mikeh, on Oct 2 2006, 07:21 PM, said:
To Lukewarm
I apologize for suggesting that you do not 'think': it was not intended to be personal, altho I can see how it read that way. I am sure that if we were having this discussion ftf, it would be heated but not personal
![:)](http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)
I respect you as sincere, even when I disagree with you.
i doubt it would even be all that heated... i don't know if it comes across in my posts, but i rarely get heated, i much prefer to try to remain calm and logical ("rarely" isn't the same as "never" though)... i know you're sincere in your beliefs also, and respect your right to have and share them
Quote
I responded to the part I quoted because, yes, I do feel that Bush has skilfully created a 'frame' within which to discuss the motivation of terrorists in a manner that constrains critical thought.
it's true that politicians of all stripes use 'frames', not just bush, and most frames are built on emotion... i distrust emotional arguments (not that i haven't fallen into the trap of making them, but i do try not to)... we all enter into discussion based on our own preconceptions, our own worldviews... as long as people are intellectually honest enough to admit that, i don't have a problem with it....
Quote
Large numbers of educated, intelligent, western people believe that Bush is the major threat to world peace.
i'm sure that's true, but i'm also sure the converse is true - there are also large numbers of educated, intelligent, western people who honestly believe that fundamentalist islam truly wants the world at war... many believe they want either conversion or death for others, and those who don't convert are by definition their enemies... and you have to admit that if some of them are taken at their word, one could build a good case that this is one of their motives
Quote
I recognize (altho my postings would not usually reflect this recognition) that my thought processes are undoubtedly influenced by 'frames': by preconceptions that constrain my thinking on certain topics. I do sometimes try to think outside the 'frame', but it is difficult to do so until and unless I hear from someone who can point out those constraints to me. The truth appears to be (for me if no-one else) that the constraints are invisible from the inside.
excellent points... i believe you've said you are a trial lawyer (sorry if my memory is faulty here, or if that offends you
![:)](http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
), which means to me that you have been trained in debate, in philosophy, in critical thinking... it's my view that any person unable to take both sides of a debate, and do them justice, can't actually win a debate from either side... i can tell from your posts and understanding of the issues that you could take either side of this issue and be persuasive... so i don't hold it against you that you write from your own 'frame' as long as you don't hold it against me when i do the same
Quote
Thus the power of the framing of the terrorists' motivation as being a hatred of a free nation: once in that frame, it constrains the debate. It comforts the thinker, because, as I said earlier, it tells us something good about ourselves (we are free) while eliminating any inclination to do anything to change those factors that gave rise to the hatred: after all, why on earth should we give up our freedom?
in a sense, this is true... however, when i use our freedom as a reason for their hatred, i don't mean that to be the only reason... in any case, i think that if a person listed as premises those things required of the u.s. for cessation of terrorist attacks, we'd find that relatively few of them could be met (practically or politically or even morally)... for example, when you say
Quote
If the 'frame' were that the terrorists hate the US for the conduct of the US as a nation on the world stage, that would require thinking about that conduct and, more importantly, how that conduct impacts the disadvantaged in the world.
i can sincerely ask why the u.s. conduct towards the world's disadvantaged is cause or justification for terrorism...
Quote
I can only say that many of us on this part of the forum seem to have the same problem: I will try to be more appreciative of opposing views, no matter how irrational I may find them to be when composing my response
![B)](http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)
heheh... it's true that posters from both sides can sometimes seem arrogant or irrational... one of my rules of life (never turn down a breath mint is #1) is, a man's gotta know his limitations... i might not always come across as if that's a rule of mine, but i try to - and it is
gerben said:
HELLO? There is no WAR on terror! You cannot beat terrorism by invading countries.
i agree there is no war, just as i think vietnam wasn't a war and korea wasn't a war... the primary goal of a war is to win it, and the strategy and tactics necessary for victory must be employed... that doesn't appear to be the case here
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)