I conditionally accept your proposition upon proof of claim there exists any evidence I am obliged to do such a thing.

'NEGATIVE AVERMENT, pleading, evidence. An averment in some of the pleadings in a case in which a negative is asserted. It is a general rule, established for the purpose of shortening and facilitating investigations, that the point in issue is to be proved by the party who asserts the affirmative; 1 Phil. Ev. 184; Bull N. P. 298; but as this rule is not founded on any presumption of law in favor of the party, but is merely a rule of practice and convenience, it, ceases in all cases when the presumption of law is thrown into the opposite scale.' -- I thought otherwise but I could be wrong.

'Offer and acceptance analysis is a traditional approach in contract law used to determine whether an agreement exists between two parties. Agreement consists of an offer by an indication of one person (the "offeror") to another (the "offeree") of the offeror's willingness to enter into a contract on certain terms without further negotiations. A contract is said to come into existence when acceptance of an offer (agreement to the terms in it) has been communicated to the offeror by the offeree and there has been consideration bargained-for induced by promises or a promise and performance. Treitel defines an offer as "an expression of willingness to contract on certain terms, made with the intention that it shall become binding as soon as it is accepted by the person to whom it is addressed", the "offeree". An offer is a statement of the terms on which the offeror is willing to be bound. It is the present contractual intent to be bound by a contract with definite and certain terms communicated to the offeree. The "expression" referred to in the definition may take different forms, such as a letter, newspaper, fax, email and even conduct, as long as it communicates the basis on which the offeror is prepared to contract. -- If the offeree rejects the offer, the offer has been destroyed and cannot be accepted at a future time. [Also, an offer is destroyed a counter offer.] The "mirror image rule" states that if you are to accept an offer, you must accept an offer exactly, without modifications; if you change the offer in any way, this is a counter-offer that kills the original offer. It should be noted that a mere inquiry (about terms of an offer) is not a counter offer and leaves the offer intact.' -- That's really interesting, tell me more.

'Design debates are best settled by inviting everyone to present their solution, but also explain under what circumstances their solution is terrible. Finally they’re asked to explain under what circumstances their colleague’s solution would be better. The person who demonstrates most knowledge about the shortcomings of their own solution and the benefits of all the alternatives is the best best equipped to make the call. When everyone must be able to praise their colleague’s work and criticise their own work, inevitably a solution is agreed upon before a showdown is necessary. Also, by making a rule of praising alternate solutions and criticising your own, the discussions move clear of the realm of personal preference and bias. It’s simply a discussion of what is right, and when.'

'Dialogical Estoppel: As can be seen, the heart of the idea behind legal estoppel is the idea of consistency. A similar concept, “dialogical estoppel,” can be used to justify the libertarian conception of rights, because of the reciprocity inherent in the libertarian tenet that force is legitimate only in response to force. The basic insight behind this theory of rights is that a person cannot consistently object to being punished if he has himself initiated force. He is (dialogically) “estopped” from asserting the impropriety of the force used to punish him, because of his own coercive behavior. This theory also establishes the validity of the libertarian conception of rights as being strictly negative rights against aggression, the initiation of force. The point where punishment needs to be justified is when we attempt to inflict punishment upon a person who opposes the punishment. Thus, using a philosophical, generalized version of “dialogical” estoppel, I want to justify punishment in just this situation, by showing that an aggressor is estopped from objecting to his punishment. Under the principle of dialogical estoppel, or simply estoppel for short, a person is estopped from making certain claims during discourse if these claims are inconsistent and contradictory. To say that a person is estopped from making certain claims means that the claims cannot even possibly be right, because they are contradictory. It is to recognize that his assertion is simply wrong because it is contradictory. Applying estoppel in such a manner perfectly complements the very purpose of dialogue. Dialogue, discourse, or argument—terms which are used interchangeably herein—is by its nature an activity aimed at finding truth. Anyone engaged in argument is necessarily endeavoring to discern the truth about some particular subject; to the extent this is not the case, there is no dialogue occurring, but mere babbling or even physical fighting. Nor can this be denied. Anyone engaging in argument long enough to deny that truth is the goal of discourse contradicts himself, because he is himself asserting or challenging the truth of a given proposition. Thus, the assertion as true of anything that simply cannot be true is incompatible with the very purpose of discourse. Anything that cannot be true is contrary to the truth-finding purpose of discourse, and thus is not permissible within the bounds of the discourse. And contradictions are certainly the archetype of propositions that cannot be true. A and not-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect. This is why participants in discourse must be consistent. If an arguer need not be consistent, truth-finding cannot occur. And just as the traditional legal theory of estoppel mandates a sort of consistency in a legal context, the more general use of estoppel can be used to require consistency in discourse. The theory of estoppel that I propose is nothing more than a convenient way to apply the requirement of consistency to arguers, to those engaged in discourse, dialogue, debate, discussion, or argument. Because discourse is a truth-finding activity, any such contradictory claims should be disregarded, they should not be heard, since they cannot possibly be true. Dialogical estoppel is thus a rule of discourse that rules out of bounds any inconsistent, mutually contradictory claims, because they are contrary to the very goal of discourse. This rule is based solely on the recognition that discourse is a truth-seeking activity and that contradictions, which are necessarily untrue, are incompatible with discourse and thus should not be allowed. The validity of this rule is undeniable, because it is necessarily presupposed by any participant in discourse.'

