Ladies and Girlie men

Good grief. This thread is getting tattered by the pitbulls gnawing on the fringe.

The sick part is that these two will probably end up locked in a loving embrace at the end of all this. Yuk.

As long as it's just the two of them and we don't have to watch.

Bite me Kick . . .


To summarize, Bill claimed "liberal democrats" and "staunch conservatives" each hold dichotomous views on the extension of rights to immigrants, which they tradduce in the specific matter of amending the constitution to allow the foreign-born to stand for the presidency, and that this is evidence of "hyper-partisanship" because it is specifically reactive to the personality of the Governator.

Bill now claims that in using plural terms, he was not referring to all liberal democrats and staunch conservatives, although he initially did not qualify his remarks so as to make this clear. He provided then, two examples, in the hopeless belief that this would get him off the hook on the issue of having used plural nouns.

So, we have Bill telling us that there are more than one, but fewer than all liberal democrats who normally favor the extension of rights to immigrants, except in the example of Ah-nold; and that there are more than one, but fewer than all staunch conservatives who normally do not favor the extension of rights to immigrants, except in this particular case. Several questions are begged by this bravura display of fuzzy thinking. Neither the terms "liberal democrats" nor "staunch conservatives" are defined. As there is no capitalization, one cannot necessarily assume that liberal democrats refers to members of the Democratic party, most of whom are, in the opinion of the rest of the world, only liberal in the sense of being politically centrist. The use of "staunch" is gratuituous, unless Bill is suggesting that there are any significant number of conservatives who are so easily swayed from the opinions they hold as to warrant making the distinction. Bill has posited, without any authority apart form his bald statement, that each of these groups have identifiable ideologies to which they may assumed to invariably adhere, until the issue of the Governator comes up. This is why i used the term "monolithic" ideologies so long as Bill had not more finitely defined the groups. Without further qualification, one reasonably assumes that Bill refers to all members of both named groups, and contends that they all are in complete accord within their respective groups on an ideology respective of immigrants. Otherwise, one foolishly assumes, Bill would have been more precise about to whom he referred, more circumspect in his description of ideologies. But he wasn't. His conclusion, that therefore the members of these groups were displaying "hyper-partisan" attitudes, serves to underscore the assumption that he is speaking of all members of both groups, and that he is now condemning them for ideological hypocricy.

But now Bill seems to want to rather radically alter his original statement, and to insist that he was speaking of some, but not all members of the these groups. All of this, of course, without having provided a working definition of the membership of either group. If one takes this to its logical conclusion the one finds that Bill is stating:

"Some liberal democrats and some staunch conservatives are hyper-partisan."















Well, du-uh . . . tell us something we didn't already know, Bill.

Set, you remind me of some of my college professors. It sounds good and all but when you sit back and try to think about it, it's just a bunch of hot air.

I'm glad you enjoy debate/arguing so much. I'm surprised Craven hasn't shown up.

Such an erudite challenge to my summary, cjhsa, i'm devastated, just devastated . . .


. . . got a light?

Interesting summary Setanta. Funny, you haven't specifically addressed anything I've said in your last few pathetic responses... assumably because to do so would demonstrate the inaccuracy of your statements and the idiocy of your made up definitions. Instead of using direct quotes and dictionary definitions, you prefer to summarize and paraphrase and announce fantastic definitions that you cannot substantiate… so you don't have to address the specific flaws in your argument. I on the other hand, have used dictionary meanings and direct quotes and don't rely on definitions that can't be substantiated. How do you explain your unwillingness to directly engage my responses?

Why won't you answer this question for instance?:

Setanta, when people are referring to multiple people, but couldn't possibly know the exact number, they use plural terms. True or false?

This next one, was rhetorical, but proved the point just the same... so you just ignore it, and summarize and paraphrase, avoiding the truth at all costs.



Are you pretending that's a Strawman? I've clearly proven that your statement:
is BS. So you switch gears and pretend that it didn't happen. Summarize and paraphrase… any thing to avoid facing the obvious; that you made up a definition, hinged your feeble argument to it, and now just have to pretend it's true or admit you made a mistake.

