2
   

Does The Left Honestly Support Our Troops?

 
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 07:06 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
1. I said:
Brandon9000 wrote:
To accusing another member of something for which you have not one iota of evidence is immoral.



You then replied:

DrewDad wrote:

Immoral? Are you kidding me? Can you explain exactly how your system of ethics makes you believe that such a thing is immoral?

It is indeed self-evident that accusing someone of unworthy behavior without the ability to support the accusation, in fact with no evidence at all, is immoral. If you do not agree, then in the eyes of any mentally normal reader of these posts, it is your problem and yours alone.

You are wrong here on so many levels that it's laughable.

1. Accusing someone without the ability to support it is not immoral. The accusation may or may not be true; the inability to prove the assertion does not automatically prove the assertion false. I refer you to Gödel's Theorem. (Knowingly making a false accusation would be immoral; making an accusation that you honestly believe but is false is not immoral.)

2. This particular claim that something is self-evidently true is demonstrably false.

3. This casts doubt over all other claims you make that something is self-evident.


#1. As you say, the inability to prove the assertion does not automatically prove the assertion false. Yes, I agree. But one should hardly accuse someone of bad behavior merely because one has no proof that the accusation is false. To accuse a person of something bad with zero evidence is immoral, because you could easily be making a false accusation. Virtually everyone will agree that to make a public accusation, you ought to have at least a shred of evidence. If you want to disagree, it's going to hurt your reputation, not mine.

#2. I have stated that it is self-evident that accusing with no facts is immoral. You disagree. Go ahead and disagree. It's kind of amusing to see you try to argue a completely indefensible position.

#3. Actually, your position that it's okay to accuse someone with no scrap of proof casts doubt on your judgement and ethics, not mine.

Sorry, but synonyms of immoral are "depraved, perverse, perverted, reprobate." Somehow, a post on an Internet forum just doesn't rise to this level.

Accusations are made by politicians, editorials, blogs, Internet posts, etc. They just don't meet the definition of "immorality." You can argue the point until you're blue in the keyboard, but you'll still be wrong.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 07:10 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
I have, for example, had some of my most bitter and personal debates with Setanta, but I have no recollection of getting the feeling that he didn't believe what he was saying. The same for most of the other liberals,


You do know that Setanta kills people who think he's a liberal, don't you?
It's part of what I love about him.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 07:12 pm
Oh sure, tell the whole world . . .
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 07:19 pm
Cool
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 07:26 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
1. I said:
Brandon9000 wrote:
To accusing another member of something for which you have not one iota of evidence is immoral.



You then replied:

DrewDad wrote:

Immoral? Are you kidding me? Can you explain exactly how your system of ethics makes you believe that such a thing is immoral?

It is indeed self-evident that accusing someone of unworthy behavior without the ability to support the accusation, in fact with no evidence at all, is immoral. If you do not agree, then in the eyes of any mentally normal reader of these posts, it is your problem and yours alone.

You are wrong here on so many levels that it's laughable.

1. Accusing someone without the ability to support it is not immoral. The accusation may or may not be true; the inability to prove the assertion does not automatically prove the assertion false. I refer you to Gödel's Theorem. (Knowingly making a false accusation would be immoral; making an accusation that you honestly believe but is false is not immoral.)

2. This particular claim that something is self-evidently true is demonstrably false.

3. This casts doubt over all other claims you make that something is self-evident.


#1. As you say, the inability to prove the assertion does not automatically prove the assertion false. Yes, I agree. But one should hardly accuse someone of bad behavior merely because one has no proof that the accusation is false. To accuse a person of something bad with zero evidence is immoral, because you could easily be making a false accusation. Virtually everyone will agree that to make a public accusation, you ought to have at least a shred of evidence. If you want to disagree, it's going to hurt your reputation, not mine.

#2. I have stated that it is self-evident that accusing with no facts is immoral. You disagree. Go ahead and disagree. It's kind of amusing to see you try to argue a completely indefensible position.