"The only knowledge we avoid is self-knowledge. Everybody already knows. When you say the state is violence, everybody already knows it. The reason we know that everybody knows it is the speed at which they get upset. If they didn't already know the implications, they wouldn't get upset. Statism is violence; there is no 'God'. You have to work hard to avoid that knowledge because it's so obvious. So what are they avoiding? They are avoiding self-knowledge: knowledge they already possess about themselves, about society, about their friends and family, about truth, about virtue, about integrity, about courage. All of these things. So when you speak an idea and people get upset, the knowledge that they are avoiding is not what you're saying but what they already know. They are reacting not to you but to themselves. If you have to conform to other people's bigotries or face attack and rejection – that's not a relationship – it's a cult. And everybody knows that."

'Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is: there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to "prove" the proposition to be either true or false. In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.'

'Here's the effective method: you need to interrupt as soon as you've roughly understood that there is an objectionable point being made (which can be before the speaker has finished making it), and before you've decided what to say. You do so by thinking out aloud, going "Aaaaaahhhhhhhhh!" or "Ehhhhummmmmm!" clearly, and stretching out your interrupt phrase over several seconds, until the interruptee shuts up and looks towards you. And most importantly, it should be patently clear that you haven't yet decided what to say, and are thinking about it. This means looking up, down, or away in the distance as you normally would when you are absorbed in thought, not directly at the interruptee. Don't try to stage this. An artificial use of this tactic will be transparent to smart people. The quality of your timing will tell the other smart people in the room whether you know what you are doing, or faking it.'

'One of the most powerful debating techniques is to assume that your opponent’s premises are true, and then prove that they lead to absurd consequences. Thus, the argument which states that certain people may use violence on behalf of others – through taxation and welfare – can be easily countered by saying that, if it is the right thing to do, then everyone should be encouraged to do it. -- One fundamental truth of human nature is that if people think that something is moral, they will bear almost any burden to support it. Women send their sons to war. Wives kiss their husbands goodbye. Children are proud of their father’s murders. As it is with war, so it is with state power. If people believe that the state helps the poor, or heals the sick, or educates the ignorant, they will bear any burden to support it. They may grumble at their levels of taxation, but will soldier on regardless. So if the argument from economic efficiency does not work, what can?' -- The Argument From Morality

'Rhetoric is the art of influence, friendship and eloquence, of ready wit and irrefutable logic. And it harnesses the most powerful of social forces, argument. Whether you sense it or not, argument surrounds you. It plays with your emotions, changes your attitude, talks you into a decision and goads you to buy things. Argument lies behind political labeling, advertising, jargon, voices, gestures and guilt trips; it forms a real-life Matrix, the supreme software that drives our social lives. And rhetoric serves as argument’s decoder. By teaching the tricks we use to persuade one another, the art of persuasion reveals the Matrix in all its manipulative glory.'

