Age Quod Agis makes up quotes in GD, and tells other lies

[RTFirefly]

Scene of the idiocy.

Reviewing the bidding:

I. The real-word part:

1. A college student claimed to have been visited by government agents on account of his checking Mao’s Little Red Book out of the library.
2. This was reported by reputable papers at the time.
3. He was later discovered to be lying.
4. In between (2) and (3), Sen. Ted Kennedy wrote an op-ed about the NSA wiretapping story.
5. At the end of the op-ed, he used the story about the student as an illustration of what was wrong about domestic surveillance. However, the story was included as an illustration; it in no meaningful way comprised the data on which his argument depended.
6. When the student’s story was revealed to be a fraud, the Boston Globe reported on Kennedy’s reaction:

Laura Capps, a Kennedy spokeswoman, said last night that the senator cited ''public reports" in his opinion piece. Even if the assertion was a hoax, she said, it did not detract from Kennedy’s broader point that the Bush administration has gone too far in engaging in surveillance.

Which is of course true: the illustration was simply an illustration; its falsity doesn’t affect the truth or falsity of Kennedy’s argument. That argument stands on its own.

II. The SDMB Part:

In this GD post, Age Quod Agis said:

One more example of the noise to fact ratio:
Ted Kennedy wrote an op-ed in the Boston Post arguing that Bush was running roughshod over the Constitution. In that article, Kennedy wrote about a university student who claimed to have been interviewed by Homeland Security after requesting Mao’s Little Red Book from the university library. Turns out the student lied; he made the whole thing up. However, Senator Kennedy’s spokesperson said that whether Senator Kennedy’s assertions were true was less important than raising awareness of Bush’s misdeeds. (Cite.)

I called him on that, and here’s where it gets interesting:

[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis]

@RTFirefly

2. Consequently, when you say “Turns out the student lied; he made the whole thing up. However, Senator Kennedy’s spokesperson said that whether Senator Kennedy’s assertions were true was less important than raising awareness of Bush’s misdeeds,” it sounds as if Kennedy’s claiming his argument’s still valid, despite his supporting evidence having been invalidated.

And rather than admit that he’d proliferated a false story, thus damaging the credility of law enforcement officials and programs, Kennedy thought that it was more important to “raise awareness” about the corrupt Bushista regime. “So what if the information I’m sending out is false? It hurts Bush, so it’s good false information.”

“Kennedy thought that it was more important to “raise awareness” about the corrupt Bushista regime.” Who’s AQA quoting, with the “raise awareness” quote? Not Kennedy or his spokesperson. AQA is quoting AQA. There’s nothing about “raising awareness” in Capps’ response on Kennedy’s behalf. Not even anything that could be paraphrased as being about raising awareness.

He is simply making shit up about what Kennedy and his spokesperson are saying, and then jumping on Kennedy with both feet over it.

He revisits this later in the same post:

And when the story was admitted to be false, he didn’t renounce the story; he said it was a good lie because it “raised awareness” of the bad things that had been done.

And

That’s the noise to fact ratio I was talking about. He could have reduced the noise by admitting that the story was a lie; instead, he said the story was good because it “raised awareness” that made his political opponents look bad.

Reiterating the invented “raised awareness” quote.

Not to mention, there’s no hint of “he said it was a good lie” or “said the story was good” anywhere in Capps’ quoted remarks. Again, AQA is making shit up, and again in a way that tells a fundamental lie about what Kennedy and his spokesperson have said.

Also, the “rather than admit that he’d proliferated a false story” and “didn’t renounce the story” parts? All we have of what Capps said is the tiny smidgen that the WSJ blogger quoted. And the point Capps makes is that Kennedy’s argument doesn’t rely on the illustration; it’s true either way. We don’t know if Capps said nothing further about the “Little Red Book” story, whether she acknowledged that it was false, whether she still claimed it was true, whether she weaseled, or what.

Again, AQA is making shit up. Not quite in the same league as making up false quotes that aren’t even remotely a paraphrase of what the speaker actually said, since this just misrepresents the absence of knowledge as the knowledge of absence, but it’s still making shit up. Par for the course for AQA, I guess.

[RTFirefly]

Let’s try that quote-in-quote again:

@Age Quod Agis

@RTFirefly

2. Consequently, when you say “Turns out the student lied; he made the whole thing up. However, Senator Kennedy’s spokesperson said that whether Senator Kennedy’s assertions were true was less important than raising awareness of Bush’s misdeeds,” it sounds as if Kennedy’s claiming his argument’s still valid, despite his supporting evidence having been invalidated.