And now, after denying the obvious for all this time, you begin to get there.
How about that. What was a horrible friendship abolishing insult yesterday appears to have morphed into an obvious triviality today. That's good though. When you are as far over the ledge as you, backtracking becomes a necessity. Now if you can just acknowledge that although it is not a mathematically quantifiable fact; my opinion that democrats are typically more interested in helping immigrants than their conservative counterparts AND my opinion that conservatives are typically more interested in maintaining the constitution… (Isn't that where the term conservative comes from?)is reasonable, you should then be able to understand (whether you agree or not) why I see their positions on Arnold somewhat hypocritical and why I called them "hyper partisan". This really isn't difficult to understand Setanta, and the message hasn't changed one iota from the time I made the original statement.

Now, you can accept that… or you can go on pretending that your cartoonish, self-serving definitions are real, and that I've made some foolish claims about ALL liberal democrats and ALL staunch conservatives. You can't do both. Get it?

Sounds plausible enough to me, as theories/observations go ... nothing all too controversial there, I'd think?

No, there isn't Habibi. However, the point is that for quite a while in this thread, Bill would not admit that he had made a foolish and sweeping generalization without substantiation, and continued to assert that he was right and that i knew it. It has taken pages and pages to get him to acknowledge that he is only in the position to suggest and not state, that some, and not all of those whom he chose to vaguely describe as liberal democrats and staunch conservatives might, although not necessarily, have an ideological agenda which they traduce in supporting or opposing a constitutional amendment.

I had very early on accused him of hysterical accusation, in the style of some of our more virulent members here. I stand by that. I will state outright that Bill made a sweeping generalization in a careless manner, got called for it, and has now backpedalled into a position in which he feels he can smuggly assert that i've been the bad guy. I submit to you that Bill has been disingenuous since the start of this about what he intended when he wrote that, and that he has displayed poor to non-existent skills in debating the topic. As i've pointed out, it has taken pages to even get him to recognize and modify the initial generalization upon which his charge of ideological hypocricy was based. He tried to claim that i had erected a strawman when i wrote of monolithic ideologies, because he hadn't thought through the implications of what he had written.

A very sorry perfomance on Bill's part, and the saddest aspect of it is his continuing attempt to appear to be morally superior in the entire exchange. Had his remark simply been, form the outset, that some people are "hyper-partisan," i'd not have commented. It was the specious rhetorical strophes upon which he attempted to base his charge that i've attacked first and last.

<trusting the dogs ... sort of>

...

Setanta, your straw men are still out in the open for all to see. You pretended I had an obligation that I never had, and then triumphantly announced I had failed to fulfill it. You are still doing so. This is a TEXTBOOK STRAWMAN. You can see the DEFINITION of strawman here. Or do you have your own special Setanta-definition for that too? There is a whole page there that not only shows your shameless tattered Strawmen, but direct proof that your latest accusations that I'm backpedaling are BS too. Your argument is now so far from any facts its unbelievable that it's yours.
Here's one just one of your shameless strawmen now, just for examples sake… Although why I bother retrieving actual proof, anymore, I have no idea. You'll likely just continue to ignore it like you have all of the proof I've provided for 2 pages now because none of the facts fit your false charges. But just so you know the facts are still there:


Look at your work there Setanta and keep pretending it doesn't exist.

This is just one of dozens of undisputed examples of your BS and even now you are still trying feebly to pin this on me. Meanwhile you continue to ignore every quote because none of them support your idiotic charges. You just pontificate as if your word somehow overrides the actual observable quoted facts. It doesn't, and the longer you pretend it does the more foolish you look. Here, for the third time, I ask in large bold print:

Setanta, when people are referring to multiple people, but couldn't possibly know the exact number, they use plural terms. True or false?

I think we both know perfectly well why you refuse to answer this question. You can't.

