McGentrix wrote:I have to disagree with you Craven. Even when you do answer one part of her post you remain critical of her style.
I'd say about 85% is about her post and the remaining 15% is on style.
Earlier you said (emphasis mine):
McGentrix wrote:I may have missed where you addressed Foxfyre's post. It seems to me that the only thing you have addressed is Foxfyre's posting style.
It appears this is a false statement McG.
You have gone from saying I have utterly failed to address the substance of her arguments to complaining that in addition to doing so I have criticized her style.
Ultimately, I did address the substance of her arguments.
Quote:I assume it is because you have higher expectations of Foxfyre than you do the numerous other posters who have responded on this thread.
Not really.
Edgar writes:
Quote:The most disheartening thing about it is the Republicans, neocons, and growing segments of society, truly believe their viewpoint(s) is correct and can spout reams of information "proving it." The Democratic party, recognizing this, generally voice only token opposition anymore, hoping to snag enough undecideds to win the presidential election, meantime losing more and more ground at the state level.
I think it's those reams of information that convinces the average Republican/conservative though Edgar, and it is the sometimes idiotic arguments of the leftwing fringe that alarms so many conservatives. I've said many times, the reason conservative talk radio is so successful is because the conservatives can articulate their reasons for their beliefs so much more clearly than can the liberals articulate their beliefs. (And this relates to the general consensus here that conservatives are more likely to be Republican and liberals are more likley to be Democrats, though neither are universally exclusive.)
This from my e-mail this week:
Understanding Democrats and Liberals
If you don't understand the liberal Democrats' version of tax cuts (and you are not alone), this will explain it for you.
Fifty thousand people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due. The team was about to mail refunds when the Congressional Democrats stopped them and suggested that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee's interpretation of fairness.
After all, if the refunds were made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the wealthiest ticket holders. That would be unconscionable.
The DNC plan says, people in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they have less money to spend. Call it an "Earned" Income Ticket Credit".
People in the $25 seats will get back $25, because that's only fair.
People in the $50 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don't need a refund. If they can afford a $50 ticket, then they must not be paying enough taxes.
People in the $75 luxury seats will have to pay another $50, because they have way too much to spend.
The people driving by the stadium who couldn't afford to watch the game will get $10 each, even though they didn't pay anything in, because they need the most help. Now do you understand?
If not, contact Representative Richard Gephart or Senator Tom Daschle for assistance.
To be a good liberal, there are some prerequisites you must have first. Compare the list below and see how you rate.
1. You have to believe the AIDS virus (or pick any disease of your choice)is spread by a lack of federal funding.
2. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
3. You have to believe that guns, in the hands of law-abiding Americans, are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of aggressive totalitarians.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are always artificial but being homosexual is always natural.
7. You have to be against capital punishment for any reason but support abortion on demand for any reason.
8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity
9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists from Seattle do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that corrupt politicians and not bad people start wars.
12. You have to believe the NRA is bad, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison.
15. You have to believe that standardized test are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.
16. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge.
17. You have to believe all poverty is caused by greedy rich people, racists, and corporations and conservative policies and that family structures, education, lifestyle, or life choices are irrelevant.
18. You have to believe that broadcasts or public displays of artwork that ridicule or insult or offend Christians, Jews, etc. are constitutionally protected, but a nonsectarian prayer at a football game or public displays of artwork depicting the Ten Commandments or a manger scene violate the Constitution.
Fox, in the future you might not want to try to deny that you are very partisan in nature, to the point of being unable to argue reasonably. Posting drek like that is a staple of the narrow-sighted ideologue.
Hell you are at it right now. Saying that liberals don't articulate their side well. Quite frankly Fox you don't articulate your arguments for your side well at all and are not one to talk. And there are plenty of conservatives here who can and whose arguments are not regurgitated partisan brainfarts. I can only wish they were as prolific here to better represent their side.
IMO you are a boon to the left.
