<p>In my search of columns by a local writer for a major paper ( who is black & pro gay civil rights incidentally) I ran across this little blurb on his blog that I thought was worth discussing.</p>
<p>
<a href=“http://rejamison.blogspot.com/[/url]”>http://rejamison.blogspot.com/</a></p>
<p>I disagree with the first one. Certain things are just moral absolutes.</p>
<p>so then golani- you would be saying that in that instance- there is not one minor point where you would agree with someone of the opposite viewpoint</p>
<p>but are there other instances where you would agree on a minor point, yet disagree on the full decision?</p>
<p>The effort to withdraw from Iraq for instance- out in a month- or at some yet to be predetermined point of time after we no longer can get any warm bodies to stand up and fight?</p>
<p>I would also disagree with Jamison- I think that you can see the point of small detail of the other side of the argument, but that they arent enough to get you to change your mind on the larger issue</p>
<p>
As are some idiots. ;)</p>
<p>Curmudgeon–I disagree with every moral/political opinion golani has espoused on this board, and I pretty much agree with all of yours, but I do not think that his statement relegates him to “idiot” status. I actually think there is an awful lot of political absolutism and intolerance masquerading as common sense in the OP column.</p>
<p>And I’m willing to bet that there is at least one issue (I have no idea what it is, but I bet it exists) for which you see no value in the other side’s opinion. Am i wrong?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you do not realize that the words “Democratic” and “Republican” should be capitalized when they refer to specific U.S. political parties but lowercased when they refer to general concepts pertaining to governmental systems, you are an idiot.</p>
<p>Yup, Marian, that would be a very good example of my problems with this essay on the whole.</p>
<p>Of course it could be the copy editor who is the idiot.</p>
<p>There are certain issues where i would not agree on even a minor pt. Ofcourse on other issues i would. But thats not what this essayist said, you have to always agree on a minor pt. Maybe to someone living in world of relativism its easy, not to someon who believes in some absolutes</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>George Lucas knew what he was talking about</p>
<p>Idk what it means but i asume its an attack on me. Maybe you shuold be more open minded towards the idea that there is something with more authority than us like god, and gods word can be an absolute</p>
<p>actually it’s a joke. Whether or not it is true, I dunno. Ask George Lucas. But I did think it was an interesting mindset to attribute to the dark side.</p>
<p>
I agree with garland. Curmudgeon does not add much to the discussion with his unnecessary comment.</p>
<p>
Nope. At least not by the criteria cited by the OP. ;)</p>
<p>If anything, I get a little bit frustrated with myself sometimes because as I listen to each side of an argument, I find myself nodding in agreement…<em>lol</em></p>
<p>One of my definite strengths is being able to fully consider the views and feelings of others. Maybe this is because I am a true political moderate and do NOT buy into specific ideologies based on the label of a certain political party. Such openmindedness can be both a blessing and a curse, but regardless it is and has always been my way. ~berurah</p>
<p>Berurah, I find myself being too openminded at times. Does this mean we each have a hole in our head?</p>
<p>When I read Jamison’s column, I thought, “Finally, a voice of reason!” With very few caveats, I agree with him almost entirely. I’d wager that most people exemplify at least one defining element on his “Political Idiot’s” list. I will sheepishly admit to the second one: I have no idea who my City Commissioner is, nor can I recall the name of a single one of my City’s Counsilmen. I admit to willful ignorance, and an overall disinterest when it comes to the desire to obtain this knowledge. I guess in order to change this fact, I’d need to understand exactly how these people impact my political status more than my state and national representatives, or the President of the United States. I personally think the Chairman of The Federal Reserve has more political and economic impact than most people can fathom, but few people give him a second thought.</p>
<p>I certainly agree with Jamison’s first assertion: when a person is so myopic in his political viewpoint that he cannot find common ground with an opposing view on at least a minor point, he most likely is a person who cannot be reasoned with. </p>
<p>Likewise, if you are so intellectually lazy as to always vote along party lines, assuming the candidate representing the opposite party can’t possibly be the better man/woman for the job, you are probably an idiot—at least in politics.</p>
<p>I especially agree with no. 4: </p>
<p>“Have you ever compared anyone to Hitler, called them a Nazi or called something fascist? If so, you are an idiot. There’s nothing wrong with using a few emotional words to emphasize your point, but you’ve slid right over the edge into demagoguery.” </p>
<p>The appalling commonality of this phenomenon is one of my personal pet peeves. Once you stoop to the simpleton’s tactic of shrill hyperbole to dismiss a political opponent or his viewpoints as being unworthy of calm, logical debate, you have ironically shown yourself incapable of such intercourse to begin with. Sadly, some posters of these forums have been known to exemplify this distressing habit time and again. </p>
<p>I’d add another example of political idiocy to Jamison’s list: If you are so blindly wedded to your political or social point of view as to dismiss the very possibility that it might benefit from sincere reexamination, you are most probably an idiot. </p>
<p>Keep in mind that Jamison’s list is one in which he defines HIS ideas of what constitutes a POLITICAL idiot. You can agree or disagree with his assertions, either in whole or in part. Either way, I think it’s interesting and worth pondering. Notice, he DOES NOT assert that exemplifying any or all of the list’s categories makes one an idiot in any other aspect of life.</p>
<p>itstoomuch to read. Are there gradations?</p>
<p>Peter Medawar (Nobel laureate and crotchety British scientist) put it thus:
I like the idea of periodically examining your beliefs – even if re-examination affirms the position that you’re holding, at least you’ve taken the time to critically examine what you think. Mental exercise, if you will. :)</p>
<p>Well, I think there are absolutely no GOOD reasons to maintain the electoral college.</p>
<p>
<em>ROFLMAO</em> yep! Maybe we should start a club…and our theme song could be “Both Sides Now”!! :)</p>
<p>~b.</p>