Blacks overwhelmingly against gay marriage - Why such hypocrisy?

[Banquet_Bear]

It read to me like you were asserting (calm down as part of a larger argument, I know) “since criminals have restricted rights, although the reasons why don’t matter, SSM can be restricted too”.

…no. He was asserting if blacks are hypocritical for disagreeing with SSM, then they are also hypocritical for disagreeing with equal rights for prisoners. It was not an arguement for or against SSM.

[magellan01]

@not_alice

If you don’t like me, be sure not to run afoul of FinnAgain, particularly on matters relating to Israel.

No, I can’t let this go. Nope.

I don’t know how to break this to you, but I have every doubt that anyone would put you in the same category as FinnAgain. You two might both be passionate about an issue, but the differences you show separate you by parsecs. You have demonstrated an astounding inability to understand even what is being argued. Even after it’s been spoonfed to you by more than one poster. FinnAgain, who I disagree with often but respect a great deal, is always on point, incisive. He is also one of the better writers on these boards. And in case you find some comfort in that, I’ll point out that good writing doesn’t equate with using the greatest numbers of words. Quite the opposite, most of the time.

You really should calm yourself down.

But I must take my hat off to you for one thing. In a single thread you got me to come to the defense of both Miller and FinnAgain. Your powers are truly awesome. But probably not in the way you think.

[not_alice]

@Miller

I brought up criminals because I wanted an example of a group that most people agree should have fewer rights than the majority. I figured it was a good bet that cosmosdan agreed that criminals should have fewer rights than the majority, so I used that example. I was attempting to demonstrate that, despite the fact that he supports equal rights, there were also groups that he felt should have restricted rights. I did, as you with the face said, mention some reasons why that group should have restricted rights, because I also wanted to demonstrate that there could be good reasons for restricting those rights. In hindsight, that wasn’t necessary, because if cosmosdan agreed that convicts should have fewer rights, he would not need me to provide any sort of a rationale behind it. Also, I didn’t anticipate that you would freak out because I didn’t give a fully footnoted dissertation on the history of jurisprudence from the reign of John I onward.

I saw this after my previous post.

This paragraph was really much much better, until the snark a the end. I said I am bowing out so I will say sincerely I wish you approached it that way from the beginning, then we could have had a collegial discussion to fill in a few gaps, but now, no. I will let it go at that.

I can’t imagine how I didn’t see that coming.

hey you are the one who said I had a “rep”. Don’t blame me if you knew or should have known. But in the other thread, people simply ask and answer in the tone of the bulk of the paragraph above, and it goes fine. Just saying…being asked for clarification is not a death sentence, i tis a sign of respect because I am interested in what you are saying? Did I respond to anyone else earlier than you in the thread? I don’t think I did - it was you that said the most provocative and interesting thing and that was good until I found you considered questions irrelevant

I am in favor of SSM. Oddly enough, not every single thing I say has to be directly tied into that issue. There was no real debate in this thread over whether or not gays should be allowed to marry. No one was taking the position that blacks were correct to oppose SSM. The only area of debate was which particular terms of opprobrium were appropriate to use in this situation, and whether it was proper to single out blacks as a group for their opposition, when most other demographics are also generally opposed to SSM. If there had been anyone in here arguing against gay marriage, I would have engaged them on that topic. But no one was, so instead I addressed the topic of whether a black person opposing gay rights could be considered a hypocrite.

I respect that it was the hypocrisy part of the title that drew you, it was the other half that drew me in. I am interested in what others report they have heard from blacks or even about blacks as data points to synthesize a pattern more than attributing a judgment to their motives, but to each his own.

And once again, you’re entirely off the rails. Some day, I’d like to see the posts you’re reading, because they seem so wonderfully different from the posts I’m writing.

Or the posts you think you are writing. Either way, click on the first page and start reading all over again, hey are there forever for better or worse

No, I said you got it wrong. I haven’t materially disagreed with anything ywtf has posted in this thread.

You keep saying I am wrong, but oddly those are the shortest paragraphs you write. Hmmm. But OK, we will just agree to disagree, OK>

Because you’ve demonstrated no more facility at understanding her, than you have at understanding me, or Banquet Bear, or cosmosdan, or magellan01. And this is not the only thread I’ve seen where you’ve failed at comprehending rather elementary arguments. It seems to be a whole “thing” with you.

So you say that i don;'t understand her. But she understood me enought to find what you said you didn’t write, and to interpret it. If I actually thought (which I did but no longer do) that you are interested in a place where people learn and explore and may end up in surprising places around here) then I woudl encourage you to see if she could help you understand how to phrase yourself so I would understand.

But I no longer care. We will have to agree to disagree.

And you are right about one thing, your arguments are indeed rather elementary. Not nearly as well thought out or coherent as you think. But I will make a mental note of that should we meet again round these parts.

[not_alice]

@Banquet_Bear

…again, slowly.

Miller’s arguement: it is not hypocritical to be black and against SSM.

