Helms: Those of you who lionize King mostly also lionize Kennedy. Observe as I frame Kennedy and King in opposition, thereby confusing you into paralysis!
Kennedy: They are not neither in opposition!
But in the sense that I think you mean their logic, yes, you are.
If you really must break down a food fight for the viewing audience, why not sound like John Madden?
"Now, watch where Jesse Helms winds up with the PBJ and throws it at the wall right next to Ted Kennedy. Wham! Teddy's going to be picking whole wheat crumbs and strawberries out of his hair for the next week. But he's not even thinking about that. He's already got a wad of mashed potatoes airborne back at Helms. Watch how everyone else ducks, while Helms just stands there and smiles. Is he having fun out there, or what?"
Re: Instant ReplaykirisutogomenMay 31 2007, 16:57:20 UTC
:-) Point taken. You have made me question why I was doing this in the first place. I'm not certain, but I think my original idea was that there isn't as much of a gap between the Helms-Kennedy exchange and a lot of what appears to be more high-minded debate.
I want to pin down the specific flaws that make this a food fight rather than a reasoned dialogue, and then identify the same errors in situations that we think of as civilized debate. I suspect that my ultimate point will have to do with the difference between concrete and abstract reasoning, but I'm not sure yet.
"would have changed his mind" sounds like the wrong phrasing for "realized, with twenty years of retrospect, that he had made the wrong decision." Maybe I'm just quibbling semantics, but I think it's actually a much easier thing to say "I realize now that I was wrong way back then in the mists of time" than to change your mind on something that's still an active issue. (And, similarly, a much easier claim to make that "he would, by now, admit that that was the wrong decision".)
That feels like a quibble, so I'll cheerfully accept your correction, with the caveat that Teddy is still asserting that he knows what a dead guy would have thought had he been given an extra fifteen years of experience (1968-1983).
You're smarter than himkirisutogomenMay 31 2007, 17:02:23 UTC
I have to say, I don't read any of that into Kennedy's statement. I think your logic makes a lot more sense, but I don't see how it's implied by what Teddy actually said.
It's an interesting question; some arugment, rather than assertion, would have been interesting.
RFK's first work in the Senate was as an assistant council for Joe McCarthy (a job his father, a fervent supporter of McCarthy, arranged); McCarthy was godfather to RFK's first daughter. (And let's not even get into the Kennedy presidency...) On the other hand, it's pretty clear that RFK admired the work of MLK by the late 60s', so Ted's statement clearly isn't crazy-talk.
Honestly, the most meaningful thing would have been for Ted to reject Jesse's premise that what RFK did was at all relevant. But then I wouldn't have selected the exchange for this discussion, as it wouldn't have been nearly as typical of political discourse.
I was going to leave the actual historical facts until later, but yeah. Apparently both JFK and RFK approved Hoover's wiretaps, and simultaneously both of them were pleading with MLK to dissociate himself from Stanley Levison, who had been a genuine grade A Communist.
Comments 9
Helms: Those of you who lionize King mostly also lionize Kennedy. Observe as I frame Kennedy and King in opposition, thereby confusing you into paralysis!
Kennedy: They are not neither in opposition!
But in the sense that I think you mean their logic, yes, you are.
Reply
"Now, watch where Jesse Helms winds up with the PBJ and throws it at the wall right next to Ted Kennedy. Wham! Teddy's going to be picking whole wheat crumbs and strawberries out of his hair for the next week. But he's not even thinking about that. He's already got a wad of mashed potatoes airborne back at Helms. Watch how everyone else ducks, while Helms just stands there and smiles. Is he having fun out there, or what?"
Reply
I want to pin down the specific flaws that make this a food fight rather than a reasoned dialogue, and then identify the same errors in situations that we think of as civilized debate. I suspect that my ultimate point will have to do with the difference between concrete and abstract reasoning, but I'm not sure yet.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
RFK's first work in the Senate was as an assistant council for Joe McCarthy (a job his father, a fervent supporter of McCarthy, arranged); McCarthy was godfather to RFK's first daughter. (And let's not even get into the Kennedy presidency...) On the other hand, it's pretty clear that RFK admired the work of MLK by the late 60s', so Ted's statement clearly isn't crazy-talk.
Reply
I was going to leave the actual historical facts until later, but yeah. Apparently both JFK and RFK approved Hoover's wiretaps, and simultaneously both of them were pleading with MLK to dissociate himself from Stanley Levison, who had been a genuine grade A Communist.
Reply
Leave a comment