# Must the Interchange Have....



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

....a goad, nemisis, devil's advocate, etc. to be lively? Do we need someone(s) that offer nothing but relentless ad homs to keep threads going out to 5+ pages? Or can we have a lively Interchange in a genteel fashion? Do we have enough diversity of opinion? I know I have started threads, and truthfully I might add, designed to run a bit counter to what people would expect from me, i.e. my US needs Universal Healthcare thread. 

Thoughts?


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

I wouldn't mind if there was a devil's advocate or a nemesis. But, it would be nice if that person stuck to the topic or at least academic argument instead of resorting to personal attacks. 

While I don't mind the sparring with guys like gmac, and I'm not even bothered by the personal attacks that much, I think that it turns a lot of people off to the interchange. As a result, I think a lot less people post on here that might normally, which in turn leads to threads that die quickly.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Nothing like a good brew-ha-ha once in a while, at least with words, not fists.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Well if you were not such a brainless twit of a right-wing nutjob....

Kust kidding.

It would be nice occasionally if the discussion was more about the topic at hand and "Your way sucks" was replaced with "I believe a better solution would be"


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

It quite obvious you are all wrong, inbred, and hate amputees.


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> It quite obvious you are all wrong, inbred, and hate amputees.


This from a canny Scotsman? Aren't you people all alcoholics?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Doctor Damage said:


> This from a canny Scotsman? Aren't you people all alcoholics?


You said that like it was a bad thing?


----------



## RJman (Nov 11, 2003)

Bah. Go and boil yer bottoms, empty headed animal food-trough waterers!!! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt... of elderberry!


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

As the most refined, erudite contributor to these forii, I abjure this tawdry thread forthwith. 

Mr. Gilcrist shall be notified as to the depths to which this venue has sunk. 

[email protected][email protected]$!


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

You're all a bunch of ugly drunks.


----------



## DocHolliday (Apr 11, 2005)

odoreater said:


> You're all a bunch of ugly drunks.


Don't make me send my baby's hired goons over to your house.


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

odoreater said:


> You're all a bunch of ugly drunks.


That vulgar, erotic "art" on smiley's shirt is a perfect example of what repels we of good taste and sensitive manner.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> ....Do we need someone(s) that offer nothing but relentless ad homs to keep threads going out to 5+ pages?
> 
> Thoughts?


Frankly, that lost it's amusment for me rather quickly. I enjoy witty, even biting, banter, but there must be a modicum of rationality and logic attached.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Relayer said:


> Frankly, that lost it's amusment for me rather quickly. I enjoy witty, even biting, banter, but there must be a modicum of rationality and logic attached.


I think you might have it there Relayer. While the comments can be pointed, they need to be based in fact and logic.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

jamgood said:


> That vulgar, erotic "art" on smiley's shirt is a perfect example of what repels we of good taste and sensitive manner.


You mean his tie?

Would you prefer a smiley with nothing on his shirt?


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

DocHolliday said:


> Don't make me send my baby's hired goons over to your house.


My baby will be here offering me his protection.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

A rousing, factual debate always has merit, enjoyable to read and, or should one prefer to, actively participate in. However, as a participant or participants sink to "talking through their a**h***s, the air quickly becomes fouled and I, as well as others, lose interest.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

It becomes tedious around here because of some people's certainty that they're absolutely right about things that have perplexed greater minds than ours for quite some time, and their equal certainty that no other viewpoint could possibly be rational, and that even stopping short of name-calling, such differences of opinion are fair game for responses indicating incredulity. 

Maybe my training as a journalist is why I find this so intellectually dishonest. In school when they tried to teach us about the opinion pages, it was common to require students to write an editorial one way about an issue and then write an editorial about the same issue taking the opposite view -- the greater lesson being not that all facts can be spun to fit an idealogy, not that like lawyers in court that one must not necessarily believe in order to present a compelling and even passionate case, and not even almost any opinion can be made to look ridiculous if someone wants to challenge it, but that intelligent, rational, good-intentioned people can study the same data and arrive at different, yet still legitimate conclusions, and that if we hope to be remotely fair we will always bear this in mind. 

Since my school days, unfortunately, political commentators, almost all of them in the electronic media, have lowered the level of intellectual honesty and politeness to the absolute bottom. Even more unfortunately, society has followed their lead.