And rather than admit that he’d proliferated a false story, thus damaging the credility of law enforcement officials and programs, Kennedy thought that it was more important to “raise awareness” about the corrupt Bushista regime. “So what if the information I’m sending out is false? It hurts Bush, so it’s good false information.”

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@RTFirefly

Let’s try that quote-in-quote again:

Point for you: you’re right that the repeated use of quotes around “raise awareness” is misleading. AQA, that’s bad form.

Point for AQA: when you illustrate your argument with an untrue example, it does diminish your argument: it certainly gives the impression that you play fast and loose with the facts, and gives me reason not to trust the other facts you’ve offered. Kennedy should have apologized for impugning Bush based on the testimony of a hoaxster, excoriated all those on his side of the issue who would lie in order to advance their cause, and then reiterated his point about the Administration’s overreach on surveillance, using specific real-world examples.

Daniel

[Shodan]

“Even though the documents were forged and the evidence a lie, this does not affect the larger point, which needs to affect our public policy.”

If you think the above is true if you are talking about the Patriot Act and National Guard documents, but false if you are talking about the Swift Boat veterans, you have forfeited the right of being taken seriously.

Or, more simply KennedyLiedKennedyLiedKennedyLiedKennedyLiedKennedyLiedKennedyLiedKennedyLiedKennedyLiedKennedyLiedKennedyLiedKennedyLiedKennedyLied…

Regards,
Shodan

[smiling_bandit]

If one wished to be (very) generous, he may have intended that as a summation of Kennedy’s views.

[John_Mace]

@Shodan

If you think the above is true if you are talking about the Patriot Act and National Guard documents, but false if you are talking about the Swift Boat veterans, you have forfeited the right of being taken seriously.

And with that one sentence, you brought life to lifeless thread…

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@John Mace

And with that one sentence, you brought life to lifeless thread…

Why? The way to handle such situations seems to me to be bleedin’ obvious:

1. Ignore discredited evidence for a charge.
2. That means ignore it, not treat it as if it discredits the charge itself.

Daniel

[ElvisL1ves]

We already tried explaining that to the Usual Suspects who thought the Rather-CBS memo forgery incident proved that Bush served his military duty after all. Didn’t work then, probably won’t work now, but at least Shodan has a new tagline.

[Shodan]

Well, if you are claiming he didn’t, you will have to do better than forged documents.

Of course it is a little like arguing that The Turner Diaries are fiction with someone who is as complete an idiot on race as the Usual Suspects are on Bush, so perhaps not.

Regards,
Shodan

[RTFirefly]

@Shodan

“Even though the documents were forged and the evidence a lie, this does not affect the larger point, which needs to affect our public policy.”

If you think the above is true if you are talking about the Patriot Act and National Guard documents, but false if you are talking about the Swift Boat veterans, you have forfeited the right of being taken seriously.

Let me explain the difference, in small words if possible:

In the case of the NSA spying case, the Little Red Book anecdote is irrelevant as evidence. We don’t need it because Bush has already admitted ordering the NSA to wiretap Americans without FISA warrants. That’s our evidence. The additional anecdote was illustrative, but not necessary as substance.

In the case of the SwiftLiars, the anecdotes were their evidence. If the anecdotes weren’t factual, there was no case. Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh.

[RTFirefly]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Point for you: you’re right that the repeated use of quotes around “raise awareness” is misleading. AQA, that’s bad form.

Let me reiterate: even if AQA was ignorantly but honestly using quotes to signify that he was paraphrasing what Kennedy/Capps said, it’s a totally dishonest paraphrase. We have no evidence that Kennedy said anything remotely like this. AQA made this up. Making stuff up to enhance your GD argument is not about ‘form.’

Point for AQA: when you illustrate your argument with an untrue example, it does diminish your argument: it certainly gives the impression that you play fast and loose with the facts, and gives me reason not to trust the other facts you’ve offered.

To the extent that’s what he’s saying, he’s right. But he’s saying Kennedy “said it was a good lie.” AFAWK, Kennedy’s said nothing of the sort; regardless of the case for or against Kennedy, AQA is making shit up about him, rather than making an honest case such as the one you’ve outlined.

Kennedy should have apologized for impugning Bush based on the testimony of a hoaxster, excoriated all those on his side of the issue who would lie in order to advance their cause, and then reiterated his point about the Administration’s overreach on surveillance, using specific real-world examples.

This would have been an appropriate discussion for the original thread. I’m not Pitting AQA because I thought AQA came to what I thought was an unreasonable conclusion about Kennedy based on the evidence at hand; that’s the sort of thing one can argue out in GD. I took this here because AQA was making stuff up - claiming Kennedy said things that he didn’t. As quote or as paraphrase; that part doesn’t matter.

