Talk politics.

I would like to place a marker here, by the way, for

htpcl - who, if past patterns hold, will inevitably come upon this thread and look for things I've said that he can object to - so that he will be able to recognize the pattern of our many frustrating (to him) exchanges. I'd like to place the marker here, before I give you any basis for saying that I've improperly made it "personal." I will, of course, avoid providing you any such basis, but at this point I'm not always able to predict what will count.

I find myself constantly having to explain why our many exchanges end in accusations, by you, that I've engaged in some kind of personal attack, and I can say that part of how we get to those points has to do with manners of response like this, where it becomes eminently clear that I can type paragraphs responding to points you've raised, paragraphs where I try to engage your statements rationally and intelligently, only to find the bulk of them entirely disregarded and forgotten while you make statements like, "It's clear you dislike the answer, so there's not much else to say," like it exempts you from engaging in the discussion at all, save to claim that your position is the right one, arguments to the contrary be damned.

I have often been accused of engaging in discussion-destroying rhetoric - but what pray tell, is this?

From:

You've been fine in this exchange, in my mind. There's not much else to say on it is all.

From:

I wasn't asking for your approval, actually - my comment was quite clearly directed to

htpcl, who I understand only finds these threads on his own initiative, and never at your invitation. Right? I thought it would be useful today to draw his attention to the way you derail our exchanges.

Anyway, feel free to address my points in the main thread of the discussion whenever you feel so inclined. There are probably a dozen or so you've summarily ignored.

From:

Any holes you choose to dig are yours alone. Accuse me of derailing all you like, the history speaks for itself.

As for this specific thread, there's nothing I feel the need to discuss as my point has been made.

From:

So I shouldn't waste my time expecting a thoughtful response to my comments on your points? And I can expect a response to this one, instead?

There are at least three threads on this OP where I am trying to get you to explain, in a little more detail, why you take the positions you do on fetal rights, how they interact with reproductive rights, and the problematic aspects of the Mercatus study. You say that your "point has been made," and it's true that you've laid out your initial thoughts to which I've been responding, but I was hoping to engage in something like a reasoned discussion about them.

All I really know about your position is that, e.g., you think it's plausible to say that fetuses have a "right to life" (but I don't know why you think this is plausible); that the extension of this "right to life" has some relationship to a woman's "right to abort" (but I don't know what this relationship is supposed to be, on your view); that you think that the Mercatus study is right not to examine reproductive freedom or the right to abort at all but it is right to study several other ostensible freedoms, despite the methodological and conceptual flaws I've pointed out in its selection (but I don't know how you would defend this apparently ends-driven, ad hoc selection). Whenever I try to understand your position further, you respond with these fruitless "my point has been made" or "there's nothing further to discuss" type responses, without any explanation for why I shouldn't expect anything further to be forthcoming.

It's all very frustrating. I don't expect to convince you, but I do expect you to engage, since that very engagement seems to be what you're inviting, when you place a comment here. If you don't want to engage, why comment in the first place?

From:

I've actually not put out any position on fetal rights, nor is it a discussion I've been having with you. My response has solely been regarding the Mercatus study and its position on handling abortion within the index. You disagree with me, and there doesn't seem to be any other discussion to be had on the matter. I can't make you recognize the point Mercatus makes regarding how opposing viewpoints handle abortion and freedom, but I can express my agreement with them and detail them to you. There's not much else to say on it.

From:

I've actually not put out any position on fetal rights,...

On this OP, you have, here (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1685981.html?thread=134368221#t134368221), where you take the position that it's not total nonsense to talk about increasing the "freedom" of entities that are incapable of rational action.

...nor is it a discussion I've been having with you.

It's true that you've chosen not to respond to my question (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1685981.html?thread=134368221#t134368221) about the position you've taken on fetal rights.

My response has solely been regarding the Mercatus study and its position on handling abortion within the index. You disagree with me, and there doesn't seem to be any other discussion to be had on the matter.

I've explained why I disagree with your position, and I've explained why the rationale behind your agreement with Mercatus is faulty. Normally we would expect at this point some kind of reasoned explanation, from you, for why I am wrong to disagree with your position, or why your rationale for defending Mercatus's selectivity when it comes to allowing normative conclusions about what rights matter is not faulty. There is, indeed, plenty of discussion to be had on the matter, but I'd agree that no discussion can be had without willing participants on both side.

From:

On this OP, you have, here, where you take the position that it's not total nonsense to talk about increasing the "freedom" of entities that are incapable of rational action.

Which is a position about the debate, not about the actual rights.