Rather, i don't intend to respond to idiotic shouting. It's rather sad to see you continue to display your ignorance of elementary rhetorical devices and faults. I've brought you to the point of acknowledging the issue of plurality versus specificity. Beyond that, i have no hope that you will acknowlege, or perhaps even understand, just how flawed your original thesis was. I intend to pay no attention to your childish shouting, and don't intend to attempt to answer your confused attempts to make this a disccussion of non-issues. You've said something stupid and unsupportable, and you're now desparate to make it appear that you've been reasonable and i've not. I've pointed out in detail to you the flaws in what you orgininally wrote. Trying to make the language work in a way it does not work will not help you, shouting will not help you.

You have and have had all along, no case.

That is utter nonsense. You've ignored dozens of normal size too. At the close of this post we'll examine the real reason you have to ignore that question. Meanwhile...
You are still responding without any evidence, any quotes, just pontificating as if your word alone means something. It used to.
Like defining your Strawmen step by step? Like using exact quotes, rather than paraphrasing to suit your argument? Like preferring dictionary over imaginary definitions? Using those rhetorical devices are not faults, Setanta. Ignoring what they reveal is.
That's a hoot. Of course, an unsupported hoot because you don't support anything you say anymore. I demonstrated the utter and complete falseness of your absurd Setanta-definition… so you back track and then pretend I did. Too bad the proof is still there, eh? No worries, I'll prove it false for you to ignore again in a minute. :wink:

Oh please. Your entire input here has been a "childish", "confused" discussion of non-issues. You pretended I counted Phoenix as a liberal democrat , when that was clearly NOT what I said or intended.
You accused me of behaving in a hysterical way while I was laughing and you were losing it. After I burned one of your Strawmen to the ground you started whining about friendship, to further obfuscate the obvious facts… interesting rhetorical device, that.
You followed up and are still feebly clinging to some nonsense about it being mandatory to promote unspecific plurals to extremes. You can't even prove your wordplay works in this instance, let alone as a rule that English follows, despite claiming "one must assume". You finally admit that my definition might not mean ALL but SOME, and when I congratulate you for your first reasonable step in half a dozen posts you declare that I'VE backtracked… and that you pushed me into doing it no less. That is a riot. You are either very delusional or very dishonest and the facts will neither support you nor go away.

It is incredible to me that you believe I've done that. What I said remains reasonable to everyone but you, and despite providing a mountain of "support" for my claims, you continue to provide none. Dozens of ignored fantasy-busting examples with quotes, questions and, gasp, even references.
LMAO. Did you confuse who was who?
Watch again:
?'People are now having sex with animals.' If you use the absurd Setanta-definition you created; "one has to assume" that all people are having sex with animals.
I told you this part was fun. I bet you're sorry you hinged your whole argument to that imaginative piece of garbage.

Repetition of that dribble while ignoring all the evidence will not make it true. :wink:
Don't like this question because of the font size, eh?
Setanta, when people are referring to multiple people, but couldn't possibly know the exact number, they use plural terms. True or false?
BS, you've ignored every point of every size. Let's examine the real reason you won't answer this simple question, shall we? Absent some silly wordplay you are left with;
TRUE- if you admit that, then you have to admit that your entire feeble argument hinged upon an absurd Setanta-definition… So you can't answer that way.
FALSE- if you admit that, using your absurd Setanta definition of unspecified-plurals-promotion; "one would have to assume" that all people do this.
This paradox was created when you decided to start making up rules and definitions.

I've made up no rules or definitions. You created two straw men, liberal democrats and staunch conservatives. You did not specify the numbers of each, you did not say a few, you did not say some, you did not say many, you did not say most. You simply named the groups. As you had not specified the numbers, one is not only justified in assuming, one is lead to assume that you meant all. You have since denied this, in a pathetic attempt to suggest that a definition of the word plural absolves you from a responsibility to be precise in writing about large groups of people.