I liked this last paragraph in the current issue of Esquire. Although I am not sure I would go so far as agreement with the writer's conclusion that John McCain can heal America, I do believe the writer, a Canadian who still lives in Canada by the way but uses "we" because he's writing for an American magazine, pretty much nailed the current state of the divided nation to his south:

"And when it forgets, too, about South Carolina, forgets about that moment when everything fell apart: not for McCain's presidential aspirations alone, but also for the country, as though now, over meat loaf and mashed potatoes, 1999 seems the last best time. Because by 2000—by South Carolina, by Michigan, by Arizona—we had already started playing Right versus Left, red state versus blue state, Rush Limbaugh versus Al Franken, the Minutemen versus the Dixie Chicks, Roe Again versus Wade Again, the church versus the state, "Mission Accomplished" versus Abu Ghraib, the Homeland versus the Constitution, Liberty University versus the New School, us versus them, us versus us. John McCain knows this, knows that his reputation was born just when some vital part of the country died, and now we are nearing the days when he must risk it all over again and hope that this time around the finish is different—different for him, different for America. He fears that time is running out for both. He knows that already it may be too late for him, for his wrecked and aging body, and, in his more pessimistic moments, possibly too late for the country. Even to consider running, to do for two years what he has done for the past few days, he must continue to believe that he's the one man who can save us. That's why John McCain would like to tell you a story—and why he would like for you to listen to it—his story of countrymen and friendship, of reconciliation with David Ifshin and with Vietnam, the country that saw to it that he would never again be able to comb his own hair, and he would like to tell you that all wounds can heal, that all memories can be made good, and that every state can be New Hampshire, in the middle of summer, enjoying an ice-cream social with Senator John McCain. And because of who he is—or perhaps because he is saying exactly what you need to hear—you're inclined to believe him and to believe that he's correct."


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

LOL...
There was a time when I took myself seriously.

...then I joined in with everyone else.

Yeeeeeeeeeesh... Of course everyone is certain that their opinion is right... if they thought they were wrong they'd think something else.

When I met Jill I realized that after years searching in the desert of sub-par women I had found Mrs. Right.

...Only later did I realize that her first name was "Always and Completely".


Lighten up, Francis..


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Chuck Franke said:


> LOL...
> Of course everyone is certain that their opinion is right... if they thought they were wrong they'd think something else.


I think mature people leave open the possibility of another viewpoint having some validity, whether they believe so or not. I think this is why the Supreme Court permits written dissenting opinions among its justices, that even though a case must ultimately be decided one way or another, the decision does not render opposing viewpoints meritless.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Chuck,

One can never go wrong quoting the great Sgt. Hulka.

Crs - its good to have an open mind, and when demonstrated to be wrong change it, but if you are never sure of anything you become paralyzed by inaction - kinda like the UN.

Karl


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

crs said:


> I think mature people leave open the possibility of another viewpoint having some validity, whether they believe so or not. I think this is why the Supreme Court permits written dissenting opinions among its justices, that even though a case must ultimately be decided one way or another, the decision does not render opposing viewpoints meritless.


 Not meritless? This may be true but the decision does render opposing viewpoints meaningless.


jamgood said:


> As the most refined, erudite contributor to these forii...


 You rite. You way cool, dude. BTW, it is for*a*. 


chuck franke said:


> There was a time when I took myself seriously....


 Yes; nice to see you've matured in the interim. Wasn't that "time" ... this morning?


wayfarer said:


> While the comments can be pointed, they need to be based in fact and logic.


 Oh, my!?! With those requirements, whatever will those on the left have to work with? :devil:

Well! Having trashed everything in sight, I think I'll depart now. Oh, yes. In case I didn't diss your post, don't worry. It must have been meritless.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Oh, yes. In case I didn't diss your post, don't worry. It must have been meritless.


 I was like "wtf" for a second there.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> I think mature people leave open the possibility of another viewpoint having some validity, whether they believe so or not. I think this is why the Supreme Court permits written dissenting opinions among its justices, that even though a case must ultimately be decided one way or another, the decision does not render opposing viewpoints meritless.


CRS, there is the maturity that allows other view points and then there is the childishness that refuses to acknowledges facts and will punish the rest of the adult world for daring to present them with an irrefutable, or nearly so, fact.

