Insulting people in lieu of reason/logic is the liberal way.

What about the rest of us that are neither liberal nor conservative? When I call someone a moron does that make me a liberal? Who knew.

0 Replies

Quote:

but only the left gets away with it.

Now I can go to sleep with a big grin on my face.

Ha ha.

Joe(I'm a lefty pinko peace creep --wait a minute. I'm calling myself bad names---- that can't be right, uh, left, uh good night)Nation

0 Replies

dagmaraka wrote:

What about the rest of us that are neither liberal nor conservative? When I call someone a moron does that make me a liberal? Who knew.

a. There's only two types of folk...conservative, and wrong.

b. Yes.

Foxfyre wrote:

Foxfyre wrote

Quote:
If puerile crap is a disqualifier, however, half the members of
A2K would be disqualified at some point during every day.

dlowan wrote

Quote:
Fox denies Ccjhsa's modus operandi as being full of insult and
attempts at vicious attack.

Enough said.

One only needs to see this crushing example of partisan blindness on her
part to evaluate her comment accurately.

See?!

Nope.

YOU see what you want to, as do we all, I suppose...but you have chosen
to make an insulting sweeping statement about ALL your opponents.

Cjhsa consistently insults and denigrates his opponents.

If you do not see that, you have to be being wilfully blind.

The quality of your sweeping generalisation can be deduced from your
refusal to acknowledge the ongoing opposite behaviour from that which
you attribute to your side from a member of it...one amongst many.

The quality I attribute to your seeeping generalization is untruth.

How is noting the untruth of your claim, and its partisanship, as
evidenced by your refusal to acknowledge cjhsa's ongoing behaviour as
just one example, insulting?

You are the one attempting to denigrate all your opponents, and yet you
dare to call refutal of your claim insulting?

I take it, then, that your definition of insult is the failure to
acknowledge your claims to be true?

I agree with whoever said all sides do it.

The ridiculous partisanship comes in when someone like you claims that
only "they" "do it."

Doubtless, similarly blind folk from the progressive side would also
claim that only your lot "do it".

Folly always has company.

0 Replies

Re: Insulting people in lieu of reason/logic is the liberal

dlowan wrote:

kickycan wrote:
At least that's what Foxfyre says.

Foxfyre wrote:
Insult in lieu of reason, logic, and/or verifiable facts is the liberal way, not the conservative or independent way.

Do you agree?

Fox denies Ccjhsa's modus operandi as being full of insult and attempts at vicious attack.

Enough said.

One only needs to see this crushing example of partisan blindness on her part to evaluate her comment accurately.

dlowan sees it like it is from the land down under. Maybe, distance is an advantage. LOL

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

dagmaraka wrote:
What about the rest of us that are neither liberal nor conservative? When I call someone a moron does that make me a liberal? Who knew.

a. There's only two types of folk...conservative, and wrong.

b. Yes.

Foxfyre wrote:
Foxfyre wrote

Quote:
If puerile crap is a disqualifier, however, half the members of
A2K would be disqualified at some point during every day.

dlowan wrote

Quote:
Fox denies Ccjhsa's modus operandi as being full of insult and
attempts at vicious attack.

Enough said.

One only needs to see this crushing example of partisan blindness on her
part to evaluate her comment accurately.

See?!

Nope.

YOU see what you want to, as do we all, I suppose...but you have chosen
to make an insulting sweeping statement about ALL your opponents.

Cjhsa consistently insults and denigrates his opponents.

If you do not see that, you have to be being wilfully blind.

The quality of your sweeping generalisation can be deduced from your
refusal to acknowledge the ongoing opposite behaviour from that which
you attribute to your side from a member of it...one amongst many.

The quality I attribute to your seeeping generalization is untruth.

How is noting the untruth of your claim, and its partisanship, as
evidenced by your refusal to acknowledge cjhsa's ongoing behaviour as
just one example, insulting?

You are the one attempting to denigrate all your opponents, and yet you
dare to call refutal of your claim insulting?

I take it, then, that your definition of insult is the failure to
acknowledge your claims to be true?

I agree with whoever said all sides do it.

The ridiculous partisanship comes in when someone like you claims that
only "they" "do it."

Doubtless, similarly blind folk from the progressive side would also
claim that only your lot "do it".

Folly always has company.

First, I generally make uncomplimentary observations in such a way that anybody can easily opt out if they choose to do so.

Second, all my opponents are not liberal.

Third, in the context of the quote Kicky lifted from another thread, I did not apply the generalization to ALL liberals, nor would I likely ever do that at least intentionally.

But, it has been my observation that it is generally those of liberal leanings who would make a quote such as you did, who would post for the intentional and specific purpose of denigrating another member, and who resort to direct personal insults and ad hominem inferences in lieu of making a rational argument.

Do all liberals do that even on A2K? Nope. And those that don't have my respect, admiration, and I actually read their posts knowing they have something significant to say whether or not I agree with them.

