Wrong. They are both treated as facts. Which they are.
No, this board has antigens for those who refuse to acknowledge facts.
He said it, she didn’t. Enough people have gone over that patiently enough with you by now that for you to still claim otherwise is a lie of your own.
One can believe pigs can fly but that won’t give them wings. But, I take your point. I imagine that the people who beleive what you say have probably never visited that board. I would say that the incidence of nutjobs of any ilk is lower on the Freerepublic board than here, though there are some to be sure. Why take my word from it? It’s not like France. You can google it, be there in seconds and see for yourself.
Overrall, no. But, if you were to confine yourself to political discussions on the SDMB, and political discussions at Freerepublic you would find that they are pretty close (you do know that the vast majority of discussions over there are talking about Rosey and Trump, and the death of Lily Munster, right?
What does this have to do with anything? Are you putting me in that category?
[quote]
If you really believe that this board is rabidly left, you should try visiting some actual leftists websites, one where socialism and anarchism dominate, rather than the Dope’s vaguely left/liberal/libertarian hegemony. Like moveon.org, or Democratic Underground? I’ve been to both.
That’s an interesting viewpoint, and I think sincerely that it betrays a pretty clear bias in your thinking. Given the data point that the lefties are congregrating in one place and the righties are congregrating in another, you maintain that this is because the righties have a bankrupt philosophy that cannot stand scrutiny.
Why could it not be the other way around?
Why could it not be that neither group seeks to communicate with the other during times of bitter opposition?
I’d like to point out that your making a pretty classic logical fallacy here. Having assumed your conclusion you automatically selecectively interpret information in such a way that supports it without considering other possibilities.
I think I can give you numerous historical examples where hostility and bitterness stops people from communicating. Can you give me examples of cases where what you are hypothesizing has occured? In my experience it seems to me that the stupider and more bankrupt a stance is from a rationale standpoint, the more likely it is for it’s propenents to shout it loudly and demonize their opposition. I haven’t really seen much of the “running and cowering because I don’t make sense” group.
Anyway, a thoughtful reply. Thanks.
Are you sure? Notice when rjung joined?
Actually, Elvis, neither are facts. The two propositions which you claim are facts, but Shodan claims are opinion are:
I think it’s pretty symptomatic of the slant of the board that it’s possible for you to get away with saying that these are facts. But let’s put it to the test. Everybody knows you are wrong here and neither of these things are facts.
Let’s elucidate: “Bush sux” is a fundamentally qualitative statement that by itself leaves the criteria of “sux” undefined and undemonstrable from and empirical standpoint. The criteria of “sux” is left to the mind of the writer or the reader.
For example: You might say “Bush sux because he brought us to war in Iraq,” because causing a war might be, for you, a cause of the quality “sux,” and a very important thing for you.
Someone else"Bush is great because he lowered taxes" because for that peson the criteria for “sux” might be raising taxes.
Other people might have other, or multiple criteria and weigh them out and balance them according to their own beleifs and weightings of importance and having done so either decide that “Bush sux,” or he does not.
We have a word for such things where people weigh things out and make qualitative judgements on their own based on their beleifs that may be variance with other people’s conclusions.
It’s not called a “fact” It’s called “opinion.” “Bush sux” is by definition an opinion. Shodan and you are mistaken.
As for the second. Clinton was impeached because it was considered that he lied under oath, not because he got a blowjob, but because it was considered by many that he lied about obviously and openly enough that it was possible to credibly impeach him. It was the perjury that he was impeached for, not the blowjob. That’s a matter of public record.
Neither of the statements that you consider as facts facts
Sadly, that is not always the case. I suspect that nobody else will pointedly call you to task for your error, and I suspect that you will not admit to one.
I suspect that this will be the case despite the blatant and obvious falsehood of your statement, and despite my laborious and painstaking efforts to point out the incredibly obvious.
But, I’ll tell you something. Everybody knows.
I have to say that your brave attack of Shodan would carry more weight if you were to admit the error you’ve made concerning his earlier statement of fact versus opinion. He is correct and you are mistaken.
Do you admit as much?