As you had not specified some number of liberal democrats and staunch conservatives, but just simply named them, when you further stated that the one group believes in the extenstion of rights to immigrants, except in this specific case, and the other opposes the extension of rights to immigrants, except in this specific case, and that therefore they were being "hyper-partisan," you had created two strawmen to support your contention that the unnamed individuals were being hyper-partisan. Rather than write each time "favor extension of rights to immigrants" and "oppose extenstion of rights to immigrants," i chose to use the term discrimination. The former discriminates in favor of immigrants, the latter discriminates against immigrants. That is why i explained to you what the term discriminate means, as it was apparent that you were uncertain about that. You have attempted to make an issue of this, but it is a non-issue. Since you became hysterical over the use of that term, and displayed your ignorance of what constitutes a strawman argument by alleging that this was such a case, i have reverted to tediously typing out each time, "support the extension of rights to immigrants" and "oppose the extenstion of rights to immigrants." A strawman argument misrepresents the position of the person being criticized, in order to more easily dispense with that persons argument. I did not use the term discriminate in order to find a way out of attacking your argument, i simply used it as a short hand to attempt to avoid being obliged to continually type out "support the extension of rights to immigrants" and "oppose the extension of rights to immigrants." Since you brought up this ridiculous charge, and phoney charge of using a strawman, i have reverted to the tedious repetition of your exact language, because i was not using a strawman, and my criticism does not change with the use of language. Dispensing with the term "discrimination against immigrants" does not alter my attack on your silly statement about what liberal democrats and staunch conservatives believe with regard to amending the constitution to allow the foreign-born to stand for the office of President.

Further, you made your statement about liberal democrats and staunch conservatives without consideration of the ramifications implicit in that statement. Having not qualified the number of persons to which this applies, you contention that liberal democrats believe one way and staunch conservatives believe the other way attributes a monolithic ideological stance to each group--it says that they invariably all believe the same thing about the same issue every time, until it comes to the issue of amending the constitution. This was the heart of your argument that people were displaying "hyper-partisan" attitudes. However, that only works if it is true that there is an identifiable group of individuals who can reasonably be called liberal democrats who invariably support the extension of rights to immigrants except in this case; and, that there is an identifiable group of individuals who can reasonably be called staunch conservatives who invariably oppose the extension of rights to immigrants, except in this case. Your argument does not work unless supported by that contention. This is the ramification implicit in your statement about hyper-partisan attitudes. Without establishing that there is a significantly large group who believes one way, and an equally significantly large group who believe the opposite, your summary conclusion about the hyper-partisan is not supported. Your current nonsense about the definition of plural may seem like an escape hatch to you, but in fact, if you deny that you referred to all liberal democrats and all staunch conservatives, you jerk the rug out from under you argument that such people are displaying hyper-partisan attitudes. That contention requires that there be a large identifiable group with a monolithic adherence to discrimination in favor of or against rights for immigrants which their position in regard to the issue of amending the constitution to allow the foreign-born to be eligible to the office of president contradicts, therefore authorizing a charge of being hyper-partisan. As i've already pointed out, if you didn't mean all liberal democrats and all stauch conservatives, but only a certain unspecified number of each, you have simply stated that there are hyper-partisan people of every political description--something we all already know. As the Soviet-era Russians were fond of saying, there is no truth in the news, and no news in the truth.

To summarize, you wished to allege that certain people were being "hyper-partisan." In order to support the contention, you posited that liberal democrats, not otherwise qualified as to the number, invariably support the extension of rights to immigrants with the exception of this case. You further posited that staunch conservatives, not otherwise qualified as to the number, invariably oppose the extension of rights to immigrants with the exception of this case. Those are two strawmen. I have attacked that idea consistently throughout. I do not consider that i am responsible for your apparent intellectual hebitude which impairs your ability to recognize the ramifications of what you have written. I don't care if one dispenses with the term discrimination, because it is not necessary to my argument--it does not therefore constitute a strawman. I don't care if one dispenses with the adjective monolithic, because it is not necessary to my argument--it does not therefore constitute a strawman.