That is not his argument, that is the conclusion he sought to show via a series of logical steps.

Your interpertation of Miller’s arguement: there is a basis for anti-SSM in the same roots of our legal system that allow imprisonment of convicted criminals.

If you have conflated his analogy with an arguement for or against SSM: that is your fault, not his.

Have you been reading? Come on, how many times dis I maka distinction between his argument a a wholre, and one individual step I found faulty or at least worht a closer look?

And how many times did I say that was independent of the conclusion he was seeking to prove, that it didn’t matter the context, the mere assertion as a step was of interest in and of itself?

You really didn’t see any of that?

This has become all about you.

I know - I keep asking questions about an actual position as stted in glorious digital technicaolor, and i get insults all around when I deign think an answer would be helpful. fuck man. shame on me. me me me.

You don’t want to debate hypocrisy in a thread about hypocrisy.

If it is “about hypocrisy” there is nothing to debate. If it is about some disputed aspect of hypocrisy, then there is something to go on. But note the (possibly in retrospect poorly worded) title of the thread. It is clearly about more than just that.

You do not want to debate hypocrisy, but responded to an arguement directly arguing hypocrisy

I don’t really want to debate at all in this thread really, I simply want to learn about and be exposed to some of the issues related to black culture and objection to ssm. Which is also the topic, you know.

You have admitted you don’t want to debate the point that Miller has been arguing throughout the thread.

I don’t want to be involved in assigning judgmental terms to the underlying cultural factors, that is correct if that is what you were trying to say.

If others do want to do that, I have no objection whatsoever.

You have admitted you hadn’t even read the OP properly.

Cite? I don’t recall even discussing the OP at all - this thread was well along when I came in. And so what if I did?

You have admitted that you don’t want to debate the premise of this thread or get involved in what you call “hijacks”

NOt interested in hijacks, have been able to avoid having them on my thread on a very similar topic, funny how that works.

I am very interested in the premise of this thread (actually there are sort of two premises, which is why I say the title may be unfortunate in retrospect). I am more interested in one than the other, that is true, but it is true for others as well.

You admit the following:

If you call that an admission counselor. I write it yes, I would call it more of a statement of interest in the topic than an “admission” of anything. Otherwise any utterance is an admission

…if your agenda is to swing votes, then I suggest you open a new thread and witness in that.

Maybe you haven’t read where I mentioned several times I do in fact have a similar thread, and people are behaving way better there. Feel free to pay attention to the actual text on your screen and not the pretty little banner ads any time now.

Also note that I never said I was here to change votes, I said repeatedy I was hear to learn about attitudes. didn;t expect the attitude I got, but oh well What you so clearly misunderstood was that I said my role in the campaign is to swing votes. I don;t even know or care who is in California, where I am, in this thread or on the board in general.

Trust me on this - there are some issues locally where I bet dopers would race to help me out, but I protect my anonymity here because much as I would appreciate the help, I appreciate the ability to play and explore near the edges in threads like this anonymously more. Tough call, and if I was allowed a sock, I might split the difference, but I only get one and this is how I chose it.

You won’t swing many votes in this thread though, because with the exception of a couple of people most of the participants in this thread agree with SSM.

Duh. And see above.

You consider it your job to “reframe” Miller’s point of view?

No, it is my goal to reframe the point of view of my neighbors in my town and county who voted 75% plus in favor of prop 8. We are out there now, they are laying back, but they are organizing too. We were muffled mostly here in the Central Valley last time, that won’t happen again.

Miller strongly supports SSM and has argued strongly for it in many threads across the SDMB. For example:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11149156&postcount=40

Excelent post.

I have that discussion almost daily here with people. That is a real sticking point. But simply repeating the same script on both sides is not going to change anything. We are moving past that.

If he showed me that at the begining to show some bonafides instead of insulting me, I might very well have invited him over to the other thread to explore ways to counter that argument because it is a good one to start with - it is ostensibly secular at least, and that might be 40$ if the battle right there.

But now, while I wish him all the love and marriage in the world, I don’t know that wanting to get married is sufficient to priovide what I would ask from him.

Now, I am probably a better guy than you saw in this thread, and he is probably better than he showed me. We will have to work that out over time I guess, because we probably will show up in other threads fairly often based on that link.

Miller is absolutely in support of SSM: so attempting to reframe or change **Miller’s **point of view will not work.

I never for a second though there was anyone here whose outlook needs to be reframed. This is a place to propose and explore and brainstorm without rancor reframing strategies amongst friends for the most part, at least to me. Sometimes brainstorming goes haywire, but not always. Oh well, its over now.

The other thread that you started? Of course it will go the way you wanted it to, because you set the agenda because you were the OP. You weren’t the OP in this thread, yet you changed the agenda and you are the one accusing everyone else of hijacking the thread.

I didn’t change the agenda.

See the above about the bifurcated topic. My recollection as I lurked was that it started out weighted more towards the part I as interested in and then shifted towards the other part.