#3. Actually, your position that it's okay to accuse someone with no scrap of proof casts doubt on your judgement and ethics, not mine.

Sorry, but synonyms of immoral are "depraved, perverse, perverted, reprobate." Somehow, a post on an Internet forum just doesn't rise to this level.

Accusations are made by politicians, editorials, blogs, Internet posts, etc. They just don't meet the definition of "immorality." You can argue the point until you're blue in the keyboard, but you'll still be wrong.


I thought the word moral was a dirty word for the left. You can't have morals, that gets in the way of what other people want to do.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 07:35 pm
What a revoltin' development . . .
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 07:38 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Dookiestix wrote:
Unfortunately, these threads are becoming more and more common as the righties desperately try to deflect the enormity of what Bush has done in Iraq. Sending troops into an unjust war based on a complete pack of lies by NO MEANS indicates support of our troops IMO. On the contrary, I have several family friends with relatives over in Iraq, and they are as adamently against the war as I am. But we hope and pray that these servicemen come home unscathed. We also continue to fight for better armor and protection, and for better veteran's benefits for when these men and women come home forever scarred by a BS war.

The righties will fail in the attempt as the truth continues to come forth regarding the Bush lies.


Keep saying that to yourself and maybe others will start to beleive you. When you can come up with solid evidence of what you say is true then we will have something. Until then you are of the minority and will continue to stay that way. Have fun.


I think you are fooling yourself if you think he is in a minority. He speaks sense.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 07:39 pm
Intrepid wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Dookiestix wrote:
Unfortunately, these threads are becoming more and more common as the righties desperately try to deflect the enormity of what Bush has done in Iraq. Sending troops into an unjust war based on a complete pack of lies by NO MEANS indicates support of our troops IMO. On the contrary, I have several family friends with relatives over in Iraq, and they are as adamently against the war as I am. But we hope and pray that these servicemen come home unscathed. We also continue to fight for better armor and protection, and for better veteran's benefits for when these men and women come home forever scarred by a BS war.

The righties will fail in the attempt as the truth continues to come forth regarding the Bush lies.


Keep saying that to yourself and maybe others will start to beleive you. When you can come up with solid evidence of what you say is true then we will have something. Until then you are of the minority and will continue to stay that way. Have fun.


I think you are fooling yourself if you think he is in a minority. He speaks sense.


He might not be on this site, but when it comes to the rest of the nation his opinion is indeed in the minority.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 07:44 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Dookiestix wrote:
Unfortunately, these threads are becoming more and more common as the righties desperately try to deflect the enormity of what Bush has done in Iraq. Sending troops into an unjust war based on a complete pack of lies by NO MEANS indicates support of our troops IMO. On the contrary, I have several family friends with relatives over in Iraq, and they are as adamently against the war as I am. But we hope and pray that these servicemen come home unscathed. We also continue to fight for better armor and protection, and for better veteran's benefits for when these men and women come home forever scarred by a BS war.

The righties will fail in the attempt as the truth continues to come forth regarding the Bush lies.


Keep saying that to yourself and maybe others will start to beleive you. When you can come up with solid evidence of what you say is true then we will have something. Until then you are of the minority and will continue to stay that way. Have fun.


I think you are fooling yourself if you think he is in a minority. He speaks sense.


He might not be on this site, but when it comes to the rest of the nation his opinion is indeed in the minority.


Since you are so sure of this, would you please share the source of this validated information. Thank you.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 07:48 pm
Setanta wrote:
Oh sure, tell the whole world . . .


Does this mean you have to move all the bodies again?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 08:00 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
Dookiestix wrote:
I think you are fooling yourself if you think he is in a minority. He speaks sense.
He might not be on this site, but when it comes to the rest of the nation his opinion is indeed in the minority.


You're not much one for following the news or the national polls, are you, Baldimo. Hasn't Foxfyre told you the results of the latest Pew Survey? It's her favourite - thought she might have shared with you.