Let us take a simple issue that meets these criteria: minimum wage. It is extremely predictable who will be pro vs con on this issue. However, the fact of the matter is that an effective minimum wage (meaning it is above market demand) hurts the poor. It is one of those things that is abstract, I cannot point to something tangible and say, "See!? Here is my proof", but the evidence of my assertion is completely overwhelming on the side that an effective minimum wage hurts people. However, predictably, this single assertion could lead to 6+ pages of heated posts where people that have *something other than facts* at stake will argue endlessly.

Just a thought.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> It is one of those things that is abstract, I cannot point to something tangible and say, "See!? Here is my proof", but the evidence of my assertion is completely overwhelming


If it's not "tangible," then it's not "evidence," at least not by the standards I am held to at work. There seems to be no universal agreement among those who spend a great deal more time studying the issue than either of us (I assume you are a layman), therefore the only outlandishness in having a dissenting viewpoint from yours exists in your mind. Surely those who devote vast portions of their career to either side of this issue are better informed than either of us; probably they have made this subject the focal point of their doctorates, they have read everything there is to read on the topic and maybe written some advanced texts themselves, they attend conferences where nothing but minimum-wage law is discussed, and yet they cannot agree. Thus intelligent, informed people still disagree, so the evidence cannot be overwhelming, and the question remains unsettled.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> If it's not "tangible," then it's not "evidence," at least not by the standards I am held to at work. There seems to be no universal agreement among those who spend a great deal more time studying the issue than either of us (I assume you are a layman), therefore the only outlandishness in having a dissenting viewpoint from yours exists in your mind. Surely those who devote vast portions of their career to either side of this issue are better informed than either of us; probably they have made this subject the focal point of their doctorates, they have read everything there is to read on the topic and maybe written some advanced texts themselves, they attend conferences where nothing but minimum-wage law is discussed, and yet they cannot agree. Thus intelligent, informed people still disagree, so the evidence cannot be overwhelming, and the question remains unsettled.


So basically then, what you are saying, is that unless something can be physically manifested, i.e. tangible, it is all just shades of grey? There is no right and no wrong, merely "viewpoints" and "opinions"?

I will set aside the question of minimum wage as that is not the point, it was an example, and one that worked perfectly it would seem.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I would think that when the experts, the academics, the people most fully informed about a topic disagree after years of study and debate, then, yes, Wayfarer, I would say the answer has not been definitive by either side, that I must remain open to the possibility that the side I prefer might someday be proved wrong, and I would hope that those who favor the other choice hold open the same possibility that they may be proved wrong, at least those with whom I expect to have an interesting, give-and-take conversation.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> I would think that when the experts, the academics, the people most fully informed about a topic disagree after years of study and debate, then, yes, Wayfarer, I would say the answer has not been definitive by either side, that I must remain open to the possibility that the side I prefer might someday be proved wrong, and I would hope that those who favor the other choice hold open the same possibility that they may be proved wrong, at least those with whom I expect to have an interesting, give-and-take conversation.


Please, for my simple mind, a simple yes or no: unless something is tangible (in reference to your first reply to me) there can be no "right" and no "wrong". Just a yes or no please, no politician answers.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

This is not a court, and I am not going to be cornered into a black-and-white, blanket answer that I am to adhere to in all situations, current and potential. Nor would I expect you to. I gave my answer. If that's not good enough for you, too bad.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Here is a thought question: believe it or not, there is still some question concerning HIV and its transmission mode, there was even, until quite recently, debate on whether or not it even was encompassed by Koch's Postulates. So we have some disagreement by experts, we must be open minded about this.

Crs, would you take a blood transfusion tainted with HIV? I mean, I hope you are open minded enough to allow for another viewpoint on this, as there are some experts, people much more knowledgeable than you or I on the topic, that disagree.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> This is not a court, and I am not going to be cornered into a black-and-white....answer...


Actually, I think you just answered. Merci.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Why must every discussion with you turn into a confrontation in which, in your mind, apparently, only one correct answer exists? There are questions that have puzzled philosophers and scientists for 1,000 years. Many of us believe these are eternal questions that never will be answered. Yet Wayfarer believes all questions must be answered, right now, and to his liking, or the answer, or lack of one, is invalid.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Why must every discussion with you turn into a confrontation in which, in your mind, apparently, only one correct answer exists? There are questions that have puzzled philosophers and scientists for 1,000 years. Many of us believe these are eternal questions that never will be answered. Yet Wayfarer believes all questions must be answered, right now, and to his liking, or the answer, or lack of one, is invalid.