'To say a person is estopped from making certain claims means that ... he will not be heard to make a statement which is flatly inconsistent with his earlier behaviour (and which another relied upon). Principled application of the estoppel principle would result in a free society. For all coercive crimes could be: punished (if not by the state, then at least by victims or their agents or defenders); and all non-coercive "crimes" could not be enforced. Since an arguer is estopped from denying the validity of estoppel in general, he must accept its validity—and he must also accept the validity of the results of its application. [This] framework establishes the validity of the libertarian nonaggression principle, which has been shown by many others to justify a libertarian or at least a minimalist or night-watchman state. Thus, everyone "must" accept the validity of the free society; to urge otherwise is to argue for inconsistency, and to be inconsistent, and to necessarily be wrong.'

'An up-and-coming Austrian School economist begins training for his shot at the Keynesian champ.' -- "What's the matter, Paul. Stimulus wasn't big enough?"

'Hundreds of fans of the Austrian School were joining the campaign, because they realized the wonderful corner into which Krugman would be painted. He would either have to debate someone well-versed in Austrian business-cycle theory or explain why a New York City food bank would miss out on $100,000+ in "right-wing" money. I wonder if Krugman is surprised at the intensity of the animosity? I was, so I'm betting he is too. -- The most relevant lesson for Austrian economists is that we are seeing the transformation of funding mechanisms for those in the business of creating ideas. Before the rise of modern capitalism, artists and writers needed the support of wealthy patrons. But with capitalism and its "mass production for the needs of the masses," this dependence on the philanthropy of the rich receded. The innovators of today are taking advantage of the new frontier of the Internet.' -- http://youtu.be/6cFXRFlvE3s

'The scientific evidence underlying the near-universal resistance to reason and evidence. If you want to change the world, you first must understand the unconscious barriers to thinking.' -- '"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," Western said. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaledoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then get massively enforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

'An individual demonstrating the false compromise fallacy implies that the positions being considered represent extremes of a continuum of opinions, and that such extremes are always wrong, and the middle ground is always correct. This is not always the case. Sometimes only X or Y is acceptable, with no middle ground possible. Additionally, the middle ground fallacy allows any position to be invalidated, even those that have been reached by previous applications of the same method; all one must do is present yet another, radically opposed position, and the middle-ground compromise will be forced closer to that position.'

'When a disputant allows himself to be sidetracked by irrelevancies, ignoring his opponent's logic and evidence. He cannot grasp the whole of the issue - or the principle underlying it - so he focuses on some small part (usually just one word) and directs his rebuttal to an attack on that tiny bit which is all he can perceive. Some Ad Hominem arguments probably have the same source: He can't see your ideas so he directs his rebuttal at your person. Or will simply start talking about something he CAN understand - the result being a jarring change-of-subject in the discussion. These responses are not consciously deliberated, but result from his inability to perceive the focal idea of the discussion. His only alternative to one of these responses would be bovine immobility unless he possessed a sufficient degree of intellectual acumen to realize his lack of comprehension, and a sufficient degree of self-esteem to admit to it.'

'Ethos, meaning "moral, showing moral character". In rhetoric, ethos is one of the three artistic proofs or modes of persuasion (other principles being logos and pathos) discussed by Aristotle in 'Rhetoric' as a component of argument. Speakers must establish ethos from the start. There are three categories of ethos. #Phronesis: practical skills & wisdom #Arete: virtue, goodness #Eunoia: goodwill towards the audience -- In a sense, ethos does not belong to the speaker but to the audience. Thus, it is the audience that determines whether a speaker is a high- or a low-ethos speaker. Violations of ethos include: #The speaker has a direct interest in the outcome of the debate (e.g. a person pleading innocence of a crime); #The speaker has a vested interest or ulterior motive in the outcome of the debate; #The speaker has no expertise (e.g. a lawyer giving a speech on space flight carries less gravity than an astronaut giving the same speech).'