[lissener]

Kennedy didn’t lie. When he used the illustration, it was believed to be true. Since the story of the Mao-book hoax was not the central point–the central point was the Bush adminstration’s policies–then only proving that those policies are a “hoax” is relevent here. Kennedy did not draw the conclusions he’s drawn about Bush’s policies BASED ON the Mao-book incident; it was an after-the-fact illustration of ONE OF the the possible results of policies. By invalidating that example, you’ve only invalidated ONE OF the many examples that are possible.

The alternative to this view, as suggested by AQA’s and Shodan’s responses, is that one lone hoaxer, acting alone, is adequate to dismantle the entire apparatus of political opposition to the Bush administration, and to sweepingly invalidate anything any member of that opposition has ever said; if a single one of Kennedy’s examples was faulty, you’re saying, then absolutely nothing else he could possibly have to say has any value, and he should drop his opposition to the Patriot Act entirely.

Seriously; does that make any sense? Of course not, and it reveals AQA and Shodan (big surprise) as illogical and lazy, and likely dishonest.

(In AQA’s “defense,” it looks like he misunderstood the original quote: “Even if the assertion was a hoax, she said, it did not detract from Kennedy’s broader point . . .” In that quote, the “assertion” being referred to (sloppily) is the assertion made by the hoaxer, that checking out the Mao book will bring the FBI down on your ass. AQA clearly took it to mean that the spokesperson was saying, “Even if Kennedy’s assertion was false, he stands by it.” Sloppy wording by the spokesperson, coupled with sloppy reading on AQA’s part. OK, not really a defense; he still took that lazy reading and used it to make shit up.)

[RTFirefly]

@lissener

(In AQA’s “defense,” it looks like he misunderstood the original quote: “Even if the assertion was a hoax, she said, it did not detract from Kennedy’s broader point . . .” In that quote, the “assertion” being referred to (sloppily) is the assertion made by the hoaxer, that checking out the Mao book will bring the FBI down on your ass. AQA clearly took it to mean that the spokesperson was saying, “Even if Kennedy’s assertion was false, he stands by it.” Sloppy wording by the spokesperson, coupled with sloppy reading on AQA’s part. OK, not really a defense; he still took that lazy reading and used it to make shit up.)

Not a defense; I pointed these things out to him in the thread, and he said these things I’ve quoted as part of his response.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Shodan

Well, if you are claiming he didn’t, you will have to do better than forged documents.

Oh, it’s been done quite thoroughly. Try the Search function.

Warning: There’s a serious danger that you might learn something, though. Better keep your usual fact filters in place or the results could be painful for you.

[lonesome_loser]

@Shodan

“Even though the documents were forged and the evidence a lie, this does not affect the larger point, which needs to affect our public policy.”

If you think the above is true if you are talking about the Patriot Act and National Guard documents, but false if you are talking about the Swift Boat veterans, you have forfeited the right of being taken seriously.

Or, more simply KennedyLiedKennedyLiedKennedyLiedKennedyLiedKennedyLiedKennedyLiedKennedyLiedKennedyLiedKennedyLiedKennedyLiedKennedyLiedKennedyLied…

Regards,
Shodan

You sound like my 12 year old. Just how old are you anyway?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@RTFirefly

Let me reiterate: even if AQA was ignorantly but honestly using quotes to signify that he was paraphrasing what Kennedy/Capps said, it’s a totally dishonest paraphrase. We have no evidence that Kennedy said anything remotely like this. AQA made this up. Making stuff up to enhance your GD argument is not about ‘form.’

I agree with you on this. “Bad form” means that using dishonest paraphrases is bad form: it poisons the well of debate.

Daniel

[Shodan]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I agree with you on this. “Bad form” means that using dishonest paraphrases is bad form: it poisons the well of debate.

Daniel

It certainly does.

Regards,
Shodan

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Shodan

It certainly does.

Regards,
Shodan

What is your damage, moron? I post something in one thread; instead of responding to it there, you make a pissy little attack about it in a second thread. I angrily refute you there; instead of responding to it htere, you make a pissy little attack about it here in a third thread. Do you want to stick around and defend this idiotic attack, or would you rather link to this post in a fourth thread in a week or two?

December was never this stupid. You didn’t use to be.

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Shodan, your attention, please.

Daniel

[RTFirefly]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I agree with you on this. “Bad form” means that using dishonest paraphrases is bad form: it poisons the well of debate.

Daniel

OK, I see. I’ve always understood ‘bad form’ to refer to offenses of appearance, rather than substance. Like one frat brother telling another it’s bad form to be seen dating a fat girl. But you clearly mean it differently, which is fine.