I didn’t, and still don’t, see Miller’s post that drew me in, as incompatible with both parts, even though it is clearly weighted one way.

He apparently sees that another way/ C’est la vie.

If you don’t want to debate then Great Debates in the wrong forum for you.

Mom? Is that you? When did you become a junior mod?

If you can’t think of another reason anyone would be here, then maybe GREAT Debates is not for you either I don’t recall any promise to debate when I clicked on links in this thread - but I have popup blackers. Is there some sort of implicit agreement?

You won’t change any minds

Not trying to do that.

bacause the majority of people in this thread agree with you.

Do you really think I don’t know that?

You have some of the smartest brains on this board

Well, in all honesty, except for the OP and the late arriving and silent Begbert, none of the participant’s names, especially since we got into this, rang a bell at all. Care to back up your claim? I am sure all of us only see a small portion of other posters, so you may be right, but you may be wrong too. Since it is said I have a rep, is there a place you recommend I go to see the “reps” of others on this thread? Or do I just have to take your word for it?

representing all sides of the debate telling you that you have not read **Miller’s **post correctly and that you do not understand his point.

Yet they were for the most part silent or at least not effective in mediating, Not to their discredit at all, they are not obligated. I assume they enjoyed the fireworks.

Aside: I jiust remembered how I might have got this rep that was mentioned. I will have to ask how that poor girl is doing, I sincerely hope the entire family is OK ad improving.

At some stage you need to think to yourself: are all these other people “just not getting it”, or is it you?
[/QUOTE]

I thought that every minute. Other than Miller himself, no one really gave me enough to go on, seeing as I am not yet as enamored of their smartness as you are.

That while there was a trainwreck here while on my thread at the same time it was smooth sailing around possible contentious issues did indicate but not definitively prove it was not me alone. That would leave the question open btw, note how I am not even indirectly pointing fingers as you are.

And best thanks for your profundity!

[not_alice]

@magellan01

No, I can’t let this go. Nope.

I don’t know how to break this to you, but I have every doubt that anyone would put you in the same category as FinnAgain.

No need to break it to me dude, that guy is something else altogther. That was my point, didn’t you get it?

You two might both be passionate about an issue, but the differences you show separate you by parsecs. >snip<. FinnAgain, who I disagree with often but respect a great deal, is always on point, incisive. He is also one of the better writers on these boards. And in case you find some comfort in that, I’ll point out that good writing doesn’t equate with using the greatest numbers of words. Quite the opposite, most of the time.

Teh part I didn’t snip, I totally agree with. Although Finn is pretty damn wordy too - I was just reading a recent (current?) pit thread and I feel safe in saying that.

Note when the people in the thread are actually interested in a discussion, it goes smoothly with me and takes a lot less words to keep on track. Note the thread I have open on nearly the same topic as this for example. People are happy there, even if I ask them hard questions. Why is that I wonder? Don;t know really, just the way of the internet sometimes.

The part I snipped, I think is sanctimonious BS form some person I never even came across before here, or if I did, didn’t register on my radar. So who cares, really.

You really should calm yourself down.

I know, getting so excited ans wasting time trying to get an argument more profound than a Bazooka Joe comic. Fuck, it was a waste indeed. I will have a talk with myself tonight as I fall asleep, and make a mental note of the capability of demonstrated discourse level by the people in this thread, and adjust my expectations accordingly should we meet again. It is all I can do really.

But I must take my hat off to you for one thing. In a single thread you got me to come to the defense of both Miller and FinnAgain. Your powers are truly awesome. But probably not in the way you think.

I don’t have “powers” at all, so I don’t know what you mean about that.

But is there some reason why Miller and Finnagain together are unsual somehow? Are they simpaticao, opposite, friends or enemies of yours, something else? Why is it worth noting to the extent that I earn a hat tip? I am honored and humbled by the honor, but I don’t understand the reason for it is all

[not_alice]

@Banquet_Bear

…no. He was asserting if blacks are hypocritical for disagreeing with SSM, then they are also hypocritical for disagreeing with equal rights for prisoners. It was not an arguement for or against SSM.

That indeed would not be an argument re: SSM.

But it is an argument that stands or falls on the answers to: what are the reasons proffered, and what are the reasons prisoner incarceration si NOT controversial yet SSM is?

And it was the latter half of that that I was trying to get at.

Personally I don’t think I could make that argument hold up past a shallow level because the differences in reasons are very profound indeed and so they matter to the support level they provide the overall argument.

Miller, I hoped, would have a profound argument that addressed my concerns.

In agreeing to disagree, I was left with the understanding that his support is closer to what I would consider shallow support had I been asked to argue it and grade my effort. But, to his credit, it is not nothing either, and I am as harsh a critic on myself as I am on others on these matters. I will say he did netter at explaining it in the end would I have had I decided to do it without a visit to google or wikipedia.