'I’m elated. Last night outside the Watts Up lecture at UWA here in Perth there were people handing out a so-called “Scientific Guide” to the Skeptics Handbook. Let’s put this in perspective, I wrote the Handbook two years ago, and it’s taken this long for those-who-want-to-scare-us to put together a specific printed response. I’m an unbacked, solo pro bono writer, and they needed no less than 5 professors, 2 associate professors, and 21 months, and THIS is the best they can do? -- ...the Scientific Guide makes a lot of whitewashy mistakes; still won’t show the graphs I show; confoundingly obscures the “fingerprint” that was presented by Santer and the CCSP, and makes baseless assertions, uses graphs with dodgy scales, assumes that positive feedback occurs and throws in a venetian blind strawman. Nonetheless, finally Professors are rising above Argument from authority and ad hominem attacks. The word “Denier” has disappeared.'

'I’m elated. Last night outside the Watts Up lecture at UWA here in Perth there were people handing out a so-called “Scientific Guide” to the Skeptics Handbook. Let’s put this in perspective, I wrote the Handbook two years ago, and it’s taken this long for those-who-want-to-scare-us to put together a specific printed response. I’m an unbacked, solo pro bono writer, and they needed no less than 5 professors, 2 associate professors, and 21 months, and THIS is the best they can do? -- ...the Scientific Guide makes a lot of whitewashy mistakes; still won’t show the graphs I show; confoundingly obscures the “fingerprint” that was presented by Santer and the CCSP, and makes baseless assertions, uses graphs with dodgy scales, assumes that positive feedback occurs and throws in a venetian blind strawman. Nonetheless, finally Professors are rising above Argument from authority and ad hominem attacks. The word “Denier” has disappeared.'

'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The reason that scientists do not need a government is that scientists have an objective methodology for resolving disputes: the scientific method. The reason that language does not need a central authority to guide its evolution is that it relies on the “free market” of accumulated individual preferences for style and utility. The reason that modern morality – and morality throughout history – has always had to rely first on the bullying of children, and then on the threatening of adults, is that it is a manipulative lie masquerading as a virtuous truth. The truth is that we need morality; the lie is that gods or governments can rationally define or justly enforce it. My goal in this book is to define a methodology for validating moral theories that is objective, consistent, clear, rational, empirical – and true. -- ...the primary danger to human beings is not the individual criminal, but irrational and exploitive moral theories.'

'APPENDIX D: EVERY UPB DEBATE I’VE EVER HAD… UPB Sceptic: UPB is invalid. Me: How do you know? UPB Sceptic: It's not proven! Me: So “proof” is UPB? UPB Sceptic: No, nothing is UPB. Me: Isn't the statement "nothing is UPB" UPB? UPB Sceptic: No, that's not what I'm saying at all! I'm saying that UPB is invalid! Me: Why? UPB Sceptic: Because it's false! Me: So presenting true arguments is UPB? UPB Sceptic: No! Me: So there's nothing wrong with false arguments? UPB Sceptic: No. Me: Then why are you opposing a false argument? UPB Sceptic: Oh, it's just my personal preference. I just dislike falsehood. Me: So you're arguing for a merely personal preference? UPB Sceptic: Sure! Me: So why should your personal preference take precedence over mine? I like UPB, you don't – and why bother debating personal preferences at all? UPB Sceptic: Oh - because UPB is invalid! Me: Why is it invalid? UPB Sceptic: Because it's self-contradictory! Me: So consistency is UPB? UPB Sceptic: No!'

"When people hear you say you don't like this health care legislation what they hear is: 'I want the poor to die in misery.' So, instead say, 'I oppose high health care costs, I think high costs are one of the worst tragedies in society. If there's one thing that makes people's lives frightening and dangerous and literally deadly, it's high health care costs. So I massively oppose high health costs and that's why I oppose this health care bill which is going to add $3tn dollars to the national debt.' — It's really about asking questions to see if people can actually think because most have been conditioned to believe that the way you solve problems in society is by pointing guns at people: Have a problem, pass a law; have a problem, threaten people with jail; have a problem, steal from people with taxes and fines. If people can ask just themselves why an expansion of competition in the health care industry wasn't even discussed, *then* they are on the road to some wonderful knowledge."