But your post here, Rabbit, is such a beautiful illustration of the point I was making when Kicky opted to use my post as the subject of this thread.

0 Replies

Dookiestix wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
There is a difference between hit and run quips and/or successful or unsuccessful attempts at humor and personally directed insults. If that quote was a personally directed insult it must have been an inside joke between you and CJ because I just don't see it.

If puerile crap is a disqualifier, however, half the members of A2K would be disqualified at some point during every day.

Well, like I said, I'm just curious what constitutes personal insults vs. personal attacks vs. peurile commentary.

But I'd agree with you that there's enough peurile crap on this forum to throw half the lot out. Although, something as peurile as what cjhsa said and using my name in directing it specifically to me seems akin to a juvenile comment, especially if one wishes to at least make a point one way or another.

Of course, like this and many other forums, it's all rather arbitrary.

its "puerile"[/i]....... I know people have told you this before. Laughing

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

I'm just trying to make you see how silly your comment was. You do see that, don't you?

How silly what comment was? That ad hominem and personally directed insults are the liberal way of debate rather than the conservative or independent way of debate or argument? I stand by that based on the evidence I've seen here on A2K and elsewhere.

Allowing for exceptions to almost any rule, I don't see what ebrown's political leanings have to do with the subject.

0 Replies

To expand, look at Dlowan's post. It was specifically targeted at me to take me on, not the point of the thread. I think liberals are far more likely to do that than are conservatives. A conservative is far more likely to attack the thesis of the issue and makes an argument for why it is inaccurate or incorrect. He or she may use strong words and be uncomplimentary in the process, but he usually won't post just for the purpose of attacking the other member or singling out a member for personal criticism. And the conservative usually has a better argument than just calling other members racist, bigoted, idiots, etc. etc. etc.

Again there will be exceptions to any rule of thumb.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

kickycan wrote:
I'm just trying to make you see how silly your comment was. You do see that, don't you?

How silly what comment was? That ad hominem and personally directed insults are the liberal way of debate rather than the conservative or independent way of debate or argument? I stand by that based on the evidence I've seen here on A2K and elsewhere.

Allowing for exceptions to almost any rule, I don't see what ebrown's political leanings have to do with the subject.

your comment is and stays silly..

I can think of several on the right that almost always resort to ad hominem and personal attacks. I can think of several threads that have been locked because if their personal attacks and those personal attacks were removed from this site. Some of them have cleaned up their acts and stayed around. Some of them are "fly by" attack artists that stop in, then disappear.

as for the thesis of this thread it IS this..

Quote:

Insult in lieu of reason, logic, and/or verifiable facts is the liberal way, not the conservative or independent way.

You made the statement Fox. There is nothing wrong with dealing with YOU when discussing the false thesis you proposed since to discuss the thesis we MUST discuss the process by which the conclusion was reached. Not only is it false it is verifiably false and your refusal to look at the facts makes it even more false. You don't use reason and logic in looking at it which pretty much disproves your statement right there. As others have pointed out here, insults are not the purview of only one side. Both sides do it, and I don't think one side does it more than the other.

0 Replies

Thanks for another beautiful illustration Parados. Rather than show how the statement is wrong, you, like Dlowan, presume to put me down for making the statement. And, it is on that basis that I say personal insults are the 'liberal way'.

0 Replies

Does calling everyone an idiot who does not agree with what they know as fact qualify as an insult? If so the left wing liberals are the winners, hands down.

0 Replies

Well so far its just those who don't deny being liberals who are objecting to the statement and so far all have objected by criticizing and/or insulting me for making it. Smile

0 Replies

I know I'm just a clown, but I gotta agree that all sides often resort to snide personal remarks on a somewhat regular basis. Not all members of all sides, just all sides. Does that make sense? Oh well. Maybe they do so out of frustration, maybe just because they are not educated enough to carry on an adult discussion without resorting to name calling. Who knows? One side calls the other homophobic for disagreeing with their opinions, and of course let us not forget how often the other side charges my liberal friends (yes, I do have liberal friends) with being unpatriotic (or traitorous) for their views on the war. And on and on it goes.

Maybe it is just the nature of the beast we call "discussion."

Ok, now I'll go back to just being a silly clown. :wink:

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well so far its just those who don't deny being liberals who are objecting to the statement and so far all have objected by criticizing me for making it.

Though often religious in nature, martyrdom can be applied to a secular context as well. The term is sometimes applied to those who use violence, such as those who die for a nation's glory during wartime (usually known under other names such as "fallen warriors"). It may also apply to nonviolent individuals who are killed or hurt in the struggle for independence, civil rights etc. Outside of an academic or religious context, the word "martyr" is used ironically in casual conversation to refer to someone who seeks attention or sympathy by exaggerating the impact upon themselves of some deprivation or work.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

To expand, look at Dlowan's post. It was specifically targeted at me to take me on, not the point of the thread. I think liberals are far more likely to do that than are conservatives. A conservative is far more likely to attack the thesis of the issue and makes an argument for why it is inaccurate or incorrect. He or she may use strong words and be uncomplimentary in the process, but he usually won't post just for the purpose of attacking the other member or singling out a member for personal criticism. And the conservative usually has a better argument than just calling other members racist, bigoted, idiots, etc. etc. etc.