So I get his point, but I don’t think it has a strong foundation, and when you are laying a charge as hash as hypocrisy on someone, you can expect they won’t settle for thin support like that without tearing it down. So if he ever has to defend it for real. best of luck to him - I am sure the guy he is calling hypocritical will be far more polite than I was

[Miller]

@not_alice

Are you even out of High School yet?

College graduate, with a degree in English literature, actually.

I didn;t pull it out my ass - YWTF found it by herself, why can’t you?

What do you think that she found? That I made a passing reference to why people think convicts should have fewer rights? What’s that supposed to prove?

But you are too big for learning - that would admit you would have to read something that was not on an internet thread and figure out what it was trying to say independent of being able to have a back and forth debate. And that is not your style, I can see that, it is sooo irrelevant :)…

Are… are you actually accusing me of ducking back and forth debate? After all of this?

Yeah I amde up my description so much of what you said. Let me quote YWTF: “He said it”. Take it up with her if you want to stop arguing with me. You brought up 3rd parties, if you want to persuade her you didn’t say it, you are on your own. Until then, you said it dude, I made up nothing.

What do you think I said? You’re really not making any sense here. I’ve never made an argument about the source of rights. I made one passing mention of why it might be a good idea to restrict the rights of convicts, that was not really related to my argument. Is that literally what you’ve been hung up on for so long? That you can’t recognize a tangent?

I am very interested in the underlying topic of the cultural reasons blacks are (statistically at elast) voting against SSM. That the thread title ascribes a judgmental word like hypocrisy to it is unfortunate IMHO, but it doesn’t change my interest in the uncerlying topic of black culture and SSM.

Really? That’s what you’re interested in? That’s funny, because you haven’t made a single post on that subject in this thread.

OK, read carefully AGAIN please:

• I am not ascribing an argument to you you didn’t make, I have hardly mentioned the entirety of the one you did make.

Yes, you are. You keep asking me to defend my position on the historical source of rights. I’ve not said anything about the historical source of rights. It’s nothing at all to do with my position. But you keep coming back to it, despite the fact that I’ve specifically disavowed it.

• I am asking you about one step of the argument you made, jsut one step. Like in high school, the teacher in math class said “show your work please” to see if you understood what you were claiming, or jsut making a lucky guess at a number? Think of it like that kinda - looking for a little more detail on one aspect of the argument, an aspect you most certainly did write totally unprompted by me

And I’ve given you that reasoning! I wanted to compare the idea of restricting the rights of a group that’s controversial, to restricting the rights of a group that’s non-controversial, to show that such a restriction is not, by its nature, hypocritical. Big surprise: all of the options for a non-controversial group are going to be in some measure unsavory or of limited capacity. Otherwise, limiting their rights wouldn’t be non-controversial.

if you call “asking what was in your head whenyou chose to make what appear to me to bean unnecessary claim in support of you argument” “arguing”, well yes then. But it only goes on because you have not been able to admit I have asked questions you deem worth answering - they are all “irrelevant” or stupid or whatever toyou, so you rant each time instead of simply saying “hey, let me help you understand”.

I’ve responded to your questions over and over. You just won’t accept the answers I’ve given.

I want to understand and clarify what you said. Where it leads, I guess I don’t at know at this point. Are you really taking the stance that A - the Magna Carta is irrelevant to the reason minorities have rights at all

No, I am not taking any stance whatsoever on the Magna Carta.

B- that “criminals” are a minoritie in some legal sense when it comes to their rights?

Of course not. Get real.

C- that the source of the rights of minorities can and does ultimately come from different places, but what is important is not that we understand those places, but that tehy come at all?

I haven’t said it’s not important to understand the source of the rights, I’ve said it’s not important to the argument I’m making.

Is that a fair restatement of your position?

No, you’ve pretty much gotten it wrong on all counts.

Again.

Here is a simple question for you - what is your favorite non-fiction book and why?

Why non-fiction, in particular?

If you don’t like me, be sure not to run afoul of FinnAgain, particularly on matters relating to Israel.

Oh, man, don’t even try to compare yourself to FinnAgain. Finn’s one of the sharpest posters we’ve got. He’s smart, incisive, witty as hell, and knows how to put together, and tear apart, an argument better than almost anyone else on the 'Dope. You, on the other hand, are his polar opposite.

Just a tip in friendship since we haven’t met here before.

Whoops, wrong again.

Anyone else reading that, I recommend particular attention be paid to my post number 101, and how not_alice responds to it. It gets better as the thread goes on. And by “better” I mean “more hilariously stupid.”

This paragraph was really much much better, until the snark a the end. I said I am bowing out so I will say sincerely I wish you approached it that way from the beginning, then we could have had a collegial discussion to fill in a few gaps, but now, no. I will let it go at that.

So, let me ask you a question. What was it about that paragraph that finally got through to you, as opposed to the seventy five other times I’ve said exactly the same thing in this thread?