Foxfyre wrote:
This gives conservatives a huge amount of ammunition. Several of the assertions can no doubt be countered and disputed at least in part with documented facts, but liberals don't seem to be able to articulate their side as well.
LOL I missed this lapse in basic common sense the first time around. You actually think that that's good ammunition? That the fact that you can collate a silly list is ammunition against liberals in general?
That would be about as fair as saying your arguments are fair ammunition to use to denigrate all conservatives. It's not, many conservatives can argue their cases well.
CDK wrote:
Quote:LOL I missed this lapse in basic common sense the first time around. You actually think that that's good ammunition? That the fact that you can collate a silly list is ammunition against liberals in general?
I didn't collate the list. Somebody else did. I felt it useful for illustration, however, in my belief that many, perhaps most, conservatives can rationally and logically argue their side of every point of it, whether or not others agree with them.
It has been my observation, however, that many, if not most, liberals in this situation will 1) condemn/dismiss the messenger, and/or 2) condemn/dismiss the list, and/or 3) condemn conservatives/GOP in general and/or 4) change the subject. Very few will take any point and attempt to make the liberal case for it.
This should not be construed that I think no liberal can make a rational argument for their conviction or point of view. It's just that on so many issues, so few seem to be able to articulate a complete argument and I think this is their particular weakness going up against conservative when values/points of view are debated. I am simply giving my perception of Edgar's post.
Well Fox if it's any consolation to you other folk on the other side persist in what I see as a really silly attempt to try to assert a intellectual superiority of an entire political ideology's following on a statistical level.
I used much stronger words to describe it the last time a liberal approached me with one of a similar scope to your but let me just say I find it to be very very silly.
And please remember these things if you ever say you are not fervently partisan because I suspect assertions of this ilk that go a long way towards others perceiving you that way.
Okay Craven. I have never denied that I was partisan. While I do not agree with every issue supported by every conservate and while I do hold some beliefs/values that would usually be put on the liberal side of the ledger, overall I do believe conservatism to be ideologically, morally, and fiscally superior to liberalism. And I do not object to anyone calling me conservative.
Anyhow, you beautifully illustrated the points I made above. Boon for the left? Gee, glad you think I'm a boon for something.
Foxfyre wrote:I do believe conservatism to be ideologically, morally, and fiscally superior to liberalism. And I do not object to anyone calling me conservative.
And you seem to think conservatives are smarter better people.
Well at least there's a lot of irony when you say that.
Quote:Boon for the left?
Yes, you represent the left very well, if perhaps unintentionally.
I hope you expound on any other differences you see betwen the average conservative and liberal's thought process.
And I would flunk almost all of you as debaters for your propensity for personal attacks when you don't like what a person says rather than offer your own argument to counter a particular thesis. In this thread alone I am accused of partisanship, being a liar, using fallacious arguments, stating I think I'm superior to everybody else, and my favorite: I'm a boon for the left. Of course all the comments from the left are apparently okay as I seem to be the only one singled out for criticism.
Now if there is some A2K rule that people are required to use any particular format for debate here, it should be prominently posted. Otherwise, anybody's style should be satisfactory so long as they don't violate TOS.
But I give up. I simply don't wish to conform to others' ideas of what is the proper form, style, and/or content. So I won't.
Fox you simply lump any criticism of your arguments as "personal attacks", inordinate sensitivity aside that negates any possibility of debate under your definition of the term.
You act as if this is a TOS issue, and that's a really silly thing to say. Nobody's stopping you from doing your thing, you are simply having your arguments criticized.
In keeping with the spirit of your TOS suggestion I suggest you add a disclaimer to all your posts to the effect that you will pitch a fit if your argument is criticized and call it a "personal attack" and threaten to leave.
Personally, I don't much care if you don't want to "conform" to the use of decent arguments. But don't confuse mere criticism with wanting you to conform. You are making a case for people trying to force you to use critical thinking when in reality they might simply be content to criticize your arguments that demonstrate a lack of it.