Actually, Elvis, neither are facts. The two propositions which you claim are facts, but Shodan claims are opinion are:
I think it’s pretty symptomatic of the slant of the board that it’s possible for you to get away with saying that these are facts. But let’s put it to the test. Everybody knows you are wrong here and neither of these things are facts.
Let’s elucidate: “Bush sux” is a fundamentally qualitative statement that by itself leaves the criteria of “sux” undefined and undemonstrable from and empirical standpoint. The criteria of “sux” is left to the mind of the writer or the reader.
For example: You might say “Bush sux because he brought us to war in Iraq,” because causing a war might be, for you, a cause of the quality “sux,” and a very important thing for you.
Someone else"Bush is great because he lowered taxes" because for that peson the criteria for “sux” might be raising taxes.
Other people might have other, or multiple criteria and weigh them out and balance them according to their own beleifs and weightings of importance and having done so either decide that “Bush sux,” or he does not.
We have a word for such things where people weigh things out and make qualitative judgements on their own based on their beleifs that may be variance with other people’s conclusions.
It’s not called a “fact” It’s called “opinion.” “Bush sux” is by definition an opinion. Shodan is correct and you are mistaken.
As for the second. Clinton was impeached because it was considered that he lied under oath, not because he got a blowjob, but because it was considered by many that he lied about obviously and openly enough that it was possible to credibly impeach him. It was the perjury that he was impeached for, not the blowjob. That’s a matter of public record.
Neither of the statements that you consider as facts facts
Sadly, that is not always the case. I suspect that nobody else will pointedly call you to task for your error, and I suspect that you will not admit to one.
I suspect that this will be the case despite the blatant and obvious falsehood of your statement, and despite my laborious and painstaking efforts to point out the incredibly obvious.
But, I’ll tell you something. Everybody knows.
I have to say that your brave attack of Shodan would carry more weight if you were to admit the error you’ve made concerning his earlier statement of fact versus opinion. He is correct and you are mistaken.
Do you admit as much?
Sorry about the simulpost. I tried to take it back to fix a typo (not that that’s ever worked.) If a mod would delete the first instance and leave the second, I’d appreciate that.
They could also delete this post two and then there would be no evidence that I made a typo or simulposted.
It could be our little secret.
Logic (and more than 2 years of no one coming forward actually) said that reporters from Newsmax and The Washing Times pulled out of their asses the affirmation that there were neighbors that knew Valerie Plame was cover.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200507260005
Stupider and more bankrupt a stance from a rationale standpoint. Yet you did not feel bad on demonizing and insulting the people that pointed that to you.
As for Free Republic, I do remember other posters here using a book from one of the organizers of Free republic and a Free Republic web site that was managed by… the same book author as a cite during all those Swift boat discussions! I made mention of those circular cites and how silly they were, but Logic was in the way of partisanship.
[QUOTE=Scylla]
The two propositions which you claim are facts, but Shodan claims are opinion are:
I think it’s pretty symptomatic of the slant of the board that it’s possible for you to get away with saying that these are facts.
Bush’s approval rating is down to 26%. Rock bottom. Sucking is a tough thing to quantify, but that’s as close as it gets.
Read Starr’s $40 million porn novel for yourself, then.
[quote]
Everybody knows you are wrong here and neither of these things are facts.[/quote}We’re not on the Freeper board anymore, Toto! 
You’ve strengthened my point. Thanks. If I accept what you’ve written at face value (which I don’t, but we can pretend,) than your assertion that I loudly attacked others in the face of logical bankruptcy rather than running away and hiding is an exact example of my assertion here in contradicting Mhendo’s statement.
Again, thanks.
As is this. Attacking the source (as you’ve just done,) instead of engaging the material or running away is the much more common course for those withoug a rationale argument.
A third time, thanks.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
[QUOTE=Scylla]
Would that data be from an “opinion poll?”
Starr did not impeach Clinton. Congress did. The grounds were perjury, not a blowjob.
You are incorrect, in the most blatant and obvious fashion. It would be gracious of you to admit it.
I suspect you won’t, and I suspect I won’t be particularly backed up on this, no matter how obvious and demonstrable the proof of my stance is, and no matter how obviously bankrupt yours is.
No were not. Which is why I guess you post here, where you can usually get away with such fallacies.
