(03-08-2020, 05:49 PM)Last42min Wrote:

(03-08-2020, 04:15 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:
The terms liberal and conservative you are using do not accurately describe what happened in the early to mid 1900s, probably because the term "liberal" got turned around to mean Progressive, rather than supporting freedom with limited government like it originally meant, and "conservative" is now being used to describe everyone the Progressives dislike. True the 1960s version "liberals" wanted a color-blind society. The segregationist Democrat South was not Conservative, but they were progressives who supported the New Deal and opposed a color-blind society. It was lot more complicated than "liberal" vs. "conservative."

Most people don't really know history well enough to properly classify information. In a society that is relying more on rhetoric than truth, there is almost no way to have an honest discussion without pre-defining words and agreeing to an objective standard. I wish more people were trained in the art of the argument. I have more experience than most, and I still struggle sometimes to identify the premises and conclusions in more candid conversations. People are better at moving goalposts and muddying the discussion than they are at finding common ground.

---

(03-08-2020, 03:18 PM)mikesez Wrote: Social Darwinism was something that academics debated. I'm not aware of any prominent politician endorsing it.  The two Presidents who called themselves "progressive" at the turn of the century were TR and Wilson.  They were both racist.  TR held that black people were inferior but must be treated equally under the law regardless, but Wilson actually tried to re-segregate the post offices.

Ok Google, now tell me what time Knives Out is playing at an AMC theater in Jacksonville on Friday.

Hey, at least you know I got my facts right.
This stuff about arguing well is not new.
You can't really accuse people of moving goal posts when they never agreed to where the goal post should be in the first place.
Most people that you think are arguing, are not actually trying to get to a goal.  
The subtext of most arguments that average people engage in is, "The world is very frustrating and it would be less frustrating if more people listened to me"
But what you get is what you give. This is all reciprocal.
I'm down for defining terms and setting goals before presenting premises and conclusions.
I haven't seen you try yet, though.

---