In my opinion their decision to do so should not be swayed by the tremendous sensitivity you exhibit to having your arguments carped. You can't have untouchable opinions just because you are willing to throw a fit over criticism of them.
Foxfyre wrote:... rather than offer your own argument to counter a particular thesis...
Actually arguments were offered to counter the particular "thesis" you posited but here are more.
1) When people try to assert inconsistency or hypocrisy of positions it shouldn't be done across a spectrum of people or you will probably end up referencing inconsistency between the positions of different people.
Here's one of the ones you posted:
Quote:You have to be against capital punishment for any reason but support abortion on demand for any reason.
Now it was in the ridiculous context of trying to assert that a "good liberal" must be a cartoonish one that can easily be dismissed but we'll try to take it seriously anyway.
Some liberals support capital punishment and some do not support abortion.
To allege inconsistency across this demographic you will be alleging inconsistency between the beliefs of different people.
e.g.
Person A is a conservative who believes in God.
Person B is a conservative who does not believe in God.
"Conservatives are inconsistent in that they both believe in God and do not."
No duh. Some do some don't. Some may exhibit the particular inconsistency but the demographic on the whole will almost invariably do so because of the simple fact that it is comprised of individuals and is not a monolithic demographic.
Furthermore let's examine that particular example again. If it is somehow inconsistent for liberals to support abortion and oppose the death penalty is it likewise an equal failing for conservatives to oppose abortion and support the death penalty? A partisan criteria might make one miss these barn-sized holes in the argument and checking for such influence of bias can spare embarassment.
2) You forwarded your opinion that conservatives use more reason and that liberals use emotion several times on Able2Know.
a) That could be due to a partisanship that generates a willingness to see things that way.
b) It could be due to the desire to be part of a self-declared group of superior intellect.
It could be many things, we can explore them if you want that assertion of yours taken seriously.
Your argument has been countered/addessed yet again. I do not, of course, expect that to motivate you to actually address them as it is, indeed, easier to:
1) Assert
2) Dismiss all criticism of the assertion as an attack
3) Beg off under the pretext of victimhood
I can't do much about the fit-in-leiu-of-argument-defense, but I have offered a quick counter argument to your "thesis" you can't claim that it's not being countered. It is, you simply use the pretext of victimhood to deflect them.
I welcome having my expectations proved wrong and seeing you counter the arguments instead of play the victimhood card.
The counter-argument is there, and no amount of victimhood will change that. So it can be addessed or ploys can be used to avoid it.
What remains to be seen is if you are up to the task.
Craven, your argument 'proving' your assumption of what I meant and what I said in my post - two of my posts have to be considered - are so far off the mark of my thesis that it is laughable.
I was responding directly to this comment by Edgar
Quote:The most disheartening thing about it is the Republicans, neocons, and growing segments of society, truly believe their viewpoint(s) is correct and can spout reams of information "proving it." The Democratic party, recognizing this, generally voice only token opposition anymore, hoping to snag enough undecideds to win the presidential election, meantime losing more and more ground at the state level.
Now if that isn't true, why wasn't this challenged? I was actually agreeing with him. And I was offering my thesis as to why I agreed with him except for the disheartening part. But rather than deal with the thesis, you pick lines out of context and purport these to be my opinion that all 'good liberals' or 'liberals in general' think this or that when I specifically argued they did not. And you therefore use fallacious (I hate that word but you seem to be particularly fond of it) arguments to attack me personally.
Your preferred style of debate seems to be to take one or two points, whether or not they are in context, and argue their merits. This is effective only if your argument does not change the other's point into something else. If you change the context or change the subject in a rebuttal, you would be scored down in a real debate. In most cases it would merit a loss.
Do I feel I was singled out for criticism here. Yes. That is pretty obvious. Do I feel I am a victim? No way. Whether or not you are a liberal, I think you demonstrated well my thesis of how most liberals have problems articulating a defense for their point of view. The preferred method for many (most?) liberals seems to be to ignore the opposition's thesis, which is what Edgar said. That pretty much leaves only the opposition itself to attack.