I am afraid that is just not true crs. Is the alleged application of a universal statement made by your opponent taught somewhere? I ask this as both you and gmac use it often. I fully agree there are many, many unanswerable questions. I also believe there are a good many that have been answered to such an extent, we must act as if the proof were irrefutable. If one wanted 100% certainty on everything, one would have clarity on nothing.

It was you sir that stated we must maintain an open mind on all things unless there was tangible evidence. I did not create such a large class of instances, you did. I am merely exploring things.

So then do we wish to reformulate? Can we create, between you and I, a class of things that are certain to a vanishing extent, that lack tangible evidence? Or as I asked several posts ago, are all abstract items merely opinions and viewpoints. There is no reason for rancour here, we are all friends.


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

*Fishin' 'mongst les foriiiiiiii*



Alexander Kabbaz said:


> You rite. You way cool, dude. BTW, it is for*a*.


Like a pond bass leapin' at a night crawler wigglin' on a Christmas tree ornament hook danglin' on kite cord strung from a fresh cut bamboo pole from down by the crick. Gotcha! Thought it'd be JLibourel. (How's that for a run on sentence?)

Kooul, not cool. But thankyew. Always enjoy a well earned compliment.

CompetEnt.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Here is a thought question: believe it or not, there is still some question concerning HIV and its transmission mode, there was even, until quite recently, debate on whether or not it even was encompassed by Koch's Postulates. So we have some disagreement by experts, we must be open minded about this.
> 
> Crs, would you take a blood transfusion tainted with HIV? I mean, I hope you are open minded enough to allow for another viewpoint on this, as there are some experts, people much more knowledgeable than you or I on the topic, that disagree.


That's a farfetched question. Naturally in such a serious matter I would take the most cautious approach possible. I would consider the more radical school of thought possibly right -- I wouldn't go calling them quacks because they could someday be proved right -- but I would go with what I believe is the better option. That is not invalidating the other school of thought, that is simply making a personal choice.

A better analogy might be disagreement over which diet is the safest and most effective way to lose weight. There must be hundreds, even thousands of theories, many of them contained in books written by people who have graduated from medical schools. Intelligent people take this with a grain of salt -- no one diet has proved better than all others. We choose the one that seems best, and when that fails we try another. Does one diet doctor call all others uniformed quacks? Well, some may, but they probably golf alone.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

crs said:


> I would think that when the experts, the academics, the people most fully informed about a topic ...


In my opinion, this is a singularly narrowminded statement.

If memory serves, more than 80% of those in the teaching profession had GPAs lower than 75%.

Wasn't it academics who brought us the joys of what Sowell termed "The Dumbing Down of America"?

Though most old saws are products of myth and legend and thus generally unreliable, from whence cometh the old saw: "Those who can't do teach"?

Please don't infer from my doubting of your alleged yet intangible fact that I am in any way disparaging academia. Some of my best friends are professors.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> That's a farfetched question. Naturally in such a serious matter I would take the most cautious approach possible. I would consider the more radical school of thought possibly right -- I wouldn't go calling them quacks because they could someday be proved right -- but I would go with what I believe is the better option. That is not invalidating the other school of thought, that is simply making a personal choice.


Ah yes, a personal choice. So you see, it is not that Ken Lay was a thief, a crook, a man that ruined thousands of lives, he simply made a personal choice in accounting?

Crs, do not be mad at me, it just seems we are completely different and this is being reflected. I am a doer. I must make decisions that affect both people's lives and the health of my organization daily, and 100% of those decisions are based on bounded rationality. Clarity must come before certainty. I have the honesty to say I can deem something as "bunk" without 100% certainty. I might be wrong on occasion, but it is my role to make correct decisions most of the time without complete certainty.

