As I pointed out to Bricker in my most recent post:
In that case, it sounds like the complaint you should be making is “The liberals on this board have poor manners” rather than “The liberals on this board lack intellectual rigor.”
Poster A posts believable but factually false story about right wing nutjob doing what right wing nutjob does.
Poster B posts believable but factually false story about union doing what union does.
Poster B, incidentally, posts more than one mea culpa in the thread.
Not sure why poster B is the bad guy, apart from the fact that people already dislike him, because he can express his opinions better than they can.
and speaking of wiping assessed and making sandwiches. . .
BigTard, what you understand about my position could be written on one of your asa wipers of sandwich wraps. You keep insisting ghat I believe liberalism is morally wrong even though I keep trying to show you how that is a useless defunct concept in the first place. It is true that I simply don’t like liberalism and many liberals, but of course I never say that means it or they are morally wrong because I wouldn’t be adding anything by saying that. All "that is morally wrong " means is "I don’t like that ".
That is not as impressive a response as you seem to believe. The liberals here crow over and over about how they are unbiased seekers of truth in this godforsaken world, then those two threads come along and show them to be hacks. In Bricker s thread, they got on him ostensibly for not having due regard for the truth, but then they don’t say a word when one of their own does the exact same thing. That clearly shows their true feelings on the matter and completely kills any claims to being simple objective nonpartisan truth seekers.
It’s not the manner in which they expressed skepticism, its the way they treated the op after the story was found to be bullshit.
He’s the anti-Superman?
By Taliban standards it’s a sinkhole of devil worship. And the Inuits don’t give a shit.
We don’t live in a perfect world where each story is brought to us under the perfect view of a fresh lens each time. Bricker, consider the following:
In a class of children the teacher often hears stories from two: Whiny William and Tattling Tom. BOTH children run to the teacher to complain often and loudly. BOTH occasionally exaggerate, and BOTH are occasionally found in lies. However, when the objective facts are checked up on with other students, William is found to be on the correct side of things far more often than Tom. In fact, while William certainly whines, complains, exaggerates and occasionally fibs; his stories tend to be more accurate than Tom’s. Tom is caught out more often in outright untruths, and has a penchant for being stubbourn even in the face of factual evidence that demonstrates his stories to be false.
Is it then unreasonable for the teacher to consider the history of the children when considering a new problem brought to them? Is it unfair that she take William a bit more seriously then Tom, at least until the facts are in? This is why we often are more harsh in our treatment of conservatives on this board. It doesn’t matter that the left does things too. It isn’t okay when they do it either. It IS though, more rare that the left is caught in an outright lie, or extreme exaggeration than the right. The left, like Whiny William, has earned more trust, (particularly on issues of science and social liberties; things very important to the poster population of the SDMB) despite their whinging and spin.
Yes, let’s be clear. The “said nothing” should really be, “said nothing particularly vilifying or traducing.” The responses to BG definitely pointed out the factual inaccuracy, but the tone was dramatically different. It’s that difference that led me to ask for observers to compare and contrast the two.
Touché.
Except that when I asked posters to compare and contrast the two responses, there wasn’t much, if any, recognition of the lack of manners even when pointed out. The apparent inability to recognize that I was treated much more shabbily than BG was is a function of intellectual rigor, even if the treatment itself was simply bad manners.
Well, I called Bricker out on his bullshit in his thread but didn’t in this other thread, because I didn’t see the second thread, because most of my time is taken up right now with being an Obama-voting member of the moocher class, i.e. working at my job. I am sorry that I am unable to go around the board telling everyone who posts obvious bullshit that they have posted obvious bullshit. It is a personal failing that I am working on. It would be a lot easier if people would simply stop posting obvious bullshit. (I would also like a pony.)
As to science, I agree – but I’m not known for taking anti-science positions, am I?
As to social liberties, these are not matters of science – that is, they are preferred positions rather than inarguably correct ones. Undoubtedly the liberal position on social issues is important to the vast majority of posters here, but if that population regards those positions as so correct as to be analogous to scientifically proven, and thus justify heaping scorn and abuse on anyone for daring to hold contrary social positions, then I guess I have the answer, which appears to be: yeah, we’re going to treat you like shit because you’re a conservative.
Blah blah blah. Stop posting obvious bullshit and you’ll be treated better.
God. Why does everything have to be complicated?
My point is that others, more politically aligned with the majority here, also post obvious bullshit and are still treated fine. So I am suggesting that merely posting “obvious bullshit” is not the sin that’s causing the poor treatment.
Geez, for a guy with “brick” in his name, you’re a delicate sort, wot?
Nope you aren’t, and I hope you didn’t take it as an implication otherwise. I was simply trying to explain the dichotomy you noticed. As to social positions, some of them are scientific; or at least are the direct logical result of the science behind the issue. Not that you take any of these positions, though. For example, we know know that homosexuality has an inarguable biological component, and is expressed in lots of other species as well. We know that the notion of “race” has no biological basis now. We know that there is a strong correlation between education and lack of religiosity. etc, etc..
Oh, I don’t know. At this point, I am willing to say, with certainty, that there are no arguments against legalizing SSM that don’t boil down to “ewww, buttsecks”, or “God told me so.” It is, in effect, as close to being a scientific truth as one could reasonably hope to find (given certain other assumptions that are universally held, like marriage being a fundamental right, and so on).
Having said that, you don’t post anti-SSM screeds, having accepted (for yourself) the liberal position on the issue, so maybe this is of limited relevance.
Don’t forget “the word ‘marriage’ is SACRED! You can’t just go around changing what words mean!”
But did your mother have you tested? 
Absolutely, to the exact degree that an intentional partisan CAN be intellectually honest.
Which is always far less than an intentional non-partisan, an empiricist, etc. etc.., will be.
It’s like saying a scientist is intellectually honest except that he refuses to read scientific papers from people outside his own ethnicity, for example. Technically, you could call him “intellectually honest”. Realistically, anything he’s say would need to be taken with a grain of salt.
Funniest SDMB post of the week.