No, we should point out what is accurate in place of his deception.So Turley isn’t sincere, but we should pretend he is, because civility? Again, this is more like dishonesty than civility.
How would rage serve getting to the truth?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, we should point out what is accurate in place of his deception.So Turley isn’t sincere, but we should pretend he is, because civility? Again, this is more like dishonesty than civility.
You are of course free to criticize my posting style, but it’d be clearer and easier if you did it without the pretext. And if it were the high road you were traveling there’d no need to suggest I’d forgotten what I’d very recently posted. It seems uncivil and hypocritical to insult someone while lecturing them about the virtue of civility. I just foolishly thought we were discussing the subject that was being discussed.Yeah, I listened to Turley's testimony too.
The reference to Maslow's hierarchy of needs was in response to your reference to civility not being the highest virtue. Perhaps you'd forgotten the context you'd created . . . .
I am not claiming that we should pretend he is sincere I am claiming we behave properly in this instance by putting aside questions of motive and considering his argument on its own merits. I am claiming we should respond to his argument. If the argument has merit we should be persuaded. If it doesn't then we should reject it. When we reach our conclusions we should set aside our own partisanship and ask what is best for the country.So Turley isn’t sincere, but we should pretend he is, because civility? Again, this is more like dishonesty than civility.
You are of course free to criticize my posting style, but it’d be clearer and easier if you did it without the pretext. And if it were the high road you were traveling there’d no need to suggest I’d forgotten what I’d very recently posted. It seems uncivil and hypocritical to insult someone while lecturing them about the virtue of civility. I just foolishly thought we were discussing the subject that was being discussed.
Since I’ve not suggested that rage leads to truth I have no idea why you’re asking me this question. What I did instead do was disagree with iu@att’s suggestion that we must address Turley’s absurd both-siderism as though it was a serious argument advanced in good faith. In fact, it is neither, and (as I’ve said several times now) pretending that bullshit is serious argument seems more like dishonesty than civility.No, we should point out what is accurate in place of his deception.
How would rage serve getting to the truth?
This is where you should have started. Then I could have gone straight to “piss off” without wasting my time.You haven't been civil yet, Rock. You've been arrogant and presumptuous the whole time we've been discussing this. And your thin skin is clearly showing that my mild and subtle rebuke was more than you can take.
Grow up.
In my trailer park level of thinking, I'd think that allowing Marbury to apply to fundamentally constitutional disputes between the two other branches -- as opposed to interpreting the constitutionality of statutes -- would be too much. This is one-on-one, without a referee.Though not directly on point, since Marbury v. Madison the notion that courts' interpretation of the constitution supersedes that of the legislative and executive branches has been generally accepted. And you're right, congress has deferred to the courts for enforcement of its subpoena power.
Is that in some question now?
I see you have raised the white flag.This is where you should have started. Then I could have gone straight to “piss off” without wasting my time.
You sure you want a one-on-one, no referee bout in the context of a wannabe dictatorship? It's bad enough that Trump has stacked the deck with an Article 2 AG and an Article 2 Supreme Court Justice. Do you want to him to throw in the military and law enforcement too?In my trailer park level of thinking, I'd think that allowing Marbury to apply to fundamentally constitutional disputes between the two other branches -- as opposed to interpreting the constitutionality of statutes -- would be too much. This is one-on-one, without a referee.
Of course, after I realized the House already invited a referee to weigh in, I now know I'm arguing a moot point.
Good to know. It's hard to tell sometimes . . . .Since I’ve not suggested that rage leads to truth.
FWIW I greatly appreciate the dialogue with you and your perspective. Let me try saying it this way. Those on the committee must address Turley's absurd argument that impeachment is entirely the product of partisan feelings. It strikes me that a good way to respond to that argument is to say that it essentially argues that the motives for actions matter more than the merits. Whether or not the Dems have partisan motives in advancing the impeachment charges is no more relevant for the merits of those charges than is Turley's motives for offering his argument in the first place. We should dismiss both concerns as irrelevant and move on.Since I’ve not suggested that rage leads to truth I have no idea why you’re asking me this question. What I did instead do was disagree with iu@att’s suggestion that we must address Turley’s absurd both-siderism as though it was a serious argument advanced in good faith. In fact, it is neither, and (as I’ve said several times now) pretending that bullshit is serious argument seems more like dishonesty than civility.
