You feel that the OP is somehow connected to your views of the left. That’s an opinion, not a fact. In my opinion, that’s total garbage. Just a ridiculous assertion.
I don’t actually think that it has much to do with the views of the right either, I think that’s total garbage also. IMO, total garbage = total garbage. Thus the post, where I try to illustrate the stupidity of WeirdDave’s comment by an equally stupid analogous comment. That’s your #1. In fact, I’ll do it again.
You may disagree with 1) my estimation that to the degree there is a culture of corruption and cheating, that it is tied to the right… but that there is a reasonable, logical link between the Op and that statement is clear. See, we can keep this up all week.
And there’s no need to bring total garbage into a thread. If you accept that it’s total garbage, than WeirdDave’s post is not only wrong, it’s an irrelevant cheap shot that just turns the thread into a GD – That’s your #2.
I was “tweaked”, not because someone scored a direct hit on my sacred cow, but because someone took the thread down a terrible road just for the sake of a cheap shot talking point.
No, it is self-evidently not clear, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion. You accept as fact what isn’t.
No. Those things are associated with the the left’s liberalism. I thought you were granting that. If not, you’ve been too insulated on these boards. Muttrox would have had a point in using his “fat Crayon” (as VT put it) if the person in question was a politician, not a firefighter. Not that I’d agree with the assessment that Rep pols are more tied to greed and corruption than Dem pols, but I do accept that there is a meme there, particularly in leftist circles, where this board resides.
So it’s not ok to connect individuals’ actions to memes about the right. Only politicians. But it is ok to connect individuals’ actions to memes about the left, politicians don’t need to be involved. I breathlessly await your fact-filled explanation for this. (Perhaps it’s that the right has no “culture”?)
Okay, maybe we’re getting somewhere. Actually, it would be perfectly fine to do what you describe here. That would make sense. There would be a direct connection. Like I said, if we were talking about a REP politician here and Weirddave had made his comment and you responded the way you did, all would be well. Your comment would have fairly made the point you intended to make.
But the story is not about a Rep pol, for whom the meme you tapped into would apply. Instead, you ignored the person in the story and just threw out some meme having nothing to do with firefighters. Weirddave did not just throw out a random comment about the left. It was tied to the story. Can you not see the difference?
Fact-filled? I’m not sure that’s what’s called for here. Logical is more the order of the day. Come to think of it, though, if you really are waiting breathlessly, maybe I shouldn’t have responded so quickly.
And if you don’t think they’re also associated with Christianity in America, then you’re even more insulated than I am.
Why would that make a difference? If liberals politicians have created an atmosphere of entitlement and victimhood that is effecting the way individual citizens behave, then it’s no more ridiculous to suggest that conservative politicians have created an atmosphere of dishonesty and graft that is also effecting the way individual citizens behave. How is one example any more or less connected to the behavior of this firefighter than the other?
Take away that last sentence for now. You do so and we are in complete agreement. One comment is as fair/valid/appropriate/inappropriate as the other. But Weirddave’s comment was not made in a vacuum, or out of the blue. There was an event that sparked it. That event was a firefighter taking advantage of a system by first claiming victimhood and that tapping into an entitlement of sorts. He took that and made and expanded this one event to point to what is wrought when victimhood and entitlement becomes the order of the day. Did he have to say it? No. I said from the beginning that it did not go to the heart of the issue. It was commentary on it. I think you see that. The point we seem to disagree on is whether it was as logical for him to make his comment as it was for muttrox to make his. I hope you see now that it wasn’t. One is linked to the behavior of the person in the story. The other was merely a tu quoque with no relationship to the story.
I think we’ve long since demonstrated, in many previous threads, that we have sharply conflicting ideas about what constitutes “logic.” Not surprising, really, that this thread had the same result.
I agree. But in this case, Miller, I really was hoping you would have explained yourself better. That because I respect the thinking you usually apply to things. While it may not lead to agreement, it does usully shed light on where, specifically, the disagreement lies. I’ll look forward to benefitting from that next time.
At which time you will, of course, be illogical and wrong.
Again, you make assertions based on your own opinions. You claim one is connected and another is not. But you cannot justify it. Every time you try you just point out how your own worldview is getting in the way. You **claim **that one makes perfect sense in context and one doesn’t, but can’t **demonstrate **it, only **assert **it.
I could rewrite your whole paragraph above to once again show simple word substitution defeats your point, but you seem immune to that logic.
Well, let’s see it. I’ve explained my position in detail several times. And explained the logic behind it. Let’s see you do the same. Show me the logical links to your thinking. Show that you understand why Weirddave made the comment he did (not that you agree with it, of course) and how your comment was logically consistent with that. And let’s see if you can carry your own water this time? Not that Miller was much help this time in explaining his position or the failings he saw with mine.
I’ll wait.
And another thing, why don’t you reply to Post 67?
Fine, I’m responding, we’ll repeat ourselves to death. It is just as logical to see the firefighters actions in context of a culture of cheating and corruption (he did cheat, and he was corrupt [as was the doctor]) as seeing it in a context of entitlement (he took advantage of entitling policies). It is just as logical to tie a culture of cheating and corruption to the right as it is to tie a culture of entitlement to the left.
I’ve already explained it, I’ve already shown it, and I’ve already shown it. Miller has explained it also. You continue to throw up “rebuttals” that have no basis in fact or logic, just your own opinions.
I think we’re at a dead end. I’ve explained my thinking, Miller has explained it, for some reason you think we haven’t. I can’t think of anything to say that hasn’t been said. If you don’t get it, you don’t get it. I think Danceswithcats has the right idea, this horse has been killed and starts kindergarten next week in a bottle of Elmers glue.
