Interesting quote from my own archive...

[terminotaur]

"Widespread intellectual and moral docility may be convenient for leaders in the short term, but it is suicidal for nations in the long term. One of the criteria for national leadership should therefore be a talent for understanding, encouraging, and making constructive use of vigorous criticism

Comments

[chris_sawyer]

Well, we are circling the drain. That's where we stack up.

We are so doomed, it isn't even funny.

I really think that the owners of this society have fanned the ignorant religious types into their current ferocity for much the same reason that the europeans are allowing radical islam to invade.

It scares the shit out of normal people, and distracts them from the real threat from the corporate interests.

[mtext]

We are so doomed, it isn't even funny.

Oh, do I have the LJ community for YOU!

[dakhun]

Well, when I read that Obama used the phrase "turn the corner" today, I immediately thought of the following, not an exact quote, but specifically tailored for the current situation:

We've turned the corner on unemployment, we've turned the corner on the economy, we've turned the corner on health care, and we've turned the corner on the deficit.

*draws a square in the air, returning back to where we started*

Oh shit...

[terminotaur]

I remember the Air Farce using that one with Brian Mulroney. :)

[toob]

It is a fallacy to mistake originality for intelligence. If one ties intelligence and independence together, it can be easy to mistake cliché for error, or repetition for ignorance, but this is frequently not the case

[athelind]

Zigackly!!

It frustrates me to no end when solid, empirical, peer-reviewed, reproducible data gets dismissed as a "talking point".

[terminotaur]

I need to go home... I started writing a long reply, but for now I'd put up the following which maybe clarifies my lack of sleep addled comments:

Extremely good comments!

In the end the point I would get at (and I think I'll edit the original later) is, if a person has a thought/argument, they should be able to justify every part using their own words. If a person can't then perhaps remaining quiet until they can is a good idea.

Its a bit like writing a review paper (which I'm doing). You make a statement, you have to source it. If you can't source it, you can't make it... or else you say "its widely know that..." :) Actually, now that I think about it, that phase sounds an awful lot like "its just common sense that..." :)

[dakhun]

I think you may have weakened your point in your post by associating talking points with ideas that have longevity. The typical life cycle of a talking point is rather short. They make their rounds rather quickly, then having served their purpose are replaced with something new and equally obfuscating. I've never had any trouble telling the difference between a talking point and a peer-reviewed scientific paper or a Monty Python joke.

I also note that in addition to pre-fab arguments, there are pre-fab debating techniques. One that is a particular bugbear with me is the use of "just because it is 99%, doesn't mean it is 100%." It doesn't require much thought to point out that most rules have exceptions.

Of course, my way of thinking is that "just because it isn't 100%, doesn't mean it isn't 99%." It's the old contest of the forest vs. the trees. The odd shrub tends to confuse some people.

[expandranon]

This is why I don't often bother to engage people in 'debate' anymore. Most of what people have to say about issues is prefab, so any such exchange winds up being people on one 'side' spouting their cliches, and the others spouting theirs back in response. I'm guilty of this, too. It's simple to learn and remember other people's opinions, much harder to remember my own. :P

[toob]

Not to mention the unpleasant but high statistical likeliness that if your opinion differs from everyone else's on the planet, it is completely wrong.

[gremy]

[terminotaur]

Just a minor point here, but if if you're talking about use of personal attacks its probably not good to use "dickass" politicians.

While the political sphere is full of this its not just there though. A number of the things that people may say are "common sense" can fall into the same area. Assumptions that may not be based on anything. We're probably all guilty of a few of them too. Same goes for re-worked phrases.

But yes, I'm in full agreement on experts and noting one's limits. One of the problems however has been that many have learned the trick of cherry-picking facts. To paraphrase one comedian; the Democrats have one set of facts, the Republicans have another set of facts. There are no "fact facts". Of course the last of those is what the news is supposed to find out, but if they do one side will declare them bias, so they just let everyone vent as if each side were equally valid on everything.

[mtext]

the Democrats have one set of facts, the Republicans have another set of facts. There are no "fact facts".

Ooh, have an interesting essay on exactly that topic...