Not every kossack rapes and pillages, but they all work for the Tsar.I am only making the point that Turley is arguing something and that is an improvement over the previous tactic of giving the finger together with spittle-flecked nonsense. The argument is a bad and unpersuasive argument...it is enough to note why this is the case. Turley's motives shouldn't matter given that we do not have to rely on his authority.
So do we lump kossacks who rape and pillage in with those who do not? Do we lump all kossacks who do not rape and pillage in with those who do?Not every kossack rapes and pillages, but they all work for the Tsar.
I told you to piss off, and I wish you’d accept that.I see you have raised the white flag.
Your surrender and apology are both accepted.
I told you to piss off, and I wish you’d accept that.
I'm not sure involving the courts would make a difference. I'd imagine Trump would pull a Andy Jackson if he thought he could get away with it.You sure you want a one-on-one, no referee bout in the context of a wannabe dictatorship? It's bad enough that Trump has stacked the deck with an Article 2 AG and an Article 2 Supreme Court Justice. Do you want to him to throw in the military and law enforcement too?
That even the “good” kossacks still work for the Tsar. Turley isn’t as bad as, say, Devin Nunes, but his bullshit arguments serve the same purpose as Nunes’s more egregious misbehavior.So do we lump kossacks who rape and pillage in with those who do not? Do we lump all kossacks who do not rape and pillage in with those who do?
What is your point here?
I would say it this way.So Turley isn’t sincere, but we should pretend he is, because civility? Again, this is more like dishonesty than civility.
Thank you.That even the “good” kossacks still work for the Tsar. Turley isn’t as bad as, say, Devin Nunes, but his bullshit arguments serve the same purpose as Nunes’s more egregious misbehavior.
Let's stipulate that Turley makes his argument in bad faith. Transport him back to 1998 and he makes exactly the opposite argument. My point is that it is wrong to grant that partisanship Turley's, yours, mine or anyone else matters. Turley's argument would be absurd even if he were sincere. The Democrats argument is correct even if it is in their partisan advantage to make it.Not every kossack rapes and pillages, but they all work for the Tsar.
I disagree that we should listen because he is polite and respectful. We should listen to hear if he makes a discernible argument. If he does then that argument should be addressed.I would say it this way.
We should listen to Turley because (1) he is polite and respectful,
We shouldn't take anything that Turley offers on his authority. We should evaluate his claims and arguments on their merits. His claim that the House should continue to investigate is belied by the refusal of the President to answer subpoenas and to intimidate and obstruct witnesses from appearing. We should also draw the inference that you make in 5 that these are the best arguments that can be made.(2) he disagreed with Trump and Barr on some significant points, (3) he didn't say Trump was innocent, (4) he seemed to be saying only that the House should take more time and investigate further before deciding, (5) Jordan, Gohmert and Meadows didn't care what he said, and (5) he is the best legal expert the GOP could come up with!!
That's good information to know. That means the best defense Trump could come up with (and force the Republicans to present on his behalf) is you haven't caught me yet -- keep investigating.
Trump himself connects the dots and emits the smoke that indicates there is a fire.
You are 1 million percent correct in saying their invalid argument is that "the motives for actions matter more than the merits."FWIW I greatly appreciate the dialogue with you and your perspective. Let me try saying it this way. Those on the committee must address Turley's absurd argument that impeachment is entirely the product of partisan feelings. It strikes me that a good way to respond to that argument is to say that it essentially argues that the motives for actions matter more than the merits. Whether or not the Dems have partisan motives in advancing the impeachment charges is no more relevant for the merits of those charges than is Turley's motives for offering his argument in the first place. We should dismiss both concerns as irrelevant and move on.