I don’t think I did - it was you that said the most provocative and interesting thing and that was good until I found you considered questions irrelevant

Stop trying to paint this as me being immune to questions. I don’t mind questions at all. It’s fools that I don’t suffer.

[Miller]

@not_alice

So I get his point, but I don’t think it has a strong foundation, and when you are laying a charge as hash as hypocrisy on someone, you can expect they won’t settle for thin support like that without tearing it down. So if he ever has to defend it for real. best of luck to him - I am sure the guy he is calling hypocritical will be far more polite than I was

Okay, this time, it’s gotta be me. I’ve read this five times now, and I keep coming up with the same thing, but it cannot - simply cannot - be correct, so it’s got to be something wrong with me

Did you just say that my original argument, the one that led to all this bullshit, was in favor of calling blacks hypocrites for opposing SSM?

'Cause, sure as shit, that’s what it looks like you’re saying, but I can’t believe that even you could so totally, completely, and entirely miss the point. I mean, I’ve made a lot of hay about you not understanding my argument, but to actually invert the entire conclusion like that… I mean, goddamn, man. How do you even do that?

[not_alice]

[quote=“Miller, post:288, topic:501658”]

Okay, this time, it’s gotta be me. I’ve read this five times now, and I keep coming up with the same thing, but it cannot - simply cannot - be correct, so it’s got to be something wrong with me[/qupte]

Ah we are starting to think more alike at last

Did you just say that my original argument, the one that led to all this bullshit, was in favor of calling blacks hypocrites for opposing SSM?

Does it say that? How about it you master reading the actual lines for a while before you you jump into reading between them?

'Cause, sure as shit, that’s what it looks like you’re saying, but I can’t believe that even you could so totally, completely, and entirely miss the point.

I

I know, Stop sharing what trouble you are having following along. It is slowing down. Let it go. I wasn’t responding to you at all - yo uquoted a response that was to another poster. Imagine that - you let another poster in and still you are bitching.

[quote[ mean, I’ve made a lot of hay about you not understanding my argument, but to actually invert the entire conclusion like that… I mean, goddamn, man. How do you even do that?[/QUOTE]

Hey, “If” is one of he shortest words in the English language, but its use is soooo complex. Maybe I can find you a link to a 6th grade grammar exercise book and you can practice it for a while. What say you?

Just chill out ok? And it is not like you are avtaully a saint above slinging ad hominem attacks at your conversation partner when you think they misunderstand you, right? So what is to say you won’t spin off the rails again should the world ever deign to present you with someone that doesn’t instantly sync up with you?

Nope, you run the risk either way. Be careful out there!

[Miller]

Jesus, man, preview is your friend.

@not_alice

Does it say that? How about it you master reading the actual lines for a while before you you jump into reading between them?

That’s what I’m asking. Does it say that?

Also, in re: you admonishing me for reading between the lines:

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

<gasp!>

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

I know, Stop sharing what trouble you are having following along. It is slowing down. Let it go. I wasn’t responding to you at all - yo uquoted a response that was to another poster. Imagine that - you let another poster in and still you are bitching.

Right, you weren’t talking to me, you were just talking about me. Can’t imagine why I thought I should butt in on that conversation.

Hey, “If” is one of he shortest words in the English language, but its use is soooo complex. Maybe I can find you a link to a 6th grade grammar exercise book and you can practice it for a while. What say you?

Just chill out ok? And it is not like you are avtaully a saint above slinging ad hominem attacks at your conversation partner when you think they misunderstand you, right? So what is to say you won’t spin off the rails again should the world ever deign to present you with someone that doesn’t instantly sync up with you?

Nope, you run the risk either way. Be careful out there! !

Yeah, I got two words for you:

John Ford.

[cosmosdan]

@not_alice

I have not inserted myself into any discussion about hypocrisy, as I simply don’t care. You won’t find any post where I took a position other that that.

Irrelevant. That was the specific subject of the post you responded to that Miller and I had been having for several posts. {as you noted}
Since you responded to a post on that subject that is indeed the conversation you inserted yourself in, whether you took a position, care, admit it or not.

If two people are talking about apples and you butt in to say “oranges are nice and I don’t care about or have a position on apples” then you’ve inserted yourself in a conversation about apples even if you don’t want to talk about them, because you inserted your 2 cents worth into their conversation about apples.

No, I didn’t. I took the other half of what was reduced to a bullet point obove - that we have the right to curtail some liberties, as evinced by our incarcerating criminals and restricting SSM, as though the reasons for them are the same. The reasons for the first are well known, I alluded to them, and I asked for the reasons for the second. Because the conclusion s wrong.

This is proof positive that you did take it out of context because Miller never presented them as if the reasons were the same. They were only examples relating to the discussion about hypocrisy and within that context. If you took them as anything else {and you obviously did} then you did take them out of context.
<snip>

But I could be wrong, I asked before, and I ask again, on what basis is the claim that restricting the right to SSM by society is parallel or even related somehow to the reason no one objects to imprisoning convicted criminals?