"When people hear you say you don't like this health care legislation what they hear is: 'I want the poor to die in misery.' So, instead say, 'I oppose high health care costs, I think high costs are one of the worst tragedies in society. If there's one thing that makes people's lives frightening and dangerous and literally deadly, it's high health care costs. So I massively oppose high health costs and that's why I oppose this health care bill which is going to add $3tn dollars to the national debt.' — It's really about asking questions to see if people can actually think because most have been conditioned to believe that the way you solve problems in society is by pointing guns at people: Have a problem, pass a law; have a problem, threaten people with jail; have a problem, steal from people with taxes and fines. If people can ask just themselves why an expansion of competition in the health care industry wasn't even discussed, *then* they are on the road to some wonderful knowledge."

'Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be a logical fallacy.' -- Uh-huh, uh-huh.

'...we must understand how the whole thing hangs together, because the edifice of AGW is very definitely not just pure science, boffins in white coats in labs and so forth. It spans the whole gamut from real pure science, through the applied sciences and Engineering, passing through economics and finally ending up in the dark arts of Politics and Diplomacy. That's a lot to take in, so I have created a handy diagram that explains.' -- "You baby-eating capitalists are killing the planet AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!" *groan*

'A sense of increasing status can be more rewarding than money, and a sense of decreasing status can feel like your life is in danger. ...when your perceived sense of status goes up, or down, an intense emotional response results. ...people go to tremendous extremes to increase or protect their status. It operates at an individual and group level, and even at the level of countries. The desire to increase status is behind many of society's greatest achievements and some our darker hours of destruction. People don't like to be wrong because being wrong drops your status, in a way that feels dangerous and unnerving. When you decide you are right, the other person must be wrong, which means you don't listen to what he or she says, and he or she experiences you as a threat too. A vicious cycle emerges. Being "right" is often more important to people than, well, than just about anything else, at the cost of not just money but relationships, health, and sometimes even life itself.'

Repentant "bone-headed" "denier" turns AGW-proponent. Nice try, but the author gets through 3 pages without supplying any evidence for CO2-driven climate change beyond a few appeals to authority and even ends with: "...it doesn’t matter whether you think warming is caused by human activity. What matters is the general principle that you do not disturb complex systems." Which amounts to: We have no better explanation than CO2-driven climate change and if we just do something—anything—we may stumble upon a cure to a non-existent problem and won't we all feel better about ourselves for not upsetting a 'non-linear complex system'. -- A deluded mind is certainly a complex system! Still I applaud the ability to change one's mind, it's just a shame this one doesn't recognise argument with evidence. Convince me with evidence not nonsense about non-linear complex systems that can only be non-linear if they support your cause. (Where do they find these people??) EVIDENCE.

'#1. The term “climate change” itself. #2. “Climate change denier” #3. The appeal to peer-reviewed and published research. #4. Appeal to authority. #5. Unwillingness to debate. #6. A lack of common sense. #7. Use of climate models as truth. #8. Claims that climate models have been tested. #9. The claim that the IPCC is unbiased. #10. The claim that reducing CO2 emissions is the right thing to do anyway.' -- Comments Gene Nemetz: #11. “We must act now!” -- P Gosselin: #1. “if you care about our children and our grandchildren” #2. “It’ll create millions of green jobs” #3. “unprecedented” #4. “The science is settled” [*groans*] #5. “The whole world is looking to us” #6. “They’re shills of the oil industry” #7. “They’re not real scientists” #8. “The sceptics are a very small fringe group” #10. “We can curb climate change” #11. “Climate killing greenhouse gases” #12. “We’re destroying the planet”'

'...whatever one thinks of the morality of climate-change alarmism, it is important to understand that the people actively involved in this campaign honestly believe in their cause. This is not a movement that consciously seeks to deceive or which conspires to fiddle the figures. It is a lobby driven by powerful beliefs and convictions, which need to be taken seriously if the issues at stake are to be clarified and understood. -- ...focusing on the behind-the-scenes emailing and manoeuvring of crusading climate scientists – where now anti-greens accuse greens of being involved in a vast, top-secret conspiracy – may inadvertently reinforce the conspiratorial outlook that dominates the discussion of climate change. And such an outlook is inhospitable to intellectual clarification and the search for the truth. Those who are genuinely interested in furthering humanity’s understanding of the workings of the earth’s climate should resist the temptation to play the conspiracy card.'