So let me try to see if I know where you are coming from. Arguments like those offered by Turley today are not only not advanced in good faith. They are advanced in order to disrupt and distract from good faith discussion. The offering of these arguments is, itself, a profound incivility hidden behind the merest figleaf of rationality and civility. Such abuses are properly met not by patient attempts to correct a misunderstanding but rather by pointing directly at the incivility and contempt that is the only real thing they express. Am I getting it?Since I’ve not suggested that rage leads to truth I have no idea why you’re asking me this question. What I did instead do was disagree with iu@att’s suggestion that we must address Turley’s absurd both-siderism as though it was a serious argument advanced in good faith. In fact, it is neither, and (as I’ve said several times now) pretending that bullshit is serious argument seems more like dishonesty than civility.
Why must we treat Turley’s predictable nonsense with any more respect than it deserves? Given his recent record, why should we presume his good faith?
When someone advances obviously false both-siderism, they abandon any standing to call for reason over rage by making a mockery of reason. Why should we celebrate Turley’s disingenuousness and intellectual dishonesty?
Civility isn’t the most important virtue, as I thought you understood.
And two of Turley’s law students were Micheal Avanatti and Kellyanne Conway. Both liars and one a criminal.I mean, Turley is good friends with Bill Barr so there's that too.
How is the Nunes angle not a bigger story? He is the ranking minority member of the House Intel Committee. He sat at the head of the table during the entire impeachment inquiry. And the whole time he was a FACT witness that was directly involved in the underlying scheme to extort Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden. Then he repeatedly lied about his involvement. This is an outrageous scandal.
That’s a lot of it. But “patient attempts to correct a misunderstanding” are of little purpose. There isn’t any “misunderstanding” that’s amenable to correction. There are instead charlatans, rubes, and stooges, and none of them has even the tiniest interest in the truth. You might as well patiently explain to the burglar that it’s regarded as wrong to steal people’s stuff.So let me try to see if I know where you are coming from. Arguments like those offered by Turley today are not only not advanced in good faith. They are advanced in order to disrupt and distract from good faith discussion. The offering of these arguments is, itself, a profound incivility hidden behind the merest figleaf of rationality and civility. Such abuses are properly met not by patient attempts to correct a misunderstanding but rather by pointing directly at the incivility and contempt that is the only real thing they express. Am I getting it?
That’s a lot of it. But “patient attempts to correct a misunderstanding” are of little purpose. There isn’t any “misunderstanding” that’s amenable to correction. There are instead charlatans, rubes, and stooges, and none of them has even the tiniest interest in the truth. You might as well patiently explain to the burglar that it’s regarded as wrong to steal people’s stuff.
Also, a central purpose of this sort of propaganda isn’t to persuade, but to foster confusion, cynicism, and apathy. When supposedly disinterested academics like Turley are speaking like Russian propagandists it calls into disrepute not merely the process, but the very idea of truth. The real threat flows not from incivility, but from fascist lies and manipulation. None of this should be politely normalized.
The defense of Trump doesn’t merely include bad faith bullshit. It’s entirely comprised of bad faith bullshit. This is a separate fact, and it’s corrosive for its own reasons that shouldn’t be dismissed merely because it’s regarded as uncivil to point this out.
Trump’s explanation is best understood if you imagine it being delivered by Tony Soprano to his crew at the Bada Bing. They all fall down laughing.Oh Rock. Ye of little faith. This is the perfect tweet explanation:
So good!! The funniest president ever.
#Trump2020!!!
Trump’s explanation is best understood if you imagine it being delivered by Tony Soprano to his crew at the Bada Bing. They all fall down laughing.
It will be interesting to see what the media has to say about this....."Devin Nunes, who I barely know"... etc"
The largest collection of Dumb & Dumbers ever assembled.
I mean, Turley is good friends with Bill Barr so there's that too.
Here’s a take that seems to fall in your lane, and it makes a good point.So let me try to see if I know where you are coming from. Arguments like those offered by Turley today are not only not advanced in good faith. They are advanced in order to disrupt and distract from good faith discussion. The offering of these arguments is, itself, a profound incivility hidden behind the merest figleaf of rationality and civility. Such abuses are properly met not by patient attempts to correct a misunderstanding but rather by pointing directly at the incivility and contempt that is the only real thing they express. Am I getting it?