Your use of the terms liberal democrats and staunch conservatives without further qualification, and your attribution to these putative groups of ideological stances which they traduce in the matter of the amendment of the constitution to allow the foreign-born to stand for president, however, are strawmen. You have no proof that such groups are readily identifiable and are possessed of the ideological stances which you attribute to them. You wish to castigate them for being hyper-partisan on the basis or your contention about their ideological stances which you have attributed to them. Absent proof that such groups exist and hold the ideological positions you allege, and hold them invariably until this matter arises, your arguments are strawmen.

I really don't care if you are able to comprehend this, and i have largely ignored your arguments based on language because they are too flawed to deal with seriously. But you go ahead and regale yourself with those bits of rhetorical fluff--after all, in this case, you have nothing else to cling to.

I just float around this thread, and I never have to use up any burn time on my balloon.

ROFL

That's the ticket Setanta. Just keep ignoring fact after fact after FACT and pretend its because I'm not worthy of a response on your 50th response to me on the subject. That is so telling. I'll now pull the couple points out of that hot-air balloon and SPECIFICALLY address them. The TRUTH and the FACTS are my friend.

STRAWMEN



You made quite a showing above of pretending that you used 'discriminate' to save you the trouble having to type.
In the middle of all that hot air, that really is funny.

Unfortunately, a damn fool could simply look at the actual words and see your blatant dishonesty. Why would you be "obliged" to type out those two brand new definitions that before now neither of us nor anyone else had even used?
I simply said increased rights.
You falsely changed it to denied rights and finally to discrimination. Between increased rights and denied rights is where your Strawman was erected (2. Present a misrepresentation of your opponent's position… ). Then you completed it with your contextually snide comment:
(…refute it, and pretend that you have refuted your opponent's actual position) .
'not increasing rights' is clearly not the same as 'denying rights' and you are obviously lying about the context of your use of 'discriminates'. Your meaning is so obvious in that sarcastic statement, Setanta, that your denial, and now this introduction of a new BS reason for it, can hardly be a mistake at this point. It is a deliberate lie. Pretty pathetic Setanta. Take a step back and ask yourself if you really want to let the animosity, you feel for me, poison your normal, fair, honest demeanor.

Moving on… Key in on the last part of that definition, Setanta: "pretend that you have refuted your opponent's actual position". That is what you have done throughout this discussion without ever having done so. Your refusal to admit the above is a Strawman argument only serves to demonstrate your dishonesty further. Upon the false conclusion that my charge of Strawman was false, interestingly enough, you have erected several more by claiming it exemplified my inability to present my case.
Now you can right it off to careless use of words, but that would be ill advised considering the condemnation you're trying to rain down on me with that charge.

But that is just a small sample of your now blatant dishonesty. Let's examine your other, BIGGER imaginative pile of BS again, shall we? The hypocrisy is rampant here as well:


"Responsibility to be precise in writing about large groups of people"? Looks like a new rule to me… and one you yourself failed to adhere to in your Strawman just above. But then, that was BS anyway.

This is the recurring BS you've hinged your entire feeble argument on. Your constant insistence that: "with no more precise definition or indication, one must assume" . This simply isn't true and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This is the fun part, remember?
Watch again:
?'Packer fans love cheese.'- According to your moronic ?'assumption': with no more precise definition or indication, one must assume that I refer to the millions, perhaps tens of millions of persons routinely referred to as Packer fans. Now, despite the truth in this sentence, nowhere in this absurd Setanta-definition do you allow for the millions of Packer fans who may not love cheese. Instead, you would maintain that every single packer fan must love cheese or the statement is a false and part of a shabbily constructed Strawman. Of course, everyone who doesn't share your delusion would wonder where you ever came up with the idea that statements not defined to your satisfaction like "Packer fans love cheese"; "automatically" mean that "universally", "monolithically", "all", "every" etc etc etc...= Packer fans all must love cheese. There are even more "XXXX" -candidates present in your blather, so don't bother denying it. You've constantly insisted on using these extreme terms. Do you see how stupid that made up BS is yet? No, that's okay...