I can sit and ponder if consistent non-Euclidean geometries negates Kant's analytic/synthetic for hours, but I can also say, without hesitation, that Plato and his theory of learning = remembering is bunk. Can I prove re-incarnation is bunk? Nope, but I am pretty damn comfortable saying it.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> In my opinion, this is a singularly narrowminded statement.
> 
> If memory serves, more than 80% of those in the teaching profession had GPAs lower than 75%.
> 
> ...


I believe, Alexander, that I've made it clear on this thread that I was referring to those who devoted their careers to studying that specific topic, in which case they would be better informed than you, a shirtmaker, and I, a journalist, who each have only a layman's knowledge of the hypothetical subject although each of us may or may not have read a handful of books about it, maybe even taken a college course, maybe even majored in the subject as undergrads, but did not make it our life's work like the academics in question. In my business, the technical term for what you just did would be "taking a quote out of context."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> I've made it clear on this thread that I was referring to those who devoted their careers to studying that specific topic, in which case they would be better informed than you, a shirtmaker, and I, a journalist, who each have only a layman's knowledge of the hypothetical subject although each of us may or may not have read a handful of books about it, maybe even taken a college course, maybe even majored in the subject as undergrads, but did not make it our life's work like the academics in question.


Can I ask at what point something such as minimum wage would stop having "alternate schools of thought" and become a topic that was settled? Say there are 1000 PhDs in Economics with this as their specialty. Would all 1000 have to agree for the topic to be settled? 999? 998? 501?

Just wondering.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Ah yes, a personal choice. So you see, it is not that Ken Lay was a thief, a crook, a man that ruined thousands of lives, he simply made a personal choice in accounting?
> 
> Crs, do not be mad at me, it just seems we are completely different and this is being reflected. I am a doer. I must make decisions that affect both people's lives and the health of my organization daily, and 100% of those decisions are based on bounded rationality. Clarity must come before certainty. I have the honesty to say I can deem something as "bunk" without 100% certainty. I might be wrong on occasion, but it is my role to make correct decisions most of the time without complete certainty.
> 
> I can sit and ponder if consistent non-Euclidean geometries negates Kant's analytic/synthetic for hours, but I can also say, without hesitation, that Plato and his theory of learning = remembering is bunk. Can I prove re-incarnation is bunk? Nope, but I am pretty damn comfortable saying it.


Ken Lay was convicted in a system that required tangible proof. It is an imperfect system; some people have been sprung off death row, certainly. But the standard the criminal courts system strives for is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The thought process you describe yourself using would be "preponderance of evidence," such as would be used in a civil case. This lesser burden of proof is used in less serious cases in which the stakes are lower and the penalties less serious. We would not want to sentence a man to death by preponderance of evidence, or mere public opinion, because we understand this burden of proof is more fallible than "reasonable doubt" -- there is an implied acknowledgement that we have not proved the case to the highest standard possible, therefore the possibility of error is greater. That's fine, but using such standards, it would not be honest to say a differing viewpoint is certainly wrong.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

crs said:


> I believe, Alexander, that I've made it clear on this thread that I was referring to those who devoted their careers to studying that specific topic, in which case they would be better informed than you, a shirtmaker, and I, a journalist, who each have only a layman's knowledge of the hypothetical subject although each of us may or may not have read a handful of books about it, maybe even taken a college course, maybe even majored in the subject as undergrads, but did not make it our life's work like the academics in question.


 Regretfully, you are sidestepping the issue. I have no time for and little interest in "those who devoted their careers to *studying* that specific topic". My primary interest would be for those who devoted their careers to *living* that specific topic. 


crs said:


> In my business, the technical term for what you just did would be "taking a quote out of context."


 Firstly, you are incorrect. I captured sum and substance of your statement. Secondly, please restrain your condescension. I make shirts a few days a week because I still enjoy making shirts ... in addition to having had published in excess of some 800 articles, lectured at Folio Magazine's publishing convention, and been honored with a 2005 award by the Society of Professional Journalists. In the future, please be so kind as to respond to my statements rather than grading my writing. That will serve to keep the debate on point rather than off track.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Can I ask at what point something such as minimum wage would stop having "alternate schools of thought" and become a topic that was settled? Say there are 1000 PhDs in Economics with this as their specialty. Would all 1000 have to agree for the topic to be settled? 999? 998? 501?
> 
> Just wondering.


