You too Dave...

*ploink*

--
-Netsock

"It's just about going fast...that's all..."
http://home.insight.rr.com/cgreen/
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On 23 Jun 2004 15:22:13 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

It was even simpler than that. I just applied a chain of simple logic
based on the definitions previously provided. If "neo" is new, then if
someone is a "neo"conservative, that implies that they were
previously something else. The most common "other" ideology would be a
liberal. Therefore, a "new" conservative would most likely be an "old"
liberal.

Binary thinking at its finest. Only two possibilities to consider.


Sometimes that's all there is. Are you familiar with Occam's razor?


Dave

On 23 Jun 2004 17:32:26 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

And your point is?

I see you failed to address the questions that I posed,

There was no need, Dave.

The question was, "Is neo-conservatism an absolute and binary philosophy?"

Since there are few absolutes in the world, the answer is no.

Rather than identify with the classic or traditional conservatives, (about whom
I said some respectful things), you elected to defend neo-conservatism.

No, I postulated that what you interpret as "binary thinking" is the
result of your liberal bias. Taking it a bit further, it is my
assertion that the whole term "neo conservative" is a liberal attempt
to identify that which they cannot comprehend, and yet another
negative label which they can use to demonize those who they cannot
agree with. Sort of like "Hate Radio".


While defending neo-conservatism against my charges of polarized perceptions
and self vindicating philosophies, you chose to use a series of absolutist,
binary, rebuttals.

How are so-called "neo conservatives" any more polarizing than their
liberal counterparts?

If I tell you that 2+2=4, are you going to accuse me of binary
thinking? Sometimes the answers really are that simple. In the cases
where they aren't, conservatives tend to use logic and rationalization
to defend their position. Liberals tend to let emotions cloud their
objectivity. When you use an emotional basis for arriving at a
conclusion, it's easy to accuse the rational thinker of being "rigid".


That's similar to posting, "Whuyt the heck do yu mein I dont kno how to spiel?"
The body of your rebuttal carries the opposing argument. No point to kick you
any further when you're down.

I'm far from down..... I'm still waiting for you to defend your
claims, and provide examples of this so-called "binary thinking", or
at least answer my original questions.

Dave

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:28:38 -0400, John H
wrote:

On 23 Jun 2004 17:53:17 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

If a traditional conservative was a liberal, then he/she is a
neoconservative.

Reread what you wrote. Very slowly.

Regardless what a traditional conservative *was*, anybody who can be
indentified as a traditional conservative *is* just that. A traditional
conservative.

Those who subscribe to neo-conservaTISM
are neo-cons, regardless of previous affilitations or beliefs. One can
"progress" from rational conservatism to neo-conservatism. No detour to
liberalism required.

Any conservative who *was* a liberal *is* a neoconservative. Why is Webster not
sufficient as a source any longer?

Who coined and defined the term 'neocon'? Apparently it wasn't Webster, and I'd
be willing to bet that it was coined as a derogatory term by someone of the
liberal persuasion.

This isn't an archaic definition, it's what is used today:

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

One entry found for neoconservative.


Main Entry: neo·con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: -k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
Function: noun
: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
- neo·con·ser·va·tism /-v&-"ti-z&m/ noun
- neoconservative adjective


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


Evidently liberals feel that they know more than Webster. And you're
right, the term "neo con" has been redefined by liberals as some sort
of negative label that they can exploit to rationalize and demonize
those which they cannot debate on issue alone. Liberals tend to label
any idea, concept, or group that they disagree with. "The rich", Neo
con", "Hate Radio", "Religious Zealots", oh, and George W. Bush.

Dave

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:27:18 -0400, "Bert Robbins"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:
On 23 Jun 2004 15:22:13 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

It was even simpler than that. I just applied a chain of simple logic
based on the definitions previously provided. If "neo" is new, then if
someone is a "neo"conservative, that implies that they were
previously something else. The most common "other" ideology would be a
liberal. Therefore, a "new" conservative would most likely be an "old"
liberal.

Binary thinking at its finest. Only two possibilities to consider.


Sometimes that's all there is. Are you familiar with Occam's razor?


Dave



I am. Old William called for a minimum number of points *necessary*. For
issues as complex as a worldwide Islamist insurgency, black or white
ain't enough.

Sure it is. If you are an infidel you must convert to Islam or die by the
Islamic sword. Simple, black and white and binary.


That is the way our enemies think. Should we not respond in kind?

Dave

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 06:37:30 -0400, "Netsock"
wrote:

You too Dave...

*ploink*


You're going to be real lonely on this newsgroup pretty soon.

Dave

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:34:50 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On 23 Jun 2004 15:22:13 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

It was even simpler than that. I just applied a chain of simple logic
based on the definitions previously provided. If "neo" is new, then if
someone is a "neo"conservative, that implies that they were
previously something else. The most common "other" ideology would be a
liberal. Therefore, a "new" conservative would most likely be an "old"
liberal.

