  

I think I've seen this episode before, thanks. Can you do it all again, but this time make it new and different?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> I take MacNutt's posting for what they are. "His opinions".
> 
> Period. End of story.
> 
> ...


macnutt's musings show his dis-respect for his fellow ehmacian
he knows that most of his typing is crap since he is never seen when proven wrong and never acknowledges nor apologizes

his typing borders on malevolence
in my eyes he has no honour
i used to consider him harmless, but now think otherwise


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Dr.G. said:


> As it is written in "The World According to Macnutt", "It is better to hide your head in the sand than to watch a rich camel try to thread the eye of a needle.


Boy, did THAT biblical parable ever get twisted around. 
 I believe it went something like this: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the Kingdom of God!" *
". Are you suggesting that Macnutt twists thing around? 

That above passage was from Luke. In that passage it also says, "Those who heard this said, "Then who in the world can be saved?" *He (JESUS) replied, "What is impossible from a human perspective is possible with God."

So, I guess it's also about perspective, not just "facts".


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Sonal said:


> I have no problems with MacNutt's opinions, his facts or lack thereof, or the reactions he generates.
> 
> I'm just bored by the repetition.
> 
> I think I've seen this episode before, thanks. Can you do it all again, but this time make it new and different?


I SECOND THE MOTION!


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

“A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.” Jean Chretien


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

Sonal said:


> I have no problems with MacNutt's opinions, his facts or lack thereof, or the reactions he generates.
> 
> I'm just bored by the repetition.
> 
> I think I've seen this episode before, thanks. Can you do it all again, but this time make it new and different?


Pretty much. I'd also like it if he, you know, actually responded to points people make instead of just repeating his previous rhetoric.

Of course, I didn't start this thread soley because of MacNutt, but it's still a valid point.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Peter, mon frere, re your comment "Are you suggesting that Macnutt twists thing around?", you would have to ask Macnutt if this is the case with his postings?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

PosterBoy said:


> Pretty much. I'd also like it if he, you know, actually responded to points people make instead of just repeating his previous rhetoric.
> 
> Of course, I didn't start this thread soley because of MacNutt, but it's still a valid point.


True. And really, MacNutt is simply no more than a well-known example of repetition.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

thejst said:


> How many of MacDoc's posts have you actually read? If what I think is true, then your above statement is the one that's sad. Or did you mean MacNutt?



MY BAD!!!!!
Apologies to MacDoc I meant MacNutt.
Sorry!


----------