No doubt when slavery was abolished or women were allowed to vote there were dissenters. I would say the subject was settled, though, when laws were enacted after much study and much debate, and when the vast numbers of people in the nation agreed that this was right and just and when the dissenters dwindled from the mainstream and into the fringes. I don't think you could categorize the minimum wage debate as anywhere near that stage now.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Ken Lay was convicted in a system that required tangible proof.


Yes, tangible proof he exercised a personal choice in accounting. Who are we to say his choice was invalid? It was merely illegal. Then who are we to say what is illegal is immoral? That seems harshly judgmental.

Sorry crs, I can not help myself from playing with this.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> No doubt when slavery was abolished or women were allowed to vote there were dissenters. I would say the subject was settled, though, when laws were enacted after much study and much debate, and when the vast numbers of people in the nation agreed that this was right and just and when the dissenters dwindled from the mainstream and into the fringes. I don't think you could categorize the minimum wage debate as anywhere near that stage now.


So then, when a law has been enacted, the case is settled? (After "much study and much debate" of course).

Further, that is quite a statement you just made about minimum wage! You are saying that the vast majority of mainstream economists feel the impact of an effective minimum wage are in doubt?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Crs,

Is circumstantial evidence tangible proof? Besides Lay's conviction will be vacated bc he died before his first appeal was heard. Want to try your argument again?

Karl


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Firstly, you are incorrect. I captured sum and substance of your statement.


Alex, in my line of work, the person quoted is the judge of that and is usually given last word on that, in this case:

"Surely those who devote vast portions of their career to either side of this issue are better informed than either of us; probably they have made this subject the focal point of their doctorates, they have read everything there is to read on the topic and maybe written some advanced texts themselves, they attend conferences where nothing but minimum-wage law is discussed, and yet they cannot agree."


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Karl89 said:


> Crs,
> 
> Is circumstantial evidence tangible proof? Besides Lay's conviction will be vacated bc he died before his first appeal was heard. Want to try your argument again?
> 
> Karl


I didn't bring up Ken Lay, I was responding to Wayfarer. Ken Lay would not be an analogy I'd choose.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Gonna call it a night guys. Was nice to have a cordial chat.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Crs,

Please Crs, stop embarassing yourself.

Karl


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

To coin a phrase, Wayfarer, ditto.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Karl89 said:


> crs said:
> 
> 
> > Ken Lay was convicted in a system that required tangible proof. QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Karl, see, this is where you go into the range in which we've been asked not to go. I'll abide by the moderator's request, but I think you just crossed the line.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

crs said:


> Alex, in my line of work, the person quoted is the judge of that and is usually given last word on that,


 Yes. Real people. For publication and attribution. We have none of that here (oops ... except for lil' ole googleable me!). Therefore, because you are a virtual persona, I can read your words at their face value rather than allowing you the luxury of after-the-fact spin. Unless, of course, you would care to display creds and take the discussion to another level.



crs said:


> "Surely those who devote vast portions of their career to either side of this issue are better informed than either of us; probably they have made this subject the focal point of their doctorates, they have read everything there is to read on the topic and maybe written some advanced texts themselves, they attend conferences where nothing but minimum-wage law is discussed, and yet they cannot agree."


 Yes, but: Have they ever been an employer of a minimum-wage employee? Have they ever been a minimum-wage employee? I'd venture not. I have been both. Again, I most respectfully disagree with your theory that those who have read must know better than those who have done.

And again, rather than sidelining the discussion points in favor of lecturing me on your supposed line-of-work, let us remain on topic. Last request for that.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

crs said:


> Karl, see, this is where you go into the range in which we've been asked not to go. I'll abide by the moderator's request, but I think you just crossed the line.


 Did I miss something? What moderator's request?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Crs,

You may think I may have crossed the line but if we were to adopt your logic we could never be absolutely sure, now could we?

I think you are more thoughtful than your recent posts would indicate, forgive me if I am wrong.

Karl


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Yes, but: Have they ever been an employer of a minimum-wage employee? Have they ever been a minimum-wage employee? I'd venture not.


Unless all of them went through college completely on daddy's coin, a rarity given college costs, most likely they held a minimum-wage job or two.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

crs said:


> Unless all of them went through college completely on daddy's coin, a rarity given college costs, most likely they held a minimum-wage job or two.


 Ahh. Tangible evidence at last.

Oh, yes: "They" who?


