If you want to have a semantical debate I can do that too... if your concern is the specific words I use, I will choose more carefully just so you can perhaps address the underlying issues rather than the absolute philosophical "truth" of each word.
cplain wrote:You seem to think that since I disagree with you, that I am "Misinterpreting your post".
Actually, you're wrong. I think you're misinterpreting my post because you suggest that my reaction to the boycott is because the subject is a conservative. I never said it was because they were a conservative, therefore I have to conclude that you're misinterpreting what I write or just adding your own prejudices to my words. It doesn't bother me that you disagree with me - it bothers me when you attribute bias to me that I don't have.
cplain wrote:>>I don't object to her organizing a boycott -
yes you do. if you are intellectually honest.
You are correct - technically I do object, or I wouldn't suggest there were a better course of action. Of course if we're going to get into technicalities, first I would have to assertain that she even exists since my own senses can often deceive me and as a result I have no absolute proof of her existence. How technical do you want to get?
Most reasonable people would understand that my point is that I have no hostility towards her for organizing a boycott or would suggest that she doesn't have the right to do it - clearly it's within her rights. I'm not losing any sleep over it.
My concern with her actions is that she is attempting to punish an individual for expressing their beliefs. She's not attempting to present a counter argument to the discussion, she's simply seeking retribution. It adds nothing to a national discussion.
She's certainly within her rights to organize a boycott. My point is that there are far more meaningful ways to repsond.
cplain wrote:>>What I find troubling is the vindictive nature of such an action -
She apparently finds HIS actions vindictive. You dont see it that way.
No, I don't see expressing support for a political candidate as vindictive. I see it as expressing support for a political candidate.
cplain wrote:>it speaks volumes about this particular person's lack of tolerance.
And Bruces actions speak volumes as well.
Yes, it says he cares enough to engage in the political process. Damn him.
cplain wrote:Now YOU didnt read what I SAID...did you?
She feels Bruces actions are not "positive" you see?
And she may feel Bruce is trying to "punish" Bush for Florida??
you see? Speaking your mind is one thing, going out to alter the vote is yet another. But i think i was clear on that. I suggest you reread that part instead of just skating over it and ignoring it.
Well, had you said she felt Bruce was trying to punish Bush for Florida I would have addressed it. It's really tough to read what you don't write.
Altering the vote IS politics. I have the right to try to persuade you to vote for my guy and you have the right to try to persuade me to vote for yours. In fact that discussion is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind. Your suggestion that trying to convince people to vote one way is somehow nefarious is absolutely ridiculous - that's what people do when they get involved in politics.
cplain wrote:>That is completely contrary to the principles this country was founded on - that's why I feel it's un-American.
No its not. You are just throwing that out there and assuming because you say it, that it is so. and it is not.
Great rebuttal. I'm not just throwing it out there - I can fully support my suggestion that it's contrary to the principles this country was founded on. If you were interested in a genuine discussion then you would ask me to justify my statement before you attempted to dismiss it with a "I know what you are but what am I" caliber retort.
cplain wrote:>Bruce et al are putting on an event to express their views.
No theyre are not.
They are trying to alter the vote.
His "views" were already stated BEFORE the shows. You keep avoiding that.
I keep avoiding that? This is the first time you've brought it up. Had you brought it up before I would have dismissed that line of reasoning just like this:
Expression isn't contingent on originality. Someone can express the same view over and over again. It doesn't void it as a form of expression.
Regardless, of course they're trying to influence the vote. So what - that's politics.
cplain wrote:Who are you to decide what "intelligence? is?
You make the rules? you say whats fair? She chooses a boycott in response to his action. Yet she is immature and stupid in your mind because she doesnt go start a concert tour. This isnt a "discussion", its them trying to alter the outcome, why do you keep trying to spin that?
I don't make the rules - don't even pretend to make the rules - but, like everyone else in this country, I can observe a situation and, based on my own knowledge and experience, make a determination of how I feel about something. When I compare this action against my understanding of the philosophical framework of the principles the nation was founded on and the widely-accepted intentions of the founding fathers, I find it to be immature and intellectually unsophisticated.
She has every right to respond however she wants - but in the larger intellectual framework responding to a point of view with an attempt at retribution is immature.
How much work would get done in Washington if everytime two sides disagreed they simply attempted to punish the opposition? Sure, it happens, but it's not what the founding fathers intended.
cplain wrote:btw- We dont live in a democracy
I know - the form of government is technically a republic because we elect representatives. I was referring to the principle of democracy (which is still the root of a republic), not democracy as a form of government.
If you really want to debate, here's my position:
Suggesting that we punish a musician for organizing a concert in favor of the guy you DON'T like is, frankly, un-American.
Eleven longhaired friends of Jesus in a chartreuse microbus...