Binary thinking at its finest. Only two possibilities to consider.


Sometimes that's all there is. Are you familiar with Occam's razor?


Dave



I am. Old William called for a minimum number of points *necessary*. For
issues as complex as a worldwide Islamist insurgency, black or white
ain't enough.

Actually, there are very few shaded of gray. They want to kill us, we
don't want them too. One side will win. Who do you want it to be?
That's as necessary as we need to be.

If you think that some sort of civilized, rational means of "talking"
this out will work, I've got some serious ocean front property in
Arizona that I'd like to show you......

Dave

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:37:07 -0400, DSK wrote:

Binary thinking at its finest. Only two possibilities to consider.


Are you sure you want to describe this process as "thinking?"

Dave Hall wrote:
Sometimes that's all there is. Are you familiar with Occam's razor?

Yep. Very good Dave. Either you're with us, or you're against us...
intensely paranoid psychosis, logically justified.


That is your interpretation and subject to your own flawed reasoning.

Let's think about the choices we have. You could be:

A. With us, in that you support the elimination of world-wide
terrorism by whatever means necessary.

B. Against us, which means that you feel that active terrorist groups
killing innocent civilians is acceptable behavior in a civilized
world.

C. Neutral. You want to hide your head in the sand and pretend the
problem will fix itself.

So which are you?

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 14:28:38 -0400, John H
wrote:

On 23 Jun 2004 17:53:17 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

If a traditional conservative was a liberal, then he/she is a
neoconservative.

Reread what you wrote. Very slowly.

Regardless what a traditional conservative *was*, anybody who can be
indentified as a traditional conservative *is* just that. A traditional
conservative.

Those who subscribe to neo-conservaTISM
are neo-cons, regardless of previous affilitations or beliefs. One can
"progress" from rational conservatism to neo-conservatism. No detour to
liberalism required.

Any conservative who *was* a liberal *is* a neoconservative. Why is Webster not
sufficient as a source any longer?

Who coined and defined the term 'neocon'? Apparently it wasn't Webster, and I'd
be willing to bet that it was coined as a derogatory term by someone of the
liberal persuasion.

This isn't an archaic definition, it's what is used today:

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

One entry found for neoconservative.


Main Entry: neo·con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: -k&n-'s&r-v&-tiv
Function: noun
: a former liberal espousing political conservatism
- neo·con·ser·va·tism /-v&-"ti-z&m/ noun
- neoconservative adjective


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!


Evidently liberals feel that they know more than Webster. And you're
right, the term "neo con" has been redefined by liberals as some sort
of negative label that they can exploit to rationalize and demonize
those which they cannot debate on issue alone. Liberals tend to label
any idea, concept, or group that they disagree with. "The rich", Neo
con", "Hate Radio", "Religious Zealots", oh, and George W. Bush.

Dave


You rigid righties are a trip...neocon may not be the best
definition...American Taliban might be better.

Dave Hall wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:27:18 -0400, "Bert Robbins"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:
On 23 Jun 2004 15:22:13 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

It was even simpler than that. I just applied a chain of simple logic
based on the definitions previously provided. If "neo" is new, then if
someone is a "neo"conservative, that implies that they were
previously something else. The most common "other" ideology would be a
liberal. Therefore, a "new" conservative would most likely be an "old"
liberal.

Binary thinking at its finest. Only two possibilities to consider.


Sometimes that's all there is. Are you familiar with Occam's razor?


Dave



I am. Old William called for a minimum number of points *necessary*. For
issues as complex as a worldwide Islamist insurgency, black or white
ain't enough.

Sure it is. If you are an infidel you must convert to Islam or die by the
Islamic sword. Simple, black and white and binary.


That is the way our enemies think. Should we not respond in kind?

Dave

You mean, we should become what they are?

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:53:49 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:08:13 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
it's just that
they stand firm in their resolve. They make the hard decisions rather
than engaging in endless debates from infinite angles.

Even when their assumptions are wrong and events prove their thinking is
leading to one disaster after another.

No one has yet to prove that those decisions were wrong (your biased
and ill-informed opinions do not count), or that these decisions have
been a "disaster".

Bush's "war against terrorism" is a fraud and a disaster, no matter how
you and the other binaries try to spin it.

I'm still waiting for you (or anyone else) to substantiate that claim
with something other than biased, hate-filled rhetoric, opinion and
conjecture.



What you call "Bush's stupidity" may very well be a cleverly organized
and well thought out effort. 20 years from now, and we'll look back a
bit differently than we are now.


Are you competing for the "Today's Laugh" prize?

No, I don't have a chance. You've got that one in the bag.



Rigid personality disorder, eh?

No, it's called doing what's right, even if it makes some people
uncomfortable in the short term.

There's nothing right about Bush policies, except, of course, that they
are mostly extremely right...wing.

So doing nothing is preferable to what we're doing now? Maybe you'd
rather send Al Qaeda a case of French wine and ask them nicely to not
fly any more planes into our buildings?

Dave