[QUOTE=Shodan]
Shodan’s Rule - It is easy to debate liberals. No matter what you say about them, one usually shows up to prove it’s true.
[/quote]
'fess up, you stole that from Ann Coulter, didn’t you? 
(Or have I just uncovered Shodan’s secret identity? :eek: )
The above was nestled in a quote box in Post #280, without an attribution. Not that it matters. I use it to make a point. That is, for a debate board that has many intelligent, articulate posters, I’m baffled that I so often see this coin made with reality on one side and “lies” on the other.
It seems that no matter how often I point out this sloppy thinking (purely dishonest for some) it keeps rearing its fallacious head. People—and you know who you are—just because someone might be wrong about some fact does NOT mean they are lying. I’d say the vast amount of the time they are simply mistaken. Lying requires that the person speaking knows what he is saying to be untrue and spews it anyway. Yet, accusations of lying get thrown around like condoms at a planned parenthood rave.
It’s rather obvious why this happens. The accuser wants to crush the opponent and doesn’t feel that pointing out that they may be incorrect is as pain-worthy as the accusation of “liar”. This has the added benefit for the accuser of both poinsoning the well and ending the debate. After all, what good is it debating with a liar?
Of course, when these people get called on their fallacious and false accusations they look like the dumb or dishonest big mouths they are. So there is a little justice in it. But, really, we’d be better off without this tactic, wouldn’t we?
[QUOTE=Quartz]
As someone who has his own opinions of all hues
[/QUOTE]
To repeat a point I’ve made many other times, just because someone identifies with some broad label (ie, “liberal” or “conservative”) in NO WAY implies that he or she devoted one iota less thought and effort into establishing his and her opinions about the issues of the day than someone who is a self-proclaimed “independent”. Nor does it mean that he or she has some kind of intellectual “allegiance” which prevents him or her from recognizing fact. I’m sick of people snottily touting their political independence as if it automatically makes them fair objective referees free to judge the partisan garbage that they are above.
MaxTheVool’s Commentary about Shodan’s Rule: Making a broad statement about a large group, and then finding a single individual in that group about whom that statement is true, does not prove the statement
A few other points I’d like to make:
(1) While the board as a whole is definitely (by US terms) left of center (and who has ever denied it?), it is not automatically, reflexively, so. There have definitely been threads when someone posted an OP which fit into one of the broad categories that some cynics might describe as board dogma, ie, “bush sucks” and “religious fundamentalism is bad”, and has been universally lambasted. There’s a HUGE difference between a group which Bush-bashes too easily, and one which Bush-bashes automatically no matter what. (The thread I’m particularly thinking about is one in which the subject line was something like “I pit my stupid neighbors” and the text of the OP was basically “my neighbor has a Bush sign on his lawn. What an idiot”.)
(2) I don’t think “Clinton was impeached over a blow job” is either a fact or an opinion. I’d say it’s an interpretation of the facts, and reasonable people can disagree over the validity of the intepretation.
(To provide another example: “the Civil War happened in the 1860’s” is a fact. “Dixie is a prettier song than The Star Spangled Banner” is an opinion. “The Civil War was caused by slavery” is an interpretation of the facts.)
(3) Speaking as a liberal, I sure wish there were more intelligent conservatives around. There’s have been several times I’ve tried to engage in interesting and hopefully civil debates with the likes of Bricker and Jodi, in which I felt that I was making decent and interesting points and would have liked to hear their responses, but there were so many other people “on my side” of the argument that actual meaningful back-and-forth was impossible. In particular, some of the people “on my side” (and this is presumably inevitable given sufficient numbers of people) were also debating reasonably, some were just being assholes, and some were trying to debate reasonably but making really dumb points. And one thing I’ve noticed about Bricker, despite the general respect I have for him, is that he prefers to demolish a dumb argument against him rather than responding to a more challenging one. (Which, to be fair, might well be true of me too, if I were in his place.)
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
I agree with What Exit?, it is not a fact to say “Bush sux”, but: “it is a fact that most people now think Bush Sucks”.
[/QUOTE]
Sadly, that’s not what Elvis said. He said that “Bush sux.” is a fact.