Again there will be exceptions to any rule of thumb.

Targeted? Hmm.. Why did you choose the word "targeted" Fox? It seems a bit overboard don't you think? Dlowan doesn't agree with you and laid out a logical case why she doesn't agree with you. Please point to where her case is NOT logical. Please point to where she used insults. Dlowan my not have been complimentary of you but you now say it is OK for conservatives do precisely that. Your statement is illogical at its very core. You accuse liberals of one thing but then turn around and absolve conservatives for precisely what you just accused liberals. What in Dlowan's post do you think went over the line you drew in the sand? Dlowan disagreed with you. dlowan said why she disagreed. dlowan never called you a single name. How is dlowan's statement any different from your claim that her post "deliberately targeted" you instead of the point of the thread?

You are specifically targeting dlowan by claiming she is targeting you and not dealing with the thesis. Have you not now brilliantly illustrated how your statement was false?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Thanks for another beautiful illustration Parados. Rather than show how the statement is wrong, you, like Dlowan, presume to put me down for making the statement. And, it is on that basis that I say personal insults are the 'liberal way'.

WTF? I didn't deal with the thesis?

What do you call this Fox?

Quote:

I can think of several on the right that almost always resort to ad hominem and personal attacks. I can think of several threads that have been locked because if their personal attacks and those personal attacks were removed from this site. Some of them have cleaned up their acts and stayed around. Some of them are "fly by" attack artists that stop in, then disappear.

Where did I "put you down"? Please point to the specific part of my post. Refusing to agree with you is NOT putting you down. Let's compare what I said to what you have just said about me. You accused me of putting you down but have NOT presented WHERE I did that.

You accused me of something but failed to show where I did it. Another brilliant example of how your thesis is wrong.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well so far its just those who don't deny being liberals who are objecting to the statement and so far all have objected by criticizing and/or insulting me for making it.

Insulted you? I feel I should ask you to please provide the concrete examples of where ALL who have objected have insulted or criticized you. Disagreeing with you is NOT criticism. If you think it is criticism and crosses the line then you have proved dlowan to be true in her understanding of the issue.

Now, could you provide the instance where I criticized you personally and didn't deal with the thesis? Be specific without just making vague accusations.

You claimed my post was a brilliant example to support your thesis. So. point out where I... a.) criticized you. b.)insulted you c.) used less logic than you have shown on this thread.

0 Replies

0 Replies

CoastalRat wrote:

I know I'm just a clown, but I gotta agree that all sides often resort to snide personal remarks on a somewhat regular basis. Not all members of all sides, just all sides. Does that make sense? Oh well. Maybe they do so out of frustration, maybe just because they are not educated enough to carry on an adult discussion without resorting to name calling. Who knows? One side calls the other homophobic for disagreeing with their opinions, and of course let us not forget how often the other side charges my liberal friends (yes, I do have liberal friends) with being unpatriotic (or traitorous) for their views on the war. And on and on it goes.

Maybe it is just the nature of the beast we call "discussion."

Ok, now I'll go back to just being a silly clown. :wink:

I will concede that conservatives are not immune to what somebody referred to once as a 'pissing match' and just about everybody, me included, can be goaded into returning insult for insult. If we did not disagree on various points of view, the forum would become very boring very quickly; however there is a world of difference however between characterizing a point of view as 'unpatriotic' or 'traitorous' without calling somebody an anti-patriot or a traitor or in other contexts an idiot or racist or bigot or blindly partisan.

My only point in the statement that Kicky seems to have taken exception to is that it is generally those of liberal persuasion who resort to name calling and/or negative personal characterizations. Also they can be relentless in personal criticism of a conservative for his/her point of view while having no problem with fellow liberals who make outrageous statements or who are balatantly personally uncivil and/or unkind.

Can conservatives be guilty of that? Of course. I just think it is far less common among conservatives when making an argument for a point of view than what we see from some liberals.

Thus a general characterization that the personally directed insult is the 'liberal way' of argument.

So far nobody has attempted to dispute the observation. They just think I'm terrible/silly/blind partisan or whatever to make it. Smile

0 Replies

foxfyre wrote:

I just think it is far less common among conservatives when making an argument for a point of view than what we see from some liberals.

like totally for sure a total sack of ****, I assume you mean Gunga, Shiksa, Finn, Omsickdavid, not to mention the martyr of the years Foxfyre. On the other hand, we got Roxxxxanne.

0 Replies

Insulting people in lieu of reason/logic is the liberal way.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know