Allright, I'll do it. Liberal...

The BBQ Pit
81

He doesn’t, has never claimed that he does, and has in fact pointed out on several occasions that he doesn’t.

See, while Lib may be inaccessible and difficult, and while he would do well to heed Polycarp’s, Triskademus’s and Harborwolf’s advice (except for number 5, perhaps), he is nothing if not intellectually honest. If he sees a wrong committed by someone he agrees with, he’ll point it out, exactly as he would if it were someone he disagreed with. He won’t accept what he considers to be a fallacious argument just because it supports his point. We could use more people like that around here.

82

Very well said, Priceguy. I hadn’t looked at it in quite that way before, but you’ve hit the nail on the head. His intellectual honesty is exactly the reason I’ve always had a high regard for Lib.

83

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect…

Or paraphrasing another character from the Princess bride:

You keep using the word “defeated”. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I think you are wrong here Starving Artist, many of the “defeated” by Liberal’s intelligence have produced examples of the wrecks that he caused in discussions, suffice to say I have seen that same MO in recent threads: He defended, and I assume you would have thought he defeated me, when I was showing how the Swift boaters, in the last election, were full of it. In that thread, Liberal defended the poster that was being piled on, I guess you can say that he “showed us”.

However, a few days later, in a logical thread; I pointed out that some kinds of logic can indeed obfuscate the search of the truth, I mentioned that some logical constructions, like the ones the swifters were making, would never be found to be false! And just then, Liberal replied in essence that yes, the swifters were indeed full of it! Vanishing all the effort and tenacity showed to defend the swifters on the previous thread.

Rhetoric in this case is not strength, here it is only leading us to then dismiss the poster as just a loose cannon.

I could have then moped the floor with him as I did to many libertarians in college debates, but then I thought he was no longer worth the effort, I should have replied because it could have prevented you from keeping the erroneous impression that Liberal is on your side.

84

This sentence made me snort out loud! :smiley:

Other than that, I got nothing except to add my voice to those who like Lib but sometimes wish he would make it more clear when he is arguing from conviction and when he is playing Devil’s Advocate.

85

No, GIGO, I don’t think Lib’s on anyone’s side. I am in disagreement with him very, very regularly. But like I said above, it’s his intellectual honesty that I find to be his strongest feature.

And regarding “defeat,” I’m not speaking of certain individual threads or issues when I mention it. I’m speaking of those who feel that Liberal knows more than they know, condescends to them, and beats them over the head with his superior intellect, vocabulary and/or erudition. This very thread is full of people who at one time or another held what I would’ve believed to be the correct position on some issue or another, but who felt that even thought they were right Lib still overpowered them with his intelligence or command of obfuscating peripheral detail. It is these people I’m referring to as having been defeated by him. It’s not so much that he proved them wrong as it is that they themselves feel he wrongfully got the better of them, and they resent it.

Thus the unremitting animus being displayed in this thread.

86

Sorry, make that “even though they were right…”

87

Oy.

There’s nothing I really can (or would want to) change about my worldview. Just as it is with anyone else, that is born of my life experience. I just don’t see things the way many of you do. But you’re right, Excalibre, that doesn’t mean that I have ever to get nasty about it. And I admit that I do. I could say that I do it in response to nastiness, but even if that were true (and I’m not sure it always is), it is not necessary that I respond in kind to every perceived insult.

Many of these criticisms are valid. Some are not. (I have never, for example, claimed to have any formal education, and have in fact reported numerous times that I am completely self-educated beyond high school. I have taught courses in first order logic, but I have never taken any. I have been consulted by candidates writing theses, but I have never written one for a degree of my own.)

I have tried — and failed — in the past to be nicer. That doesn’t mean that I can’t try again, but it might mean that the prognosis is not so good. It would honestly help, if you believe that I’m redeemable, if you made it a bit easier for me to succeed. I hesitate to bring this up for fear that it might be interpreted as asking for a special favor, but I would appreciate some slack. Not because you owe it to me, but because just like you, I want the overall board experience to be as pleasant as possible.

Consider, for example, the Coulter-McKeown thread. So long as I am a member in good standing, I’m afraid that I’m going to have to insist on being able to come in and express my own opinion that both he and she were wrong. And I’m going to have to insist that I be allowed to defend my position when it is challenged. I can try to be more civil about it, but it would help if there weren’t twelve of you, one of whom is present for no purpose other than to declare repeatedly that he considers me to be “batshit insane” and so forth. If twelve of you challenge me, and I respond to each of you, then it looks like I have taken over the thread, when in reality all I have done is addressed your posts. Whenever I miss one, I hear about it. The agrieved poster wants to know, “Why did you ignore me?”. So, if you will forego the pile-ons, it won’t make me seem so… significant and omnipresent.