We don't explain why burglary is wrong and must be punished for the benefit of the burglar. We explain for the benefit of the public and those who want to understand the principles that drive, will drive and out to drive our collective decision making. This is a core foundation of a society based on reason and not rage, as Turley proposes.That’s a lot of it. But “patient attempts to correct a misunderstanding” are of little purpose. There isn’t any “misunderstanding” that’s amenable to correction. There are instead charlatans, rubes, and stooges, and none of them has even the tiniest interest in the truth. You might as well patiently explain to the burglar that it’s regarded as wrong to steal people’s stuff.
My suggestion would be, in the context of an impeachment proceeding, to dispose of the arguments with some care. Should our democracy manage to muddle through, the arguments made by both sides will become part of the historical record. They will inform future decisions. The threat of partisans sewing confusion, cynicism and apathy is a real threat. It is ever present. That threat is best met with clarity, principle and energy. Those attributes of judgment will not be perceived as civil by the burglars of the moment but actually constitute the height of civility.Also, a central purpose of this sort of propaganda isn’t to persuade, but to foster confusion, cynicism, and apathy. When supposedly disinterested academics like Turley are speaking like Russian propagandists it calls into disrepute not merely the process, but the very idea of truth. The real threat flows not from incivility, but from fascist lies and manipulation. None of this should be politely normalized.
It is not uncivil to point it out. But it need not be pointed out in an uncivil manner. I guess the model here should be the judge confronting the convicted burglar prior to sentencing.The defense of Trump doesn’t merely include bad faith bullshit. It’s entirely comprised of bad faith bullshit. This is a separate fact, and it’s corrosive for its own reasons that shouldn’t be dismissed merely because it’s regarded as uncivil to point this out.
Well done article that illustrates exactly how useful it is when everyone on all sides is constrained to make arguments with evidence.Here’s a take that seems to fall in your lane, and it makes a good point.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...earing-what-legal-experts-agreed-upon/603094/
I see little evidence that we have a society based on reason or that there is any significant market for patient explanations. Instead, we have a society that elected as its president an obviously corrupt, obviously unfit, and obviously absurd cartoon character. In that society 90 percent of Republicans think that’s perfectly fine, and all the Very Serious People think the real problem is people like me, who trigger the butthurt white people who’ve done this. I should STFU, I’m repeatedly told, so we can all discuss this like grownups.We don't explain why burglary is wrong and must be punished for the benefit of the burglar. We explain for the benefit of the public and those who want to understand the principles that drive, will drive and out to drive our collective decision making. This is a core foundation of a society based on reason and not rage, as Turley proposes.
My suggestion would be, in the context of an impeachment proceeding, to dispose of the arguments with some care. Should our democracy manage to muddle through, the arguments made by both sides will become part of the historical record. They will inform future decisions. The threat of partisans sewing confusion, cynicism and apathy is a real threat. It is ever present. That threat is best met with clarity, principle and energy. Those attributes of judgment will not be perceived as civil by the burglars of the moment but actually constitute the height of civility.
It is not uncivil to point it out. But it need not be pointed out in an uncivil manner. I guess the model here should be the judge confronting the convicted burglar prior to sentencing.
I agree that article is well done. I disagree that there is much use in it, though, because it will have exactly no influence on the people who need to hear it, just like yesterday’s testimony. People who are prepared to make fools of themselves with loony debunked conspiracy theories will dismiss that and anything else that gets in their way.Well done article that illustrates exactly how useful it is when everyone on all sides is constrained to make arguments with evidence.
Well, the utility of it won't be noticed in the here and now. If there is a future in democracy, perhaps 1000 years from now, the debate that is taking place in our era will be germane then.I agree that article is well done. I disagree that there is much use in it, though, because it will have exactly no influence on the people who need to hear it, just like yesterday’s testimony. People who are prepared to make fools of themselves with loony debunked conspiracy theories will dismiss that and anything else that gets in their way.