I place this new nonsense here for easy reference.
Now, back to the fun part… you really have to try one for yourself! It's fun! :wink:

What if I had said:
Cheeseheads love Favre, while Flatlanders don't? Would I then be obligated to:
1) define Cheesehead
2) state how many cheese heads there are
3) define Flatlander
4) state how many flatlanders there are
5) prove the 2 groups are diametrically opposed on the issue of loving Favre.
6) Prove that the 2 sides universally display the same opinion.
Etc., get it, etc etc.
Just in case you don't know: Flatlander = Illinois Resident /Chicago Bear fan?
Just as the opposing side Cheesehead = Wisconsin Resident/ Packerfan?
Now, just like politics, no one really knows how many or exactly what percentage or how strong anybody really feels… and although there is no way for me to quantify my statement that Cheeseheads love Favre, while Flatlanders don't; it remains a true statement and only a stubborn fool, reaching for straws, would try to contend otherwise.

Man, if you are not getting this yet.
I remind you, and anyone else who is reading this and wondering why I'm still driving this obvious point home, that when I tried to let you off the hook a long, LONG time ago, you insulted me again with this:
You should have and still should leave well enough alone. The TRUTH and FACTS are not your friend. :wink:

Schwarzenegger & Leno - on AOL news this morning so
no link is available yet.

Updated: 11:41 AM EDT
Schwarzenegger Tells Democrats to Lighten Up

BURBANK, Calif. (Aug. 7) - A year after he stunned the world by announcing his bid for public office on NBC's "The Tonight Show," Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger returned Friday to joke about one of the biggest controversies of his political career -- "girlie men."

The former bodybuilder alluded to the flap when "Tonight Show" host Jay Leno congratulated the governor on reaching a hard-fought budget deal with a sharply divided state legislature.

"In the end, it was terrific, because everyone did come to the table in a bipartisan way and we solved the problems," Schwarzenegger said. "And now, of course it's very popular. Sixty percent of the Democrats have approved of it, 70 percent of the Republicans and 100 percent of the girlie men. Everyone is on board now."

Schwarzenegger sparked a political furor when, in the midst of deadlocked budget talks last month he called Democratic legislators "girlie men," an epithet borrowed from an old "Saturday Night Live" television skit about body building.

Democrats immediately cried foul, and some accused the governor of insensitivity in using a phrase that could be interpreted as a slur against gays.

The governor said he was surprised by the reaction.

"It was a joke," he told Leno. "People call me girlie man when they see that at the hair dressing salon I get my hair blown or my finger nails polished. ... Who cares? They're so sensitive. I think maybe the truth hurts."

Otherwise, Schwarzenegger said the 12 months since he announced his candidacy for California governor on Leno's show has been "pretty much the best year I've had in my entire life."

The governor also poked fun at one of his most famous in-laws, Edward Kennedy, the uncle of his wife, Maria Shriver, who he said joined in celebrating Schwarzenegger's 57th birthday.

"Uncle Teddy came out. Not for me. He likes cake," Schwarzenegger said.


There was no dramatic announcement Friday. When asked by Leno if he would seek re-election, Schwarzenegger said to wait until next year.

Schwarzenegger, considered a political moderate, is scheduled to deliver a prime-time speech at the Republican National Convention in New York City, but that didn't stop him from lamenting the nasty partisan tone on the presidential campaign trail.

"It's very divisive," he said. "It's really sad in a way.

I think the country suffers because of it, rather than bringing people together and, you know, being more civil."

Schwarzenegger also let Leno in on one secret: He can say "California" like everyone else.

The governor, who was born and raised in Austria, has long pronounced his adopted state's name with a hard "K" and a lilt: "Kah-li-fornia," according to the phonetic description on a whimsical state billboard recently put up in several cities.

But prodded by Leno, Schwarzenegger pronounced California with only a trace of an accent.

"I think you're from Fresno and this whole Austrian thing is phony," Leno said.

08-07-04 07:59 EDT

It sound like he's doing a fine job to me. Plus, he's a funny man. "Uncle Teddy came out. Not for me. He likes cake," Schwarzenegger said.