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

Much ado


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> That is not invalidating the other school of thought, that is simply making a personal choice.


Here, to my mind, is the type of thing that occurs when we do not wish to invalidate alternate schools of thought and just make "personal choices" on things:



> U.W.-Madison Provost Pat Farrell launched a review after Barrett spoke last month on a talk show about his views that the terrorist attacks were the result of a government conspiracy to spark war in the Middle East. After the review, Farrell said Barrett was a qualified instructor who can present his views as one perspective on the attacks.


So you see, "one perspective" of 9/11 is that Cheney orchestrated it. The thing is, I thought when the experts had a concensus, and there were laws passed, etc., that is how we determined what was correct. In this case:



> 61 legislators condemn a decision by U.W.-Madison and demand the dismissal of Kevin Barrett


and the guy is still teaching. Impressionable young minds. Scary.

I am happy I can look at this "one perspective on the attacks", an "alternate school of thought" if you will, and just say it is utter bullshyte.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

That's a bait-and-switch, Way. What we're talking about is the best minds in their field, people with unassailable credentials and theories well within the mainstream, disagreeing over something like minimum-wage law. For you to drag out some nut and say, see, this is an alternative thought, thus all alternative thoughts are bogus -- well, that would be like me dredging up some neo-nazi and saying, "See, this is the kind of person who wants a hard line on immigration." Just not a fair example.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> That's a bait-and-switch, Way. What we're talking about is the best minds in their field, people with unassailable credentials and theories well within the mainstream, disagreeing over something like minimum-wage law. For you to drag out some nut and say, see, this is an alternative thought, thus all alternative thoughts are bogus -- well, that would be like me dredging up some neo-nazi and saying, "See, this is the kind of person who wants a hard line on immigration." Just not a fair example.


I don't know about that crs. You giving the HIV thing the status of "alternate school of thought" is at about the same level I think. However, I would agree with what you said but you never did acknowledge my proposition that there might be a class of abstract things where we can say, "We do not have 100% certainty, but I am willing to dismiss the alternate propositions as specious". I mean, maybe Cheney did to it  You need to admit to this class of items I am proposing and then we're on the same page.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Wayfarer,

Tragically the example you use is not hypothetical. South African President Thabo Mbeki has repeatedly stated that HIV does not lead to AIDS and can be treated by herbs and natural remedies. Guess how well South Africa is doing in the fight against AIDS? So you see Crs, the skepticism you hail, the standard of proof you demand, can have deadly consequences. Just look at South Africa.

Karl

P.S. Just in case you doubt me
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1556715.stm


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Karl - if you really want to get a good fight started look at the hysterical objections to the Bush program on slowing down AIDS.

Abstain (impractical perhaps but oddly the only 100% sure scientific way to prevent STD's was dismissed as moralistic and of course, morality is evil. Should science intersect with morality the science must be ignored.)

Monogamy - OK, this one is good in two ways, prevents STD's and getting your throat cut while sleeping - both can arguably be deemed bad things. Nope, that was also based in morality and is thus evil, see intersection of science/morality clause.

If all else fails, condoms.

I recall that the policy was deemed racist and not practical and the only part worthy of discussion was the last part... the scientifically least effective of the three.


Sigh.

I suppose there is a viable herbal treatment - poison oak rubbed on the genitals would probably reduce the desire to spread an STD so I suppose that is good, if painful, science.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Wayfarer,
> 
> Tragically the example you use is not hypothetical. South African President Thabo Mbeki has repeatedly stated that HIV does not lead to AIDS and can be treated by herbs and natural remedies. Guess how well South Africa is doing in the fight against AIDS? So you see Crs, the skepticism you hail, the standard of proof you demand, can have deadly consequences. Just look at South Africa.
> 
> ...


Heh, you beat me to the punch, I had been holding that back as a trump card to my set up


----------



## Aus_MD (Nov 2, 2005)

Chuck Franke said:


> I suppose there is a viable herbal treatment - poison oak rubbed on the genitals would probably reduce the desire to spread an STD so I suppose that is good, if painful, science.


Who knows? Spanish fly had pretty much the same effect, but look at its reputation.

Aus


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Wayfarer,

Didn't mean to steal your thunder. You could always mention those you doubt the moon landing!

Karl


----------