Foxfyre wrote:Craven, your argument 'proving' your assumption of what I meant and what I said in my post - two of my posts have to be considered - are so far off the mark of my thesis that it is laughable.
I don't recall "proving" anything but do feel free to flesh out that thesis of yours so that I can address it less laughably.
Quote:I was responding directly to this comment by Edgar
Quote:The most disheartening thing about it is the Republicans, neocons, and growing segments of society, truly believe their viewpoint(s) is correct and can spout reams of information "proving it." The Democratic party, recognizing this, generally voice only token opposition anymore, hoping to snag enough undecideds to win the presidential election, meantime losing more and more ground at the state level.
Now if that isn't true, why wasn't this challenged?
I can't speak for others but I can speak for myself. The title of Edgar's thread is something he had in his signature and that has been discussed in the past. I object to it, I think it's really silly.
That post in particular is something that I had a wee bit of an itch to respond to but I rarely respond to Edgar simply because he's not really into the debates that I tend to get into.
If I had responded to it it would go something like this:
1) Of course the people he describes believe their positions are correct. People don't tend to hold positions they think are not correct.
2) Ultimately I think his take makes the Dems look really bad as if they could not make a case for anything and survive off undecided folk, but that's his prerogative.
Now I will note that whether or not I address each falsehood has little to do with what I was discussing with you, as that is simply a matter of what choices I have to make with my time.
Likewise, I would not fault otehrs for failing to address each and every thing they object to.
Quote:And you therefore use fallacious (I hate that word but you seem to be particularly fond of it) arguments to attack me personally.
Bull, you seem to just want to say this but it's not true. Identify the fallacy I used. Anyone can type the word fallacy, but you can't support your assertion.
Quote:Your preferred style of debate seems to be to take one or two points, whether or not they are in context, and argue their merits.
This is effective only if your argument does not change the other's point into something else. If you change the context or change the subject in a rebuttal, you would be scored down in a real debate. In most cases it would merit a loss.
I don't think you can illustrate any situation in which one of your arguments that I examined was taken out of context in any significant way but I am willing to have a look at what you can come up with.
In my opinion the chage you reference is that it sounded good up until the point I started addressing it and that does not qualify as having changed the other person's point. Just making it look bad through rebuttal.
But I would be very interested in seeing you substantiate your allegation. I do not think you can.
Quote:Do I feel I was singled out for criticism here. Yes. That is pretty obvious.
I can sympathyze with that. there are fewer conservatives than liberals and many a time I have avoided comments just because of the balance of the discussion being weighed to one side. HEck when nimh and Blatham were criticizing some ways you debate I stopped talking about it because there were already too many.
I can understand that.
Quote:Whether or not you are a liberal, I think you demonstrated well my thesis of how most liberals have problems articulating a defense for their point of view.
This sentence makes precious little sense. Even if I am not a liberal I am supposed to be representing them and poorly?
Fox this is a strong disconnect with reality, if I am not a liberal then how can I be representative of "most liberals"?
Makes no sense, I'll just write it off as a poorly articulated attempt to say I do not articulate my case well. I understand why you want to say that but take heart in that you can't substantiate your claim.
Quote:The preferred method for many (most?) liberals seems to be to ignore the opposition's thesis, which is what Edgar said. That pretty much leaves only the opposition itself to attack.
Edgar sometimes makes libs look bad on accident. But people who can't help but seize on those things to create a straw effigy of their political opponents only make themselves look bad.
If you must make this your mantra go for it. But I think it just identifies your opinions as choosing partisanship over reason as you do not have substantiation for this.
Craven writes:
Quote:
Quote:My Quote:
And you therefore use fallacious (I hate that word but you seem to be particularly fond of it) arguments to attack me personally.