If the only thing that will please you is that I roll over and jump in with “me too” every time an opinion is expressed by someone else, or that I stop posting altogether, then you simply are not going to be pleased. But as I said, I can at least put more thought into how I put words together. I don’t know that I can change my writing style. I’m too old for that. I like to make a point, and do so as efficiently as possible. However, those of you who say that I ought to expound more thoroughly when I first post are probably right. I suppose that after five years, I begin to presume that my underlying reasoning is well known and therefore not necessary to explain. But turnover happens, new people come in, and old people forget — so I’m confident that I can do better in that department.

Finally, I categorically reject any and all assertions that I am unwilling to admit error or change my mind about an issue or point. That simply is not true. You can search my username for terms like “I stand corrected” or “I was wrong”, and you will find plenty. Nor does it require any long-winded verbal beatings or naggings to get me to admit error. It requires nothing more than a compelling argument.

Anyway, I honestly do appreciate the criticisms. If any of you ever want my criticisms of you, I’ll be happy to convey them. And Gum, you’re not going anywhere. I love you. You must stay.

88

Mmm, I think that is what I was pointing out, crowing about rhetorical victories is something I would not be proud of, and I am still trying to figure out exactly what you are defending here, maybe that Liberal can deflate egos with wrong information and that is ok?

I do not give a hoot if some indeed resent him by felling wrongfully that he got the better of them (I did not), leading people to that erroneous conclusion is called something else, and I must say it is a behavior that is getting into bannable territory.

89

I think we are arguing apples and oranges here. I’m not “defending” anything. Neither am I saying Liberal was “ok” on those occasions when he may have gotten the better of someone “rhetorically.” I was responding primarily to gum’s post in which he displayed such disgust with the way many of the posters to this thread are behaving (I, myself, was quite disgusted with Desmostylus calling Lib a liar to his own wife!).

It’s simply that I think a lot of the animus in this thread has its genesis in feelings of inferiority Lib has engendered among certain of the posters here, and that, regardless of whether they were right or wrong to begin with, it’s the fact that he’s made so many of them feel outgunned intellectually that has caused this over-the-top pile-on which has continued even after Lib himself appeared and acknowledged some of the complaints and asked for suggestions as to how he could improve his posts.

In other words, I was saying to gum that a lot of these people have a major-league hard-on toward Lib for making them feel stupid and its bringing out the worst in them. Whether or not Lib was right at the time he made them feel stupid really isn’t germane, at least not to the point I was trying to make to gum. I was merely trying to persuade him that most of the people here aren’t as bad as it would appear from the behavior of many in this thread.

90

Well then, we mostly agree, but context is everything to me; I still think it is irrelevant that some fell outgunned, pity them. However, others in this thread showed that was not the case, and they still find Liberal’s tactics to be right at the border of what should be allowed.

91

To me Lib is one of the people who makes the sdmb interesting. Where is the fun if everyone agrees?

OK he makes me feel like a doofus sometimes but that’s nothing new. I respect the way he will defend his opinion but will also admit when he’s wrong. Sure he can be a tad rude sometimes but he is certainly not alone in that.

Keep on keeping on Lib :slight_smile:

92

What was the fucking point of this statement?

I e-mailed you three times recently about Liberal. You didn’t respond, and you still haven’t. I don’t hate Liberal’s guts. I think he’s someone who deliberatlely tries to stir up shit. You admit that Liberal’s behaviour annoys people, but you don’t propose to do anything about it, nor do you give any explanation of why it should be tolerated.

And I most definitely ain’t stalking him. The suggestion is simply fucking bizarre. Liberal posts a lot. In lots of threads. Most of them I’m simply not interested in, and I don’t post in them. Some of the threads, I am interested in. And so I object when this crazy asshole starts hijacking them.

Your claim here, that I’m stalking this fucking idiot, is way off base. In the thread that spawned this one, I was arguing with Brutus and FinnAgain, prior to Liberal’s hijack to Pluto.

And you should note that this particular thread, was started at Liberal own request, specifically for the purpose of me posting to it. Which I did, twice, prior to your accusation of stalking.

So, like, WTF?

93

I need no persuasion in that regard. I realize, from the arguments made, that I’ve brought a lot of it onto myself. I pretty much said above how I feel about all of it. I had requested this thread (from Desmostylus, actually) as a place for him to vent at me, but Harborwolf framed it far more constructively, which is why I’m here reading. Much of what was said stings, and some of what stings is true. Some of it isn’t. I don’t think any of us is as bad as what our board behavior might at times convey.

In case you’re interested, I’ll tell you what I buy and what I don’t so far:

Sold

I’m unnecessarily rude at times, often when I first make a point.