Actually after pages of insults you did ran away after I did link and pointed out the fallacy in the NewsMax report. And the apology of Armitage to Plame.
Actually when I mentioned that circular cite me and others included previous debunking of the points, the problem was that “new” cites were appearing again with support of the same debunked points and I only pointed out that while the new source appeared to come from a different location and group, they were actually joined at the hip. It was an example of a sock puppet cite.
Best. Post. Evar.
This intrigues me. Although I find this counterintuitive, I would be willing to test this.
I do not strongly self-identify as a liberal, per se, but my social views are uncompromisingly progressive and my economics are capital L Liberal. I would love to see what life is like on the other side of the tracks.
Scylla, I’d gladly go over there and give civil discussion and debate a college try. You never know what might happen. Are you Scylla over there, too?
If you wish to use the word “actually” than perhaps you should link to the actual thread. Here, I’ll do it:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7762066&highlight=Plame#post7762066
You’ll see that “actually” I staid for all 9 pages, making up the bulk of the posts throughout (and fighting massive hordes of villainous and cretinous lefties single-handed,) and that actually it was RTF who gave up and ran away (twice,) stating:
“See you in some other thread, unfortunately.” and “Good night, and good luck.” Thereafter, ignoring my reply.
So, if you wish to be “actual” I doubt you could use that as an example of my running away.
“Actually,” could you provide a link to this interpretation of yours. “Actually,” it sounds somewhat fanciful.
This isn’t such a hate-filled rant if one sets it to a funky beat. Yo Chuck, what you saying…yeah boyeee.
Don’t believe the hype.
I think you would be a good and fair choice, and I would value your opinion (BTW, I actually checked before I posted and the front page really is full of Lilly Munster/Rosie versus Trump threads.
I haven’t posted there since about two years ago. I took a hiatus from here on my 9,999th post for 6-9 mos, and hung out there before coming back. I was not Scylla there, and would prefer the relative anonymity, though I’m sure a determined person could search 2003 and find me in my inimicable style under another nom de plume.
I know I don’t have to tell you, but other readers need to be careful if you visit lest we precipitate a board war like has occured in the past when open contact occured between boards with disparate philosophies.
Thanks. I am obviously not looking to start a board war and would have little interest sharing my exploits, such as they may be, here.
To be honest, I am just curious. I have no bones about admitting that I am a dyed-in-the-wool NY yankee. I work at the World Trade Center in finance for a major global financial services corporation: despite this, I am surrounded by progressives. The CEO of my company only donates to democratic candidates. I even joined my company’s PAC, and as it turns out, even the evil credit card lobby is staffed by progressives.
Even the Mormons I work with didn’t vote for Bush. As convinced as I may be that all of my beliefs are unswervingly correct, I honestly get bored of them from time to time.
Fair enough. I don’t exactly have that much time to waste, so I will leave unearthing your legacy to a basement-dweller somewhere.
Incidentally, I must be on the wrong Free Republic. It is just articles with occasional comments. None of them are about Lily or whoever.
That would work if I was RTF, I think you are indeed projecting on others. Anyhow, thank you for showing all a perfect example of ignoring that time had made a mockery of your position there, it just so happens it was a right wing point where the right wing media did not told the whole truth and equivocated.
No, that’s pretty much it. Hardly the rabid, foam-flecked free for all, that you might expect it. In fact, insults and such like we engage in here are pretty heavily frowned upon. In the “Smoky Back Room” which is there equivalent of the Pit (think 96% MPSIMS 4% BBQ pit, the most salacious and aggressive comment I find quickly is one guy saying that “terrorists should have no rights” and somebody else pointedly replying “I hope nobody accuses you of being a terrorist.”
General Chat and you’ll see a couple, and a couple more about Rosie, one about a Turtle in Thailand, one about the liberal press, and apparently Kelly Osborne would be willing to pose nude in Playboy.
You’re going to be underwhelmed.
On further examination, there is plenty of foam. It is just not directed at fellow posters, but at liberals in absentia. Are they nicer to actual progressives in person?
Well, other than 754 contentious replies about Mary in the Bible. I’m a godless traitor, so I wouldn’t touch that thread with Dick Cheney’s…