Your Response:
Bull, you seem to just want to say this but it's not true. Identify the fallacy I used. Anyone can type the word fallacy, but you can't support your assertion.
Quote:My Quote:
Your preferred style of debate seems to be to take one or two points, whether or not they are in context, and argue their merits.
This is effective only if your argument does not change the other's point into something else. If you change the context or change the subject in a rebuttal, you would be scored down in a real debate. In most cases it would merit a loss.
Your response:
All this followed my post (referring to the uncomplimentary list of declarations):
Quote:I will admit every statement in my post is extreme and fallacious if we attempt to apply it to every liberal. But I believe it is well documented--and no I'm not going to hunt up links so don't even ask--that every argument posted has been made or at least insinuated by liberals on message boards, in speeches, in political discourse, etc. including at least many here on A2K.
This gives conservatives a huge amount of ammunition. Several of the assertions can no doubt be countered and disputed at least in part with documented facts, but liberals don't seem to be able to articulate their side as well.
Here on A2K could possibly be the exception.
and this:
Quote:It has been my observation, however, that many, if not most, liberals in this situation will 1) condemn/dismiss the messenger, and/or 2) condemn/dismiss the list, and/or 3) condemn conservatives/GOP in general and/or 4) change the subject. Very few will take any point and attempt to make the liberal case for it.
This should not be construed that I think no liberal can make a rational argument for their conviction or point of view. It's just that on so many issues, so few seem to be able to articulate a complete argument and I think this is their particular weakness going up against conservative when values/points of view are debated. I am simply giving my perception of Edgar's post.
To which Craven responds:
Quote:1) When people try to assert inconsistency or hypocrisy of positions it shouldn't be done across a spectrum of people or you will probably end up referencing inconsistency between the positions of different people.
Here's one of the ones you posted:
Quote:
You have to be against capital punishment for any reason but support abortion on demand for any reason.
Now it was in the ridiculous context of trying to assert that a "good liberal" must be a cartoonish one that can easily be dismissed but we'll try to take it seriously anyway.
Some liberals support capital punishment and some do not support abortion.
To allege inconsistency across this demographic you will be alleging inconsistency between the beliefs of different people.
Can you honestly say this was in response to what I wrote? Can you point out how the capital punishment vs abortion was anything other than an illustration in my argument? Can you point out any place I used more than a general observation re my opinion of conservative vs liberal arguments with my opinion that conservatives usually have an advantage when arguing any particular issue? This is one example only. Or maybe I'm silly to think that A2K members are capable of more than one dimensional thinking. Maybe I am simply not simple enough.
I actually would have enjoyed seeing somebody show how liberal arguments do not have to be attacks on the messenger and/or do not have to cast aspersions on the character and moral fiber or mindset of the opposition. While I know many liberals who can do that, I haven't seen much evidence of it on this thread. Again I think Craven's argument defends my thesis.
I will accept the criticism that I do not meet Craven's (and many other's) standards for competency in debate. I am happy with my own standards however. I prefer to go with the substance of the argument rather than make conclusions about the moral implications of how a question is framed or an argument is illustrated.
Foxfyre wrote:
Can you honestly say this was in response to what I wrote?
It was a response to the chain email that you posted. Whather or not you wrote it yourself I do not know. I suspect you didn't and that it's regurgitated glurge.
Quote:Can you point out how the capital punishment vs abortion was anything other than an illustration in my argument?
Can you point out how the capital punishment vs abortion counter argument was used as anything other than an illustration in my argument?
Really Fox this is getting more silly by the minute.
Quote:Can you point out any place I used more than a general observation re my opinion of conservative vs liberal arguments with my opinion that conservatives usually have an advantage when arguing any particular issue?
What is the point of the question? I never asserted otherwise. I did say that I think your frequently posted "general opinions" about how liberals can't make their case well indicate a preference for partisanship over reason on your part and that it is doubly ironic given the level at which you debate.