Normally we would expect at this point some kind of reasoned explanation, from you, for why I am wrong to disagree with your position, or why your rationale for defending Mercatus's selectivity when it comes to allowing normative conclusions about what rights matter is not faulty. There is, indeed, plenty of discussion to be had on the matter, but I'd agree that no discussion can be had without willing participants on both side.

And I believe that I've given that to you in a concise form. You disagree. There's not much else to say on the matter on my end - I think the way both sides react is grounds for not including it, and you don't.

From:

Which is a position about the debate, not about the actual rights.

Another "position about the debate" would be to say that it's not total nonsense to argue that your right to own a gun needs to be weighed against my right not to have arm myself in order to live safely in an urban environment. Another "position about the debate" would be to say that it's not total nonsense to argue that my right to live without being harassed for my sexuality outweighs other people's right to engage in hateful speech. Why don't those debates similarly require exclusion by the authors of the Mercatus study?

And I believe that I've given that to you in a concise form. You disagree. There's not much else to say on the matter on my end - I think the way both sides react is grounds for not including it, and you don't.

Well, no - this isn't the source of our disagreement. Reread the comments.

Basically, my point to you is that, if the disagreements people have over abortion rights is a reason not to include them in the Mercatus study, it's not clear why the disagreements people have over gun rights and hate speech similarly doesn't provide the same reason for including study of those rights. I have asked you to explain how you would distinguish between the two sets of disagreements, but you've said literally nothing about it.

And, really, that's just the surface. A really thorough criticism of the Mercatus study would probably draw out inconsistencies in the underlying metaphysic of rights at issue. I have absolutely no confidence that a study as politically-shaped as that one is would have a coherent basis for the selection of those rights that they have chosen to study.

From:

Basically, my point to you is that, if the disagreements people have over abortion rights is a reason not to include them in the Mercatus study, it's not clear why the disagreements people have over gun rights and hate speech similarly doesn't provide the same reason for including study of those rights.

Mainly because the proponents of gun and speech controls recognize that they're restricting rights in doing so, and believe such for the greater good.

From:

Similarly, the dispute between the camps on abortion could be characterized as being about serving the "greater good" of women's equality by restricting fetal rights.

Taking another angle - most proponents of gun and speech controls would characterize their goals as freedom-promoting - they just use a broader sense of the term than it seems likely you would acknowledge. So there's not necessarily any consensus about what gun and speech controls do with respect to "rights" or "freedoms," thus suggesting (per the Mercatus rationale) that a worthwhile study would not examine those aspects of freedom.

I'm not necessarily taking a position one way or the other here - because I know that these alternative characterizations will strike you as implausible. What I am trying to draw your attention to is the fact that you're making this kind of implausibility determination with respect to alternative accounts, when it comes to some rights, but not when it comes to abortion/reproductive rights - where you think the existing dispute merits the Mercatus study's approach.

From:

By the way,

htpcl - who I expect will be along any minute now, given the fact that he expects drama to emerge on extended Oslo/Jeff exchanges developing on Friday evening/Saturday mornings in the US, and he only comes by these threads as a half-interested community member (not as a moderator threatening moderation) - this is the next step in the exchanges. After deciding to shut down debate entirely by no longer responding substantively to my comments, causing a frustrated response from me, Jeff moves on to intone about "holes [I] choose to dig" (what - am I digging a hole for myself here, by saying that he's derailed the exchange?) and falsely characterize our exchanges ("the history speaks for itself" - indeed, my several attempts to engage on the substance in this thread have been ignored, while Jeff once again focuses on the snark) in a thinly-veiled personal attack.

From:

The irony is that this probably wouldn't have gotten anyone's notice if you didn't effectively call for some notice. If my inclination to not engage with someone who has had a history of bad faith interactions is now derailing, you're entitled to that belief.

You can control your "frustrated responses." You're the one who chose to make this about me - again.

From:

Again, I'm not really going to debate the aspects of your responses that constitute "trolling" with you. I'm just placing markers to facilitate a subsequent exchange with

htpcl, which I expect to happen just as soon as he gets a chance to check his e-mail.

From:

notmrgarrison.livejournal.com

You've exceeded hat trick status on your htpcl links.

From:

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here, but - welcome to the 19th level of indentation!

From:

Have you been having bad dreams about Htpcl haunting you or something?

From:

Your taunting is productive, as always.

From:

I strive to produce things.

From:

You should strive to produce them well.

From:

I'll strive to whatever I want, thanks.

From:

paft.livejournal.com

She said, poking her tongue out at him and blowing a raspberrie.

From: