I don’t recall saying that I had a problem with it.
There are some appetites that can never be sated.
I’ve long since given up interacting with you, but your above post as a response to mhendo’s post cements it. You answer charges of dishonesty with dishonesty.
I notice you also avoided the issue of asking for cites when you yourself don’t feel you need to provide them. Or is that just more of your style?
A: I’m a Republican.
B: Shut the fuck up, you fucking troll.
C: http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
For what it’s worth, I absolutely believe that.
Erm… and yours?
So our work here is done, then? Because I believe that you’ve spoken, and I know my mind is made up (I believe pretty much everyone else’s is too, one way or another, but I’ll refrain from speaking for them). Why did we need a whole other thread?
I’d certainly agree with reasonable, and i’d throw polite and civil in there too, but respectful i’d say is only true up until a point. After all, i’m a liberal too, and while in many cases you were simply stating your opinion you did veer into insulting no merely those disagreeing with you but liberals in general at times. You were certainly respectful in the specific, but in the general you didn’t always treat liberals as a whole group with that much respect.
Maybe not those two (that I can remember), but in the past I’ve had changes of heart on issues afer discussions with other posters (ExTank and Airman Doors, before I left in 2004, come immediately to mind; I’ve thoroughly reconsidered my views on gun ownership for starters) and I’m finding common ground with E-Sabbath in the very thread you link to.
The difference is that they didn’t start the discussion with the assumption that everyone who disagrees with them is a petulant moron. You do. Why should we bother talking to you when there’s no evidence that you’ll take anything we say seriously?
Some, but not nearly as many as you think. Pointing out that your arguments are poorly considered, dishonestly conducted and unsupported by reality is not the same as dogmatically holding the opposing position.
And yes, I mean “dishonest”. mhendo’s point here
…is entirely true. That you believe that you are conducting an honest (if somewhat scrappy) debate I have no doubt. If anything, that merely makes your equivocations all the worse.
Case in point: on the Crips and Bloods discussion in the other thread:
In fact, I suspect that due to media portrayals most people associate the Bloods and Crips specifically with South Central LA unless they live in an area with gang activity and thus direct exposure to them. As such, RT’s point is entirely relevant. So your point is rebutted, and your response is to claim that you were really talking about something different and that we’re all being deliberately obtuse and dishonest in not addressing THAT point. How is that a legitimate point of debate? Your argument is that you can read our minds? Of course your other option would be to accept either that you had been wrong or that you had been unclear in your original statement, something you never (or very rarely) do. That’s what I mean by dishonest.
If you want to play the victim card here (“Ooh, the mean widdle libwuls are picking on me”), go right ahead. But don’t expect us to treat you like an adult when you act that way.
Yes.
I think you do it because you think you are getting out your Message. You don’t care if you’re debating dishonestly as long as you feel like you’re scoring points or “winning” the argument.
Your beliefs are so colored by your partisanship, then, that you can convince yourself of anything so long as it reinforces your pre-conceived position. You admitted that, if Obama were a conservative, you’d have no problem with his lack of executive experience, but because he’s not your guy, you’ll hammer him for it. That seems pretty dishonest.
I offered evidence of it in the form of cites from your previous posts in the other thread.
Then would you kindly explain what the purpose of the conversation is? If you’re just trying to degrade, insult, and score points, then you can understand why people genuinely interested in debate would not want to talk to you or take you seriously.
Why are you insulting someone who seems to be showing you the respect of taking you seriously, and trying to engage in a serious, factual debate? Why is that a bad thing, worthy of insult? mhendo wants to debate you, but you just want to spew and vent. Why is it he that is the jerk here?
Yet you refuse to offer cites and scoff at the idea that fact are relevant. How is it, then, that you are fighting ignorance?
Not surprisingly, your argument in this thread seems to be that you’re a terrible debater and insulting to boot because… it’s all the liberal’s fault! You assign us an awful lot of power, including the power to ruin your ability to have a meaningful debate. How about taking responsibility for your own shortcomings and taking that 10 page thread Pitting you as a serious sign that people find your tactics and posting style alienating, aside from your politics. Really, if you were a liberal, I’d find you just as annoying, I assure you. Again, I tell you-- it’s not about your politics. It’s about how you present yourself.
You might try reading the OP. If you don’t have a problem with people starting a thread with the opinion that you are insane, or that you may be, why this thread?
I changed my mind about gun control because of a couple of posts by Bricker and A_D. I’ve changed my mind about a couple of different things because of posts by Sam.
Because the other one’s too long?
I’ve posted in other threads about this…
See http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=487952&page=3
In that thread, I attempted to post a reasoned and clear response to the OP. I got one response - someone who called me for my “bullshit” and said I was “stupid.” I then posted a reply to that, again refraining from anything but the topic at hand. Although that poster stayed in the thread, he/she never responded to me. The balance of the thread became McCain/Palin bashing and insults. I have seen this in almost every political thread around here.