As for the way you put it… …ummm no. Not a fact. You should know better than to trust statistics issued by Elvis
Here is a cite charting Bush’s polling data historically according to multiple polls up to the present. Currently, Bush has an approval rating between 30-38% with a mean that looks to me at about 33 1/2%, significantly higher than Elvis’ wishful thinking quote of 27%, was it?
As you know, with these sorts of polls, the language usually is x% strongly approve X% somewhat approve, x% somewhat disaprove, x% strongly disaprove, and x% are unsure. There is no rating for “sux.” Personally, I rank “sux” below strongly disprove, ymmv. i.e.
“I strongly disaprove of your attitude.” versus “You’re attitude fucking sucks!”
You see the impact in the latter versus the former?
So, I feel that it is only a subset of “strongly disaprove” who would also say “Bush sucks.” But no matter, let us assume just for the sake of argument that all who strongly disaprove of Bush also beleive he sucks.
Here is a little something about how polling methodology works.
As of this morning’s Rasmussen report 43% “strongly disaprove.” I saw that this morning and when I googled it I saw it again. I google it and see it now when I look at it in google, but the page at Rasmussen seems to have changed.
Here’s the search link at google that I’m talking about:
So, even if we assume that everybody who strongly disaproves of Bush also believes that he sucks, we are left with less than 50%, and we cannot say, in the fullness of truth, honesty, and ignorance fighting that “it is a fact that most people think Bush sucks.”
Furthermore, it is important to note that saying “Bush sucks” or “sux” is a general indictment of him as a person. This is not what the polling figures measure. They are measuring his “job approval” not him personally. He and his job are seperate things and certainly some people may think he’s a swell guy, who also believe he is doing a shitty job, and vice-versa.
We are talking about FACTS here, and I am personally offended at the way people casually throw around sloppy suppositions and specious reasonings, cover it with a sweet candy coating and try to pawn 'em off as fucking facts.
Time was when people used to respect facts and care about them.
It was Bush that told us it was a “fact” that Iraq had WMDs.
You would think after that that maybe all of us could be a Little Bit More Careful about what we go around calling facts after THAT!!!
Okeydoke?
(Hey, I’m not yelling at you personally.)
What you don’t understand is that Bush has transcended “suck” as a verb, he has become the noun “suck”, he is the embodiment, the Incarnation of “suck”. His vacuity has collapsed into itself, he is a singularity of “suck”. Ordinary dimensions…Carrot Top, the Moody Blues, Donald Trump…no longer exist, they are nullified. Its kind of like the speed of light, one can attain .5 Bush, or maybe .99999 Bush…
[QUOTE=elucidator]
What you don’t understand is that Bush has transcended “suck” as a verb, he has become the noun “suck”, he is the embodiment, the Incarnation of “suck”. His vacuity has collapsed into itself, he is a singularity of “suck”. Ordinary dimensions…Carrot Top, the Moody Blues, Donald Trump…no longer exist, they are nullified. Its kind of like the speed of light, one can attain .5 Bush, or maybe .99999 Bush…
[/QUOTE]
Waving the bullshit flag on this one. I consider it to be indisputable that Fred Phelps has achieved at least 2.7 Bush on a personal suckitude scale. If he had Presidential Power, he’d easily reach 25.63 Bush…
But just as you say, there is a circumstantial effect, Fred Phelps could suck more than he does if he were President, just like Carrot Top would still not be funny if he were. But neither of them are, Bush is. Phelps sucks, to be sure, but Bush has his own event horizon.
Well, let’s review the record.
So far, Shrub has:
Invaded a sovereign nation without provocation, toppled the lawful government thereof, executed by proxy the former President thereof, and otherwise put the country in deep shit.
Incarcerated people without filing charges or providing meaningful access to counsel for years.
Wiretapping
Patriot Act
Politics of fear.
Otherwise wiped his ass with the Constitution at least in a literary sense.
Crap. I’m not winning, am I?
Gotta admit, though, so far I find your argument oddly compelling.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Gotta admit, though, so far I find your argument oddly compelling.
[/QUOTE]
Beats the hell outta compellingly odd.
Well, Phelps:
Has picketed funerals of dead soldiers
Seems to believe that God hates fags. I suppose this also means that God must like Allenadale, but I’m not sure that’s relevant.