'So, what works? Earn a reputation. Have a conversation. Ask questions. Describe possible outcomes of a point of view. Make connections. Give the other person the benefit of the doubt. Align objectives then describe a better outcome. Show up. Smile.'

Dear Rhetards...

'I Believe That Claim Actually Supports My Objection'

'“We detest Republicans and Democrats alike.” The site was cooked up by Libertarians, but Lodispoto says United States of Earth employees are both Republicans and Democrats. “We allow the right and left to come up with [game's] scenarios, the first being the 2011 Obama Coup one made by right-wingers but tempered by us Libertarians. This scenario came out first to capitalize on the various anti-constitutional acts of our current president. The Bush scenario comes out next and I’m sure we will be attacked for being anti-Republican then.”'

'How to shift the burden of proof to those who defend the state.'

'...if flippancy is more fun then it’s also more attractive. Much like the coolest kid in middle school, it’s funny and it’s exclusive and it’s confident of being understood by just the right people—maybe even especially when it’s being superior and snarky and speaking at someone else’s expense. It can be so attractive, in fact, that you want to share its assumptions, whatever they are. It’s not addressing those assumptions, or earnestly explaining them to you in some dull droning unfunny voice, but you want to share them even more, because you aspire to be on the right side of the cool person’s joke. You might not even think about those assumptions, or notice yourself adopting them. Which means flippancy and snark can be convincing, substantively convincing, without even making an argument. They convince socially, not rhetorically. Being convinced socially isn’t anything complicated or new, not in the least...'

Debate between Daniel R. Amerman (Inflationist) & Michael 'Mish' Shedlock (Deflationist) -- My view: It's both: we're in a state of DISINFLATION. Only if the speed of debt destruction continually outpaces money printing is it deflation (or if you just price things in gold). The policy has always been continual inflation and the policy will be enforced. Disinflation explains why asset prices are falling whilst consumer goods are still rising. The uncertainty disinflation causes leads to price volatility regardless of actual changes in the credit+money supply.

'Attitudes to risk: Each worldview directs attention to certain risks, which present particular threats to their way of organizing society. #Individualists fear risks that would limit the market and constrain their ability to trade freely. For example, war. #Egalitarians use the threat of catastrophic risks to generate solidarity. For example, global warming. #Hierarchists fear risks that would upset the ranking of people. For example, crime and social deviance #Fatalists don't see the point in fearing any risks - it's not like they can do anything about them. -- Cultural Theory may help us understand a risk controversy, but it does not give clear guidance on how to resolve it. The most we can say is that all four worldviews should have input, because each of them sees a piece of the puzzle.' -- (See 2x2 matrix)

'With journalists being laid off in droves, ideologues have stepped forward to provide the “reporting” that feeds the 24-hour news cycle. The collapse of journalism means that the quest for information has been superseded by the quest for ammunition ... [the] goal is not to educate the public but to win. -- ...speaking wholly for himself, without fear or favor. This is what gives reporters the power to stir up trouble wherever they go. They can shake preconceptions and poke holes in presumption. They can celebrate the unnoticed and puncture the hyped. They can, as the old saying goes, afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. The honest, disinterested voice of a true journalist carries an authority that no self-branded liberal or conservative can have. Journalism, done right, is enormously powerful precisely because it does not seek power. It seeks truth. Those who forsake it to shill for a product or a candidate or a party or an ideology diminish their own power.'

