Ciao!

Refreshing debate it must have been. I get very frustrated with people who follow the line of thinking: "Obviously, you don't know what you're talking about. Because if you did, you'd see it like this."

Guinness, the beer you can chew.

When you find people to have rational arguments with, yes, it's great. Things fall in place.

Keep in mind, that when you try to make a rational argument with people who are used to drawing conclusions based on non-rational reasons, or who just aren't used to logical reasoning, who don't even know head or tail about making logical arguments, or who are apathetic about logical/creative arguments on issues... well, you're most probably hitting the wall.

If your intention was to convince them, a better way would be to hit them with points where it affects them most personally. Where it hurts.

It is true. There is no substitute for logic, or for Guinness!

True true!

I was wondering: When you debate with people who aren't your political science peers or superiors, do you view them as stupid or ignorant by default? Do you assume that no one else has valid or informed views on the matter? Do you only have respect for people of a certain academic status?

I'm not pissed or offended by you or anyting, just wondering. I also thought that if you answered "yes" to any of the above questions, you should try to realize that there are other intelligent people out there.

P.S. I also realize there are a lot of dumb-asses too.

I try very hard not to be an elitist or anything. What I was referring to was that often I run into people (especially the hippie types) who just assume that no one should disagree w/ them. If you do you're either: 1) stupid and uninformed, 2) brainwashed by our "fascist" government, or 3) heartless. Just once I'd like to see someone like that take a moment to consider that maybe (just maybe) they might be wrong.

An intelligent argument always keeps in mind that it could be wrong; I'm ready to change my opinion on any issue if presented by a better argument or different evidence, etc. But too many people take their position (e.g. "no war in Iraq") as a given and (worse yet) use it as their premise.

If you think that we should never attack Iraq, no matter what, then you're not presenting an argument -- you're presenting a premise. Arguments have reasons. A better argument would be: "We can only attack Iraq under conditions A, B, C. Those conditions don't exist. Therefore we shouldn't attack Iraq." In that case, the burden would be on me to argue that conditions A, B, and C exist.

My biggest pet peeve is that people don't want to see multiple reasons. I can think of about half a dozen reasons both for and against attacking Iraq. Some are better than others. Some have different possible consequences. When I weigh them out (in my mind), military action wins by a narrow margin. The problem is that so many people refuse to think that there may be reasons (even compelling reasons) to do the opposite of what one believes. Intellectual honesty demands that one acknowledges them, even if one then argues that, on the balance, they still see a different conclusion.

Bottom line: Stupid people exist in any profession, discipline, and walk of life. So do brilliant people. My grandpa dropped out of school in seventh grade and he's one of the wisest people I know.

Did you feel that Cl. Powell provided sufficent evidence last week?

Yes, I think Powell provided more than enough evidence. I think it convinced quite a few people. Many reluctant governments are now slowly moving toward the US position. It's important to remember that the statements made following Powell's presentation were written before the evidence was presented. It's taking some time for all that intelligence analysis to sink in (and some things he released privately to other heads of state). But I think Powell clearly showed that Iraq is not in compliance w/ the Security Council's demands.

I didn't brink any wussy root beer.

brink = drink. thats right.