It only related in the context of the hypocrisy argument and not directly as you interpreted it.

I didn’t make the argument, Miller did. So don’t attack me for asking for clarification. I find it outrageous that he can draw such a conclusion, and I simply ask him what logic or research went on before he made it?

Miller didn’t make the argument you’re claiming he did.

I have no hidden agenda here, I am not going to then say his claim of hypocrisy is or isn’t true. I really don’t care about that. But I can’t let this outrageous claim in support of his argument go by unchallenged. It is a serious charge and unique claim he makes, and it deserves an explanation.

See above. You are incorrect.

It is a different argument, one made in support of another argument. If he picked it up from somewhere else, where there is a more detailed explanation, then he could simply provide a link. Takes a lot less time then everyone arguing that it wasn’t something he said at all, when it clearly was.

It might save time but we’d be lying if we claimed he made an argument we understand he didn’t make.

Yes, apparently it is not efficient, because people are upset I asked for an explanation or clarification of part of the argument that I didn’t understand or follow. That they attack me rather than simply explain is hindering the measure of efficiency, I agree, but I can’t control it, nor should I be expected to even have anticipated it here.

You’re incorrect again. You’ve been offered an explanation and clarification but you’re rejecting it because you don’t like it.

But yes, it is always correct in this forum to ask for an explanation or clarification if there is a part of an argument you don’t follow. Come on, you know better than that. This is GD fer cryin’ out loud. It is entirely interactive

Yes but when you’re given perfectly reasonable and accurate clarification and you refuse to accept it, it’s not a matter of people attacking you {as much as that seems to appeal to you} At some point a good mocking is earned.

[Tamerlane]

This is just horrifically painful to read.

Miller, much as I admire your tenacity in the face of…whatever the hell this nonsense is, I think it might be time to walk away from this one.

[not_alice]

@Miller

Yeah, I got two words for you:

John Ford.

I am sure that is on topic in some way you will expect me to intuit, but if you promise those are the only two words you have for me, and make it stick, I will be very happy indeed. I am not even going to ask you to explain how it is on topic,

But I am not hopeful at all that those are the last two words from you.

[not_alice]

@cosmosdan

I
snip it all

All nonsense defending the indefensible - the entire argument is shallow, we know that now, we didn’t know it then. It is what it is - I asked if there was more. A zillion other debaters on the Dope would have had more, apparently none of them are here today. Oh well. Maybe next time.

[not_alice]

@Miller

College graduate, with a degree in English literature, actually.

Hey that’s good. You have the basic idea down how to create an argument, you really do. Where you get stuck is that you get hostile if someone asks you something that is not directly in the argument, unable to conceive that they may see something deeper in your argument that you didn’t see.

That is OK, it is natural. Even in English lit, if we picked a book to read and write about, I am sure you would do better than me, maybe you could do as well as the bst reviewers in Amazon. But still, three may be reviewers, say for som Lit Review or even some Journal that see things you wouldn’t have seen, tied the nuances to some school of thought or pattern of writing that you missed.

It means we can all improve if only we recognize that someone might happen along that sees something we dn’t see, and if we ask questions when that happens instead of tossign oiut hostility, everyone can learn.

This is true in any field of endeavor. Less hostility when faced with questions is good, it is not always criticism, but more often critique or even sincere interest in more insight if you have it, right?

I am sure this was all covered amply in class wasn’t it?

Are… are you actually accusing me of ducking back and forth debate? After all of this?

No geez dude, I was saying that reading and understanding something that is NOT a debate you are participating in is what I was skeptical you can do.

What do you think I said? You’re really not making any sense here. I’ve never made an argument about the source of rights.

True. I inferred that a completely fleshed out version of what you wrote would touch on that area. I asked you if that was what yo had in mind. Turns out you had already gave all the insight you had. My bad. Your argument is what it is. I accept that. Happens sometimes, even on the Dope.

I made one passing mention of why it might be a good idea to restrict the rights of convicts, that was not really related to my argument. Is that literally what you’ve been hung up on for so long? That you can’t recognize a tangent?

It took you that long to admit it was not actually part of or necessary to your argument despite my saying since near the beginning when you pushed back so hard that your argument would actually stand up, possibly stronger, without the part you fought so hard for?

Also do you not yet understand that tangent or not, I told you repeatedly I was interested in that bit in isolation anyway? Sheesh. It is late, I am tired, I am really trying to be nice here, having already rewritten the parts above to tone them down, but you are making it hard to do!

Really? That’s what you’re interested in? That’s funny, because you haven’t made a single post on that subject in this thread.

Had yoy ever been interested in or able to follow, I would have easily tied my original question to the thread very closely. But that appears to be so advanced a leap to you it evinces hostility rather then intellectual curiosity, so it will remain undiscussed until it comes around again in some other interesting context. Oh well.