'Groupthink emerges because groups are often very similar in background and values. Individual members of the group don't want to rock the boat because it might damage personal relationships. Encouraging critical thinking is not easy, but it is possible. Dissenters are often labelled as trouble-makers and targeted for either conversion to the consensus or outright expulsion from the group. As a result dissenters in groups are likely to be an endangered species. To be effective dissenters must tread a fine line, avoiding pointless confrontation or personal attacks; instead presenting minority viewpoints in an even-handed, well-modulated and authentic fashion. For their part the majority has to fight its instinct to crush dissenters and recognise the risk they are taking in being critical of the majority opinion. Although the majority consensus may well be right, it can be more secure in its decision if dissent is encouraged and all the options are explored.' -- Here be dragons

'Krugman, an ultra-Keynesian, argued for stimulus spending. Ferguson put the case for fiscal conservatism, warning of a “rapid explosion of federal debt”. At some point, the “financial credibility of the United States will be called into question”, he said. [THAT POINT PASSED LONG AGO!!!] A few days later, Krugman returned to the argument in a withering put-down on his blog, describing Ferguson’s views as “really sad” and “depressing” and belonging to “the dark ages of economics”.' -- Common sense?! That's only for the dark ages! (Why is it so hard for keynesianists to understand the concept of wealth?)

'I’ve worked hard at making my kids good at arguing. Absolutely. Why on earth would any parent want that? Because persuasion is powerful. Rhetoric originated in the lawsuits of ancient Greece, when citizens who weren’t good at persuading could lose their houses — or their lives. It was a staple of education until the early 1800s, teaching society’s elite how to debate, make public decisions, and reach consensus. It probably explains how the founding fathers managed to carve a nation out of 13 squabbling colonies. And let’s face it: Our culture has lost the ability to usefully disagree. -- My kids grew so fond of debate, in fact, that they disputed the TV itself. “Why should I eat candy that talks?” “A doll that goes to the bathroom? I have a brother who does that.” It was as if I’d given them advertising immunization shots.'

'For the love of God, no! It's thoughtfully mulling things over! Run! Run! It's making reasonable, fact-based arguments! Quickly! Hide behind self-righteousness! All together now! Put every bit of secondhand conjecture into it you've got! Oh, no, it has sources! My God, it's defending itself with ironclad sources! Someone stop the citing! Please, please stop the citing! What's that? Now it's making an appeal to reason? Never! Do you hear me, you eloquent, well-read behemoth? Never! We'll die before we recognize what we secretly know to be true! The cognitive dissonance only makes our denial stronger! All is lost. We don't stand a chance against its relentless onslaught of exhaustive research and immaculate rhetoric. We may as well lie down and—Christ, how it pains me to say it—admit that it's right. My friends, I would like to take these last few moments of stubborn close-mindedness to say that it's been an honor to dig myself into this hole with you.'

'There is one particular type of bad argument that has always existed, but it has now spread like tar over the world-wide web, and is seeping into the pubs, coffee shops and opinion columns everywhere. It is known as 'what-aboutery' As a rhetorical trick, it is simple. Anyone can do it, and we are all tempted sometimes. When you have lost an argument - when you can't justify your case, and it is crumbling in your hands - you snap back: "But what about x?" You then raise a totally different subject, and try to get everybody to focus on it - hoping it will distract attention from your own deflated case. ... whenever you hear the cry "But what about?!", you can reply: what about we ignore this crude attempt to change the subject, and focus on the subject in hand?'

"I've learned that I am not a natural blogger, I simply don't have that much to say... There is a mismatch between blogging and other kinds of writing anyway. I wrote a book because it is a quiet occupation that suits me. It is a way of arguing without be ingdistracted by other people -- and other people, let's face it, usually just get in the way of a well-thought out argument. Plus, it is a way of avoiding the hurly-burly of actual debate where you have to think on your feet and assert positions you are uncertain of. While blogging is not exactly like real life, it is a bit closer to it than the book thing: if you aim to gain an audience you have to pick up on what other bloggers are writing about and respond within hours. So really, blogging just isn't my thing. The arguments go nowehere, no one changes their mind, and the signal/noise ratio is very low. The blogging world is a world built for quick-typing extroverts who don't go in too much for second thoughts."