Quote:
Poll: Public Sees Bush As Less Trustworthy

By WILL LESTER
The Associated Press
Tuesday, July 19, 2005; 7:33 PM

WASHINGTON -- Americans have growing doubts about President Bush's honesty and his effectiveness, according to a poll taken at a time people are uneasy with the war in Iraq, uncertain about the economy and nervous about the terrorist threat.

Half of those in the poll taken by the Pew Research Center, 49 percent, said they believe the president is trustworthy, while almost as many, 46 percent said he is not. Bush was at 62 percent on this measure in a September 2003 Pew poll and at 56 percent in a Gallup poll in April. One of Bush's strong suits throughout his presidency has been the perception by a majority of people that he is honest.

<snip>

"If the economy were doing better, the Iraq war wasn't as tenuous and people weren't as uneasy about terrorism, then they might be willing to cut Bush some slack on the Rove issue," said Robert Shapiro, who specializes in public opinion at Columbia University. "And it's all tied back to how the war was justified, so it raises all those issues as well."

<snip>

But GOP support for Rove is lukewarm. About four in 10 Republicans said Rove shouldn't resign; about the same number said they were not sure.

Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, said an analysis of the survey suggests the Rove controversy is contributing to the president's credibility problem. The belief that Rove has committed a serious offense is having an impact on Bush's ratings on believability, he said.

Only a fourth of people in an ABC News poll out this week said they believe the White House has been cooperating fully with the investigation of the CIA leak.

About half, 49 percent, in the Pew poll said they approve of the job being done by Bush on terrorism _ as low as he's been on that issue since Sept. 11, 2001. Many independents have abandoned support for Bush in this area.

Bush's job approval in the Pew poll was 44 percent, with 48 percent disapproving.

The poll of 1,502 adults was taken July 13-17 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

___

Pew Research Center _ http://www.people-press.org
wapo link
conservovoicelink
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 08:12 pm
A collection of Posts by Brandon on this thread. Note the admonishment of others and then his actions that appear to be precisely what he says others shouldn't do.

Brandon9000 wrote:

If you cannot see that accusing another member of something for which you can show no evidence is both unethical and logically invalid, then I probably can't help you. Most people would call that self-evident. I'm sure you do find it amusing, but support for dishonest debating practices reflects no credit on you.


Brandon9000 wrote:

I suspect that Lightwizard, whom I have spoken to in other contexts, probably really believed that that was what I meant, but it isn't. You, parados, on the other hand, are simply a liar.


Brandon accuses me of being a liar but never shows any evidence of that. He violates the rule he stated only a few posts earlier.

Then a few posts later Brandon says...

Brandon9000 wrote:

This is an interesting post, in that it is 100% ad hominem. It was issued by you in furtherance of asserting that I believe something which I say that I do not believe, and for which you can present no evidence that I believe. I make a logical argument. You counter with an attack on me as a person but do not address my argument. Despite your posturing, it is clear whose argument and behavior are proper.


Then later Brandon said..

Quote:

It is indeed self-evident that accusing someone of unworthy behavior without the ability to support the accusation, in fact with no evidence at all, is immoral. If you do not agree, then in the eyes of any mentally normal reader of these posts, it is your problem and yours alone...

To accuse with no evidence, or make generic accusations without specifying how the person in question has done what you say is the quintessence of false character assasination. It's sad that you choose to post on this level, and any fair reader will know exactly what's going on here.


Quote:
In this particular case, for example, after telling you many times that accusation with no evidence is improper and that you should stop it, I illustrated what you do by making an absurd and obviously false accusation against you for which clearly there could be no evidence. Anyone with half an ounce of sense would understand perfectly that that was what I was doing, and that it didn't constitute an actual accusation. I can tell that you're intelligent, and so I assume that you understood this clearly too. Yet you appear to have no qualms over dishonestly holding it up as an example of me violating my injunction against accusing without evidence.