Yes, you are. You keep asking me to defend my position on the historical source of rights. I’ve not said anything about the historical source of rights. It’s nothing at all to do with my position. But you keep coming back to it, despite the fact that I’ve specifically disavowed it.

I get that you don’t get it. It is too subtle. My bad. I apologize from the bottom of my heart for thinking that your argument came with any more insight then what you literally wrote. It was sooo wrong of me to think that.

And I’ve given you that reasoning! I wanted to compare the idea of restricting the rights of a group that’s controversial, to restricting the rights of a group that’s non-controversial, to show that such a restriction is not, by its nature, hypocritical. Big surprise: all of the options for a non-controversial group are going to be in some measure unsavory or of limited capacity. Otherwise, limiting their rights wouldn’t be non-controversial.

You kow, that looks lie a tasty nugget worth discussing at last. I am tired enough almost to bite. If I did, I would ask you questions regarding what you mean by "non-controversial (to whom? how to define?), what yo mean by “unsavory” and “in some measure” and “limited capacity”. I’d ask for examples of “limiting their rights” that are not controversial in some way. All that before we started exploring more deeply.

Could be a good interesting discussion,including the nature of rights, and what all these things might mean to different groups.

But I am very wary, as I am sure you appreciate. That is why I am signaling in advance where it would go. Not to test you, but simply to brainstrorm and explore together and hopefully draw others back into the discussion.

Are you up for it? Do you have any insights to offer in those areas? maybe even some literary referenences you can provide from stuff you read, that could be interesting from the cultural aspect I want to see here (not necessarily black) and those could be researched further by me if they look promising.

Can you do it? I won’t beat you up if you say no, but if you can do your best work here, and drop the hostility if you get frustrated, I’d go back to it with the same intent.

I’ve responded to your questions over and over. You just won’t accept the answers I’ve given.

Sorry I gave that impression. It did take a while to accept that that was as good as it would get on that line of discussion. It stopped short of my personal SDMB standards and expectations, but that is my cross to bear, not yours.

No, I am not taking any stance whatsoever on the Magna Carta.

That is why I think you are not exploring your own thoughts as far as they can go, which I always find disappointing when I see it in anyone. I think you are being deliberately stubborn for some reason, but I could be and probably am wrong about that.

Of course not. Get real.

But weren’t you talking about the rights of minorities and criminals together? Or did you mean to juxtapose non-minorities (criminals) with minorities, which would confuse me even more, but like I said, it is what it is. I knwo as a country we are working hard in a sense to change this, but still, criminals are still in the minority, and as you said, they have different rights (whatever the reason). Why aren’t they a minority for the purpose of your argument?

I haven’t said it’s not important to understand the source of the rights, I’ve said it’s not important to the argument I’m making.

So how do we know you aren;'t making shit up about rights to suit your needs if you can’t say where they ultimately come from?

Oh why do I bothe to expect depth in your understanding? I am such a sucker

Why non-fiction, in particular?

Because that is what I was wondering about. It is not a trick question. I wondered what your favorite non fiction book is is all.

Oh, man, don’t even try to compare yourself to FinnAgain. Finn’s one of the sharpest posters we’ve got

.

We agree.

He’s smart, incisive, witty as hell, and knows how to put together, and tear apart, an argument better than almost anyone else on the 'Dope. You, on the other hand, are his polar opposite.

If you know him, why don’t you take your original argument, the one that drew my attention, and run it by him - you think he would find it something of the quality he would wish he had written, or would he find flaws and or places to discuss that were beyond the actual words you wrote?

Maybe not what I saw, but anything? Anything at all?

And just so we are clear, I was never interested in breaking your argument down, only to participate in flushing it out with you. I think you put your finger on something interesting. That is not an insult, and it is not criticism.

Or do your words come completely formed as though from god himself, with no other interpretation possible besides that of the author?

Whoops, wrong again.

YOu are right, that thread must have made mroe of an impression on you than me. But your behavior is pretty much the same there as here, you make sentences that are for themost part gramattically correct that have some claim that hint at a depth of understanding, and when asked for a cite, on a complex legal issue regarding international legal issues, you cited an inline dictionary as your source of knowledge and got called on it.

Really, all that time in college, did you ever learn how to do research to support your thoughts?

I only read halfway through that, yeah I can see you have learned nothing about either analyzing an argument or synthesizing one or exploring a topic in depth since then. I forgot about you. I won’t make that mistake again. My 11 year old niece has more intellectual curiousity than you, and equal debating skills.

Anyone else reading that, I recommend particular attention be paid to my post number 101, and how not_alice responds to it. It gets better as the thread goes on. And by “better” I mean “more hilariously stupid.”

Yeah, your behavior there and here both are going straight into the Debating Hall of Fame. I hope you will at least shake my hand for the cameras at the induction ceremony.

So, let me ask you a question. What was it about that paragraph that finally got through to you, as opposed to the seventy five other times I’ve said exactly the same thing in this thread?

It was the first time that you presented the argument that it was provactive. I thought (incorrectly as it turns out) that in fact it was the incomplete framework of an argument that would contain certain deeper insights.