Quote:Or maybe I'm silly to think that A2K members are capable of more than one dimensional thinking. Maybe I am simply not simple enough.
Oh no, I assure you that you run no risk of being "not simple enough".
Quote:I actually would have enjoyed seeing somebody show how liberal arguments do not have to be attacks on the messenger and/or do not have to cast aspersions on the character and moral fiber or mindset of the opposition. While I know many liberals who can do that, I haven't seen much evidence of it on this thread. Again I think Craven's argument defends my thesis.
I do so all the time to your arguments and you use the same ploys you always do. It is at that point that your intellectual dishonesty becomes the topic.
Quote:I prefer to go with the substance of the argument rather than make conclusions about the moral implications of how a question is framed or an argument is illustrated.
Fox, you can say you like to stick with the "substance of the argument" till you are blue in the face but it will not change the fact that you have routinely done the opposite and used the ploys of victimhood and other manners of evasion to steadfastly avoid addressing the substance of the argument.
I can cite many examples if you would like. There is a wealth of examples of your refusal to address the substance of the arguments and using several ploys to avoid them.
I would prefer not to do so though. I have directly addressed flaws in a post you posted and you are currently switching subjects to your victimhood again and you are not addressing the substance of the argument.
In your opinion Craven. In your opinion. But I gave it my best shot and will leave you to it. Thanks for making my case for me.
Now hold on just a cotton-picking minute there, Craven... I did not say that conservatives are more reasoned!
You really need to have the foundation down first. There is generally a huge difference in style between the two parties as far as how they say what they say.
What you are referring to was pumped up, miscast, and widely disseminated by the right wing media to get the gullible to think what you just posted on this topic.
Rarely does the Republican Party criticize its allies when they make outrageous claims about liberals or Democrats in general.
But, liberals and Democrats are expected to be critical towards themselves in ways that conservatives are never called upon to be.
That is quite a double standard to live up to.
Person A is a conservative who believes in God.
Person B is a conservative who does not believe in God.
"Conservatives are inconsistent in that they both believe in God and do not."
But, the fact remains that the remarks in that ad made the rounds of the echo chambers on the right and amplified its import to the point where you even mention it as prima fascia evidence that both sides do it, so that there must be some sort of parity according to your thrust.
Yet, all the while, there is a preponderance of evidence that the right does it more and worse and such remarks are more widely disseminated, and without the right decrying such incivility amongst their peers.
You are demanding a parity that such a misunderstood and minor advert in a small town local Florida paper is equivalent to the ugly rhetoric broadcast each day by the Limbaugh's Hannitiys and O'Riellys.
Well I disagree. There is no comity there at all either in scope or in intent.
Quote:As with Foxfyre's stated observations I ask what you use to vet the impression you have against the possibility of it being influenced by personal bias.
Vet? You might try self-honesty, consistency, intellectual integrity, and a willingness to test personal opinions under new circumstances. You might just like it once you got used to it.
BTW: so just what do you too use to be sure you are not completely full of $hit yourself? Hopefully, similar things, but I doubt that conservatives are much willing to test their opinions under new circumstances even if you are.
And I did not assert averages or average differences so your question is meaningless in the context of the discussion here. Nice try though to get the discussion off-track. It was worthy of Sean Hannity's tricksterism (and I mean that in a good way).
Any conservatism, deserving of the name, is that by its very nature unable to offer alternatives to the direction in which our current society is moving. It may be successful in slowing down undesirable developments, yet, since natural conservatism fears the unknown it does not indicate new directions, and ultimately it cannot prevent the continuance of change.
Thus, conservatism is fated to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. Conservatives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments.
But, honestly it is not entirely bad if conservatives merely dislike too rapid change in institutions and public policy, after all a good case for caution can be made in these areas.
Nonetheless, one finds that conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the least common denominator.
It is that definition of close-mindedness to which I refer. After all, anyone expounding new ideas is hardly conservative.
If I do, this place will become another site we know and loved 