I thought the requirement was to show evidence to support the claim. Not make some absurd and false accusation?

Brandon. I claimed you change your standards based on whether you support something or not. One can easily assume that you support the issues you take the time to defend. The above list of your statements pretty clearly shows you feel free to call others names without evidence but at the same time you demand that anyone else back up even the smallest disagreement with facts.

By calling me a liar without providing any evidence Brandon, if we apply your standards, you are immoral. unethical, illogical, and improper.

My tenet is looking pretty sound here Brandon. You apply your standards subjectively based on whether you agree or not. I have provided a rather lengthy list over the course of this thread supporting it. You have called me a liar and dishonest and presented not much if anything at all to support it.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 08:32 pm
Baldimo wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
1. I said:
Brandon9000 wrote:
To accusing another member of something for which you have not one iota of evidence is immoral.



You then replied:

DrewDad wrote:

Immoral? Are you kidding me? Can you explain exactly how your system of ethics makes you believe that such a thing is immoral?

It is indeed self-evident that accusing someone of unworthy behavior without the ability to support the accusation, in fact with no evidence at all, is immoral. If you do not agree, then in the eyes of any mentally normal reader of these posts, it is your problem and yours alone.

You are wrong here on so many levels that it's laughable.

1. Accusing someone without the ability to support it is not immoral. The accusation may or may not be true; the inability to prove the assertion does not automatically prove the assertion false. I refer you to Gödel's Theorem. (Knowingly making a false accusation would be immoral; making an accusation that you honestly believe but is false is not immoral.)

2. This particular claim that something is self-evidently true is demonstrably false.

3. This casts doubt over all other claims you make that something is self-evident.


#1. As you say, the inability to prove the assertion does not automatically prove the assertion false. Yes, I agree. But one should hardly accuse someone of bad behavior merely because one has no proof that the accusation is false. To accuse a person of something bad with zero evidence is immoral, because you could easily be making a false accusation. Virtually everyone will agree that to make a public accusation, you ought to have at least a shred of evidence. If you want to disagree, it's going to hurt your reputation, not mine.

#2. I have stated that it is self-evident that accusing with no facts is immoral. You disagree. Go ahead and disagree. It's kind of amusing to see you try to argue a completely indefensible position.

#3. Actually, your position that it's okay to accuse someone with no scrap of proof casts doubt on your judgement and ethics, not mine.

Sorry, but synonyms of immoral are "depraved, perverse, perverted, reprobate." Somehow, a post on an Internet forum just doesn't rise to this level.

Accusations are made by politicians, editorials, blogs, Internet posts, etc. They just don't meet the definition of "immorality." You can argue the point until you're blue in the keyboard, but you'll still be wrong.


I thought the word moral was a dirty word for the left. You can't have morals, that gets in the way of what other people want to do.

A) Who said I was on the left?
B) You're listening to the talk-show propaganda machine too much.
C) There you go thinking again.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 08:37 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
1. I said:
Brandon9000 wrote:
To accusing another member of something for which you have not one iota of evidence is immoral.



You then replied:

DrewDad wrote:

Immoral? Are you kidding me? Can you explain exactly how your system of ethics makes you believe that such a thing is immoral?

It is indeed self-evident that accusing someone of unworthy behavior without the ability to support the accusation, in fact with no evidence at all, is immoral. If you do not agree, then in the eyes of any mentally normal reader of these posts, it is your problem and yours alone.

You are wrong here on so many levels that it's laughable.

1. Accusing someone without the ability to support it is not immoral. The accusation may or may not be true; the inability to prove the assertion does not automatically prove the assertion false. I refer you to Gödel's Theorem. (Knowingly making a false accusation would be immoral; making an accusation that you honestly believe but is false is not immoral.)