The rest of the “75 time” you repeated it, each one sucke a bit of the provactiveness out of it until at great length I found out it was not a framework, there was no greater insigth to be bad from the author than was available on tight face of it, and there was no one else where who could sense that there could be if only so it would have to go undiscussed after all…

Now that you have pointed out this has happened before when you put meaningless shit out there with absolutely zero follow-on insight, and that you barely stay in the neighborhood of the target while moving around like a fly on shit in every post instead of exploring a single topic or claim in detail, I won;t let it happen again. I realize now that I have been suckered - you are only a slightly better partner in learning and exploring than Liza.

Stop trying to paint this as me being immune to questions. I don’t mind questions at all. It’s fools that I don’t suffer.

I am guessing you are entirely averse to mirrors then?

[cosmosdan]

@not_alice

All nonsense defending the indefensible - the entire argument is shallow, we know that now, we didn’t know it then. It is what it is

You’re wrong again. We did know it then. We knew we were having a discussion about a fairly inane subject, namely, does the word hypocrisy apply in this particular case. That’s what people get to do on a public discussion board. Given the thread title it wasn’t too far off the mark.
For someone who expressed a desire to understand people’s arguments you have stubbornly and consistently missed the point here. But hey, at least you got to feel attacked , you seem to like that.

• I asked if there was more. A zillion other debaters on the Dope would have had more, apparently none of them are here today. Oh well. Maybe next time.

Sadly we tried to stay on subject of the discussion we were in. Dam us! Tell you what. Stop by a thread where you actually grasp what people are saying to you and you might find it more interesting. I know I would. I’d be interested in seeing if you can mount a rational argument when you’re actually on topic, rather than playing whatever game you have going here.

[not_alice]

@cosmosdan

Sadly we tried to stay on subject of the discussion we were in. Dam us! Tell you what. Stop by a thread where you actually grasp what people are saying to you and you might find it more interesting. I know I would. I’d be interested in seeing if you can mount a rational argument when you’re actually on topic, rather than playing whatever game you have going here.

Maybe you missed the 5 or so times I mentinoed tht I have a thread on a very similar topic that is going along just fine.

Because people there are willing to discuss and explore concepts that each other introduce instead of defending to the death an incomplete but potentially interesting position as though it was handed down complete by God.

Seriously, even the most fundie people are more open minded about the bible than Miller is - they look internally to learn and explore, and to share with each other their efforts and assistance.

But no, whenever Miller has an idea, no one is allowed to explore it in depth because there can’t possibly be any other nuance involved that might interest anyone.

I don’t have time to do all this again today.

But cosmosdan, hold your sanctimony ok? I am sure yesterday was ugly, but remember it all arose because you are shouting me down for trying to explore the implications of a post that miller made. that is all I did - that he didn’t understand it and couldn’t understand it and therefore would not allow the discussion to move forward, I couldn’t have predicted. Well, I could have had he made a lasting impression on me the last time he behaved similarly. Now that he has pointed out this is his modus operandi to me, I will remember for next time and I will expect the 10th grade level discourse from him he has demonstrated to me twice now, and treat him accordingly.

[Miller]

John Ford, dude. John Ford. That says everything anyone needs to know about you.

[not_alice]

@Miller

John Ford, dude. John Ford. That says everything anyone needs to know about you.

yeah, even when I was born, my mother just started cooing that and claiming that she was a prophet. she spent her later years in a proverbial rubber room insisting to the end it was all true. for 30 years all she ever said from the instant I was born was “John Ford”. Now that you have come around to validate her I don’t know if my family should demand a refund from her caretakers or send them around to gather you up in their butterfly net to suffer the same fate as she did, since you seem to have the same affliction.

:rolleyes:

[magellan01]

@not_alice

Maybe you missed the 5 or so times I mentinoed tht I have a thread on a very similar topic that is going along just fine.

Because people there are willing to discuss and explore concepts that each other introduce instead of defending to the death an incomplete but potentially interesting position as though it was handed down complete by God.

Seriously, even the most fundie people are more open minded about the bible than Miller is - they look internally to learn and explore, and to share with each other their efforts and assistance.

But no, whenever Miller has an idea, no one is allowed to explore it in depth because there can’t possibly be any other nuance involved that might interest anyone.

I don’t have time to do all this again today.

But cosmosdan, hold your sanctimony ok? I am sure yesterday was ugly, but remember it all arose because you are shouting me down for trying to explore the implications of a post that miller made. that is all I did - that he didn’t understand it and couldn’t understand it and therefore would not allow the discussion to move forward, I couldn’t have predicted. Well, I could have had he made a lasting impression on me the last time he behaved similarly. Now that he has pointed out this is his modus operandi to me, I will remember for next time and I will expect the 10th grade level discourse from him he has demonstrated to me twice now, and treat him accordingly.

A new day, a new shovel! Congratulations!!!