Seems to worship a god that would kill innocent people to punish other people for not hating gay people. Or just to make a point. Or something.
If he had actual command authority over a substantial military would scare the living shit out of me.
I’m guessing maybe the contingent multiplier factor isn’t enough to carry the day by itself, but I think Phelps has a darker soul, if souls exist. That gives major suckitude points.
I’m really torn. Should I mention Gen. William G. Boykin? Or no?
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Shodan’s Rule - It is easy to debate liberals. No matter what you say about them, one usually shows up to prove it’s true.
[/QUOTE]
No matter what you say about conservatives, one usually shows up to ‘prove’ it’s true.
What of it? :dubious:
(eh, on preview, MaxTheVool explained your elementary logical error. Well maybe if two posters do it, you’ll actually get it.)
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Of course, when these people get called on their fallacious and false accusations they look like the dumb or dishonest big mouths they are.
[/QUOTE]
As always, folks, never allow your irony meter too close to the internet.
[QUOTE=Nancarrow]
No matter what you say about conservatives, one usually shows up to ‘prove’ it’s true.
What of it? :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
Which word didn’t you understand?
I said that “Bush sux” and “Clinton was impeached for a blowjob” were both opinions, but were treated as if they were facts by the Usual Suspects. ElvisL1ves immediately showed up to demonstrate that this was the case.
I note that whoever-it-was who posted that he hated all conservatives passes by your notice without remark, but you leaped at my post as if you had understood it.
Par for the course. Of course.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=MaxTheVoo]
I’m sick of people snottily touting their political independence as if it automatically makes them fair objective referees free to judge the partisan garbage that they are above.
[/QUOTE]
There’s nothing snotty about it. The motives of those who impeached Clinton might well have been jealousy/rage/indignation over the blow job. But the impeachment was for perjury because… well, BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT SAY. That’s not a tout; it’s a fact.
No they don’t. The articles are just tricked up to simulate ‘perjury’ so as to deceive the gullible, like you.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
There’s nothing snotty about it. The motives of those who impeached Clinton might well have been jealousy/rage/indignation over the blow job. But the impeachment was for perjury because… well, BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT SAY. That’s not a tout; it’s a fact.
[/QUOTE]
This is certainly true. But it is not unreasonable to suggest that this document was written in such a way as to legitimize legal proceedings that, when you get right down to it, proceeded from the president’s pecker.
As with respect to all things concerning private human motivations, thinking in terms of “facts” and “opinions” is not terribly helpful and may even be misleading.
[QUOTE=Maeglin]
This is certainly true. …
[/QUOTE]
Again, no. Here let me explain. ‘Perjury’ is one of those words that has no meaning outside of Courts/Tribunals and Lawyers uses, and a very specific meaning within those. Like ‘maintenance and champetry’ or ‘contempt of court’. Yet, the articles of impeachment are drafted in a sleazy way, trying to add the gravity of a regular ‘prejury’ court-case to the impeachment process which:
It is a cause of dismay, how effective that sleazy trick has been in convincing folks of something about Mr Clinton that just isn’t so.
[QUOTE=gum]
I’m not talking about well-known European Dopers, like the doddering, bizarre baldheaded boozer RedFury *waving * but about the real people who love their country, with all the good - and bad - things.
Hey,
From a non-conservative ISLAMOPHOBE [yes, I am]: Get going.
Make America as I imagine it [still] is:
Good.
[with excuses for my dreadful English]
[/QUOTE]
WTF? Seriously, I hope they have padded walls where you post from; you’re nuttier than a fruitcake and an outright bigot to boot.
What my bald pate has to do with your incoherent ramblings (“every country has its own Guantanamo” :rolleyes: ) is a matter that may be best understood between yourself and your shrink. As for “doddering,” dahlin’, I’m afraid you’ll never get the chance to see just how wrong you are for I wouldn’t get within fifty feet of you – no doubt the stench of your rotting cunt would drive me away.
Run along now and go drink your daily turd-sundae. I’ll stick with my occasional 12 year old scotch*, thank you very much.
Worthless scumbag.
*That’s a drink, not a young Scottish lad, lest you label me a pedophile as well.