My writing style can sometimes make for a tedious read, and can make me seem pretentious or condescending.

I get too worked up over piddly shit sometimes, and should just let it go.

I sometimes hurt people’s feelings by my choice of words, and my approach in general to certain topics.

I hang out in the Pit too much, which only exacerbates everything else.

I should identify when I take the role of devil’s advocate and am arguing a position that I believe has merit but that I do not prefer.

I frustrate libertarians who are trying to proselytize.

Rejected

I pretend to be more educated than I am.

I refuse to hear opposing arguments, or change my mind unless nagged into submission.

I intentionally obfuscate for no reason other than to confuse.

I toss out vocabulary for the sole purpose of impressing people, and don’t know what the words mean.

I unilaterally hijack threads when multiple people have made an issue of my opinion.

94

This about sums it up for me. Damn is he ever annoying at times, but he can pretty consistently be relied upon to provide a counterpoint opinion, even if it’s one you’re sick of, and will admit he’s wrong on occasion, which is more than most people manage, myself included. Intimations that his behaviour is borderline ban-worthy frankly astound me. What sort of crappy bland-as-hell board do we want here, anyway?

I’d also like to agree (more or less) with gum as to the general distastefulness of this thread. If you’ve got an issue with someone’s behaviour, pit them for that specifically, rather than simply opening a thread that explicitly says “hey everybody, let’s bitch about X”.

95

I’d just like to point out that it seems like Liberal has been pitted in the past more then once over individual behaviors yet this thread so far is seeming to have a bigger impact on him so maybe it’s turning out more constructive then anything else. Also if you held a ‘let’s bitch about someone’ thread for about 90% of the posters it would turn violently on the OP in a matter of seconds which says something about the overall feeling his posting style has spawned.

Sometimes you have to lance a boil to get all the pus out. Not pretty not nice but necessary for the health of the patient.

96

I know I would be very much more emotionally affected (Let me be more honest, devastated) by the “Trisk is a sanctimonious asshole” thread than Liberal has shown us here. And the fact is I am a sanctimonious asshole. I just couldn’t face the public witch burning over it. Most particularly if it went into multiple pages.

Hang in there Lib! Some fairly respected sources have made some effort to let you know that you are not entirely off the wall. (And, let’s be honest, being on the wall was never your intention. :slight_smile: ) Just don’t embrace the spite with the hurt. You have hurt some people’s feelings, and evidently some have invested a real authority to your responses that you probably don’t percieve yourself. If you don’t know how, that’s understandable, since I must admit I don’t see it, either. But that doesn’t change your responsibility, as I am sure you know. Seven times Seventy is a big number, and that just gets you back to even.

I think it most odd of all that the Ontological Proof seems to be at the core of a whole lot of vituperative responses. My best concrete advice to you is that you just put that one away. This is evidently not the appropriate place for that one discussion. Now, I don’t find that all that logical, but emotional pain seldom is logical. There are lots of other things to discuss here.

Tris

“These things that are pleasin’ you can hurt you somehow.” ~ Don Henley & Glenn Frey ~

97

Lest I give the wrong impression, Tris, I certainly appreciate the words of affirmation as much as I do the criticism. But honestly, I’m not badly hurt. I’ve always appreciated criticism (as opposed to attacks), and have always found it edifying. I understand the spirit in which you offer the advice, but I’m afraid that I cannot promise to make any particular argument taboo. One must deal with what one encounters. If I encounter no one saying that only a fool would believe in God and that there is no rational basis for doing so, then I will refrain from introducing the two premises and their implications that you believe upset some people. There is a huge difference between trying to piss people off with unlikely premises, and people just getting pissed off because they don’t like your premises. I don’t want to piss people off, but treating a popular topic in modern logic as though it were pornography just isn’t an option. I do thank you for your kindness, and would always appreciate your prayer, guidance, and advice. I’ll likely implement it ninety-nine times out of a hundred.

98

I’m sure you’re not doing it intentionally, you just come off that way sometimes.

Again, I’m sure you don’t do this, but I can understand why people would get the impression that you do.

The rest I’ll reject along with you.

99

As succinct a statement of the human condition as I’ve seen anywhere, Lib. I, who rarely practice humility and kindness, ask you to do one thing: Try acting as though others carry that same plea in their hearts.

100

I didn’t say he did. I thought it was clear that my post, and the one I replied to by Muffin, were in regard to other posters who have credited Lib with formal training in logic. Those posters are incorrect. They’d be incorrect whether I liked Lib or not, whether he were the most honest man in the world or a pathological liar.

If I wanted to say “Lib lies about how much formal education he has” then that’s exactly what I’d say. But my meaning was “Some people wrongly believe that Lib has more formal education than he does.” I’m sorry if this confused anyone.