This is not a discussion on civility with those you disagree with; although that of course is important too. (And I'm not about to pedantically be a hypocrite.) But too often when I present my ideas and reasons for those ideas the response I get doesn't actually address my reasoning directly. Either I'm told that the idea itself is laughable, but am not given an actual reason; or I'm simply told that "I'm entitled to my opinion."
Philosphy Rule 1: Any opinion for which one can give reasons is admissable in philosophy. BUT, once a claim has been supported by an argument, subsequent criticism must engage the argument.
*This is the only rule.
skip...
For example, I mentioned in one post about impeachment that since Pelosi is not the best "man" for the job and is also someone who could literally inpsire people on the right to take up arms against the White House, it would be politically expedient for her to announce in advance of the impeachment hearings that she would pick Wes Clark as her VP and resign the minute the process was complete. I added the qualifier that even if Clark didn't exist I would still be promoting this idea. After all, as a co-worker of mine who voted for Bush said: "She's a crazy b*tch." First I'm told that we should stick to the Constitution, but I'm not offered an explanation as to what would be unconstitutional about her picking a VP and resigning. Someone else said that I should be more "politically deft than that." The poster could not deign to address the REASONS why he felt it was an "unseemly" proposal, but merely said I should ask other Clarkies to enlighten me. It didn't matter that I mentioned that a 60-year-old Clarkie friend had already told me in November that it made a lot of sense, he just could not deign to dignify my idea with an ARGUMENT no matter how much I pleaded him to answer the question as to why it would be bad for her to do this, or WHO, if not Clark, would be better suited to fill her position.
Another precious example: I asked an Edwards advocate to tell me why he found him to be a better candidate than Clark, particularly in light of the fact that we're in a war that's going badly and noone can hold a candle to Clark in the arena of "Waging Modern War." I politely summed up all the reasons to make the case and when the poster told me what traits he felt were necessary in a president, I offered black and white examples of how Clark had those attributes also. But the poster got defensive that I was trying to change his mind.
If we're not going to follow the first rule of philosophy, we're not much better than Conservatives.
...I'd still really like to hear reasons why it would be wise for Pelosi to maintain the presidency if we impeach President Magoo. (AND DON'T TELL ME THAT I'M BEING SEXIST! Her sex is incidental.)