'Having undermined the economy at large, Wall Street’s public relations think tanks are now dismantling the language itself. Doublethink and doubletalk with regard to “nationalizing” or “socializing” the banks and other sectors is a travesty of political and economic discussion from the 17th through mid-20th centuries. Society’s basic grammar of thought, the vocabulary to discuss political and economic topics, is being turned inside-out in an effort to ward off discussion of the policy solutions posed by the classical economists and political philosophers that made Western civilization “Western.” What is being attempted is nothing less than an attempt to destroy the intellectual and moral edifice of what took Western civilization eight centuries to develop, from the 12th century Schoolmen discussing Just Price through 19th and 20th century classical economic value theory.' -- Newspeak gobbledegoop

"...you can have a fruitful discussion about a topic only if it doesn't engage the identities of any of the participants. If people can't think clearly about anything that has become part of their identity, then all other things being equal, the best plan is to let as few things into your identity as possible. The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you."

"First, we have the #Ad Hominem Variants where you attack the person as a way to avoid truth, science, or logic which might otherwise prove you wrong. Next are the #Sleight of Mind Fallacies, which act as "mental magic" to make sure the unwanted subject disappears. Then, we move on to #Delay Tactics, which are subtle means to buy time when put on the spot. Then, the ever popular #Question as Opportunity ploys, where any question can be deftly averted. Finally, we have the #Cheap Shot Tactics and Irritants, which are basically "below the belt" punches." -- Just when you thought it was safe to open your mouth...

Matthew C. Nisbet, a professor in the School of Communication at American University: 'What we find among the general public is that fictional TV portrayals of science are not currently turning the public off to controversial biomedical research, at least among regular consumers of these programs. To the contrary, science fiction may in fact be preparing viewers for some of the real-life ethical and moral policy debates that are likely to arise in coming years, preparing audiences to think through the implications of startling new discoveries or research initiatives rather than react in an immediate "yuk factor" response.'

"White lies are the spackle of civilization, tucked into the dirty corners and crevices our necessary, but pretentiously inflexible idealisms create. Small lies prop up and support our powerful truths, holding together the insanely half honest, half false chaos that spins the world. -- ... the third reason people lie, a truth saints and sinners have known for ages: we want to be seen as better than we see ourselves. Sadly, comically, we also believe we’re alone in both having this temptation, as well as the shame it brings with it (e.g. "We’re not alone in feeling alone"). The secret truth is everyone has moments of weakness: times when fear and greed melt our brains and we’re tempted to say the lies we wish were true. And for that reason the deepest honesty is found in people willing to admit to their lies, or their barely resisted temptations, and own the consequences. Not the pretense of the saints, who pretend, incomprehensibly, inhumanly, to never even have those urges at all."

Analyze 'my patriotism is bigger than yours' in minute detail.

"A global map of all the debates that enables us to visualise and deepen our understanding of the ways in which different debates are semantically interrelated, and ways in which these interrelated debates shape, and are shaped by, each other."

"... though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online... "

Comment (gregory): "some of us are soooo leading edge that we are beyond early adapters.... we are early discarders."

"It's this presuppositional thing that gets me. This is not the moment to be congratulating ourselves on the things we "get," the things we "share," ... This is a time we want to be a little less Mr. Smarty pants, and a little more Martian."

"If you’re not aware of the debate that has been taking place, follow the cybertrail, and join the Transmedia Facebook Group... I’m sure (hoping) there will be some very interesting links and discussions in the not too distant future." What to do?

"a Digg-like system for voting" taken out of context, but it could happen... umm, perhaps not!

"Friction.tv is an online platform for user generated news and opinion. We exist to give you the opportunity to air your views and respond to the opinions of others. You can debate issues of local interest to you or discuss points of global importance."

"In the end, it was revealed that the terminally ill woman was an actress, although the three candidates were real kidney patients; they participated to give awareness to the limited number of organ donors in the Netherlands."

From: Andrew Keen -- To: Kevin Kelly -- Subject: Can We Save the Internet?

'Friction TV, a UK user generated content website billing itself as a virtual speakers' corner Mr Sheikh added that the aim is to see the "whites of people's eyes" - all topics must begin with a video posting.'