It is absolutely possible that my response wasn’t particularly exciting and reply-worthy. Is it not also possible that most of the posters who hijack the political threads are not interested in debate, but just want to score points? I have seen my replies sink like a stone, and I came to discover that, around here, political threads are not about debate, but about bashing conservatives. I was also surprised that I got a PM from that posting - a completely regular, non-fangbearing conservative, who thanked me for my post. Now, I know it was not a ground-breaking statement I made, but that it was enough to generate a PM leads me to believe that are a lot of posters around here who see the same thing.
There are so many huge issues wrapped up in this election, but I see very little actual debate about any of these issues. Most of them could be discussed without ever bringing up McCain ot Obama - at their core, they are issues of Constitutional debate, or morality calls, or debate about the impact of current actions on our future. No dice; apparently, all questions are just excuses to show the Dope how left you are, how much you hate GWB, and how happy you are to toe the party line. This impacts how well-thought out your positions are - as I have gotten older, I often use a “devil’s advocate” debate to explore how and why the other side feels the way they do. When given the opportunity, I have pretended to hold opinions and argue them, just to see how they parse out.
This is not true of every thread - I remember some good debates about Obama’s forced volunteerism and some others, usually dealing with small issues. And I know how frustrating it is to deal with people who you believe are total morons - I run into it all the time with super-religious people. I just want to slap them until they are unconscious, but instead, I just use it as a way to exercise my arguments and learn new and exciting things from the world of Jebus.
But I’m sorry, guys, like it or not, the level of political discourse on this Board is completely left, and not very interested in talking it over.
ETA: I have no feelings pro or con for Starving Artist - I didn’t read the Pit thread. But I thought he brought up an important issue around here.
And - for his understanding of econ and his love of Rock Band, I may have to get divorced just so I can marry Sam Stone.
Part of the sad reason that discussion on this board is shifted left is because the policies of the right, these days, are completely fucking indefensible to anyone with a brain and a soul. They’re unAmerican, unjust, and god damn evil.
Loss of Habeas Corpus. Torture. Rejection of reality in favor of something you really, really wish was true.
When the right is tossing shit like that around, and tossing our money around like I would if I were high on Squishee syrup in the middle of a japanese import toy store, there’s nowhere to stand to defend the damn people.
Richard Nixon would wind up as a Democrat. Ike, god rest his soul, would wind up with two black babies and a dead hooker on his plate.
Fuck that shit.
And fuck Starving Artist for being a willing enabler.
Personally, I think it would be a cool experiment to dissect the brains of hard-core Republicans after the election just to see if their brain chemistry is any different from normal people’s.
I mean, it’s not as if they’re going to be using them or anything, is it?
By hard-core, I mean only those who are voting for McCain wholeheartedly, with no misgivings, and have never even considered doing otherwise. I’m curious about what would make people, living in a country that has earned other countries’ contempt by preemptively starting wars based on fallacious information, wrecked its own economy, destroyed any sense of national unity by stressing the divisions in the country, even those that are blatantly fictional, conclude that their Party is a sound and deserving party to lead again, with no doubt in their thought process.
It’s gotta be a chemical malfunction, don’t you think?
I don’t think so, no. Never, ever, ever trivialize an opponent. Or an ally. Respect them. Listen to them. But don’t bow to them.
Painting pretty cartoons of reality is what I’m pissed at SA for. Don’t make the same mistake.
Insofar as I was serious, which didnt quite extend to performing experiments on the brains of living citizens, I do think this would be a good time to examine the thought proceses of the most sincere (but not insane by other measures) hardcore Republicans, just to take advantage of a moment in history when one party is as thoroughly discredited as any party can ever hope to be, just to see how they still manage to rationalize unqualified support of that party.
Once Obama’s elected, they will start having some rational basis about his policies, his effect on the economy, that while arguable can form the basis of rational dispute. But now they really can’t blame much that’s tangible on Obama’s policies.
“Waiter! Are you sure this is the Chef’s Special?” 
I’m not sure that diehard Republicans are significantly different than diehard Democrats (or diehard members of any other political party/church/school/street gang). It’s that whole “We’re right, and therefore anyone who is not us is wrong” unthinking worldview that prevents us from evolving as a species beyond the poo-flinging chimp stage of society.
I think they make special shampoo for that.
Can I get a pledge from you that you will not start another thread on this subject, regardless of how this thread and the original thread progress?
I see a couple of possible solutions, going forward.
First, Starkers could publish his own newsletter, on a weekly,daily, or hourly basis, keeping us advised on all things SA. This would cut down on some unneccesary traffic, what with Dopers clamoring and beseeching for his views and insights, and permit an expanded setting for a more thorough exposition on the crystalline labyrinth of his views.
Or, we might follow the trend of the recent expansion of fora, and create a seperate (but equal!) forum in Side Conversations. One stop shopping for everything Starving Artist, includiing hourly updates on his activities, plans, and musings. (We may need to renegotiate our contract with the hamsters, we would certainly need to adjust the amphetamine content of their Hamster Ciao…)