2. This particular claim that something is self-evidently true is demonstrably false.

3. This casts doubt over all other claims you make that something is self-evident.


#1. As you say, the inability to prove the assertion does not automatically prove the assertion false. Yes, I agree. But one should hardly accuse someone of bad behavior merely because one has no proof that the accusation is false. To accuse a person of something bad with zero evidence is immoral, because you could easily be making a false accusation. Virtually everyone will agree that to make a public accusation, you ought to have at least a shred of evidence. If you want to disagree, it's going to hurt your reputation, not mine.

#2. I have stated that it is self-evident that accusing with no facts is immoral. You disagree. Go ahead and disagree. It's kind of amusing to see you try to argue a completely indefensible position.

#3. Actually, your position that it's okay to accuse someone with no scrap of proof casts doubt on your judgement and ethics, not mine.

Sorry, but synonyms of immoral are "depraved, perverse, perverted, reprobate." Somehow, a post on an Internet forum just doesn't rise to this level.

Accusations are made by politicians, editorials, blogs, Internet posts, etc. They just don't meet the definition of "immorality." You can argue the point until you're blue in the keyboard, but you'll still be wrong.


I thought the word moral was a dirty word for the left. You can't have morals, that gets in the way of what other people want to do.

A) Who said I was on the left?
B) You're listening to the talk-show propaganda machine too much.
C) There you go thinking again.


I say this because every time morals are mentioned in a debate or in the public manner the left starts yelling about how morals shouldn't play a part in anything. It isn't how you perceive it; it is how you feel about it. If it feels good then do it, damn the morals.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 08:41 pm
Baldimo wrote:
I say this because every time morals are mentioned in a debate or in the public manner the left starts yelling about how morals shouldn't play a part in anything. It isn't how you perceive it; it is how you feel about it. If it feels good then do it, damn the morals.

And how is this germane to the current conversation?

Go sling your slop somewhere else, please.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 08:49 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
I say this because every time morals are mentioned in a debate or in the public manner the left starts yelling about how morals shouldn't play a part in anything. It isn't how you perceive it; it is how you feel about it. If it feels good then do it, damn the morals.

And how is this germane to the current conversation?

Go sling your slop somewhere else, please.


Cy started talking about morals so I went forward with the conversation. Learn to keep up.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 09:52 pm
Baldimo,
Perhaps you could learn to keep up and provide the source of your claim about the minority. You seem to have forgotten or perhaps ignored the question.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 10:24 pm
Baldimo wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
I say this because every time morals are mentioned in a debate or in the public manner the left starts yelling about how morals shouldn't play a part in anything. It isn't how you perceive it; it is how you feel about it. If it feels good then do it, damn the morals.

And how is this germane to the current conversation?

Go sling your slop somewhere else, please.


Cy started talking about morals so I went forward with the conversation. Learn to keep up.

You replied to one of my posts, not one of Cyclo's. And it was a blanket attack on "the left" in spite of your preface of "I thought." I'm sure you can go stir up trouble somewhere else; please do so. Run along and play somewhere else.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 10:27 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
I say this because every time morals are mentioned in a debate or in the public manner the left starts yelling about how morals shouldn't play a part in anything. It isn't how you perceive it; it is how you feel about it. If it feels good then do it, damn the morals.

And how is this germane to the current conversation?

Go sling your slop somewhere else, please.


Cy started talking about morals so I went forward with the conversation. Learn to keep up.

You replied to one of my posts, not one of Cyclo's. And it was a blanket attack on "the left" in spite of your preface of "I thought." I'm sure you can go stir up trouble somewhere else; please do so. Run along and play somewhere else.


My apoligies to Cy.

I'm not stiring up trouble you wanted to talk morals, that is what I am talking about. Can I not mention morals or is that only a subject you can talk about.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Jul, 2005 10:30 pm
Put your left foot in and take your left foot out. Put your left foot in a shake it all about. Put your left foot in and take your left foot.... come on Baldimo, join in Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/10/2025 at 12:22:54