The Swift Boat Liars have been decisively and repeatedly debunked. Please don’t make us do it again. 
…and this is something that separates you from Bricker and Mr. Moto in my mind: I have never, not once, seen you take the side of a liberal over that of a conservative.
Too bad. It doesn’t, and it’s foolish. Do you really think that liberals living in the South don’t understand conservaitves? Do you really think that liberals living under a Republican president don’t understand conservatives? Do you really think that a liberal living in a world where Fox News dominate the news-game and Rush Limbaugh&friends dominate newsradio don’t understand conservatives?
You’re painting not only with a brush that’s broad, but also with a brush that’s full of the wrong color. American liberals are inundated wtih the conservative viewpoint. We drown in it. It is bizarre that you somehow think otherwise.
Perhaps it comes from living in Canada, where the conservative viewpoint isn’t quite as pervasive.
Daniel
Then you’d better go back and read some more threads. Because I disagreed with December on plenty of occasions. I have no trouble choosing the side of an argument that I believe is correct, regardless of where it falls on some partisan scale. I’m not even really a conservative. I’m not religious, I support abortion rights, oppose the death penalty for all but the severest of cases (serial murder and terrorism), favor stem cell research, thought Clinton was a decent president in many ways, etc.
Perhaps. That’s not been my observation, but I admitm y observation may be faulty, just as your memory of your behavior on this issue may be faulty.
Daniel
Okay having settled that…
Not that I rule it out, it’s just that I’ve seen that phrase (“Why do you hate America so much?”) been used fairly often by the left on this board and can’t remember a single instance where a conservative poster has used it. Perhaps you have a cite? To me it looks more like a standard line some posters use to smear conservative viewpoints with instead of engaging in an honest debate.
They don’t say it in so many words but they say it. There are also the accusations of being “pro-terror,” “pro-Saddam,” etc.
Regarding this:
…not that I find it even remotely edifying to engage you in debate, but if the specific poster you refer to is me, then feel free to reproduce the post in which I declared that Saddam was never found to be in material breach of the inspections, and I will happily to do something that you seem incapable of, to wit: concede that I was wrong.
elucidator:
True enough. Inexplicable as I find his position to be, however, at least he has not denied the existence of certain facts. Same with his performance in the Swift Boat debate: his position throughout was that Kerry served with honor, and that the Swifties accusations, even if true, didn’t amount to a hill of beans. I’m not sure I agree with him regarding the veracity of their accusations, but I can at least live with his conclusion.
Sam:
And yet there is such a thing as idiocy, partisan behaviour, and bull-headedness.
Consider our pre-war debate regarding the aluminium tubes. You prefer perhaps to avoid that now. I wonder how many hours I wasted pouring through reports on those stupid tubes, just because in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary you refused to concede that the administration’s claims regarding them were incorrect. A shame, really, that that thread got lost. 7 or so pages in, you nearly conceded, and then changed your mind again, and we continued on for another 2 pages. And for what?
Now we know with complete certainty that the tubes were never intended for use in a nuclear enrichment program, because we know, despite David Kay’s alleged smile, that there never was a goddamn nuclear enrichment program to begin with.
This fact doesn’t seem to faze you, even slightly.
On the contrary, after the debate between you and me (plus many others), I had a thoroughly cordial debate with Scylla on the same topic again. (Well, okay, maybe not thoroughly cordial, but at least, fairly cordial.) I’m entirely willing to openly debate these questions with an opponent who possesses at least a modicum of rationality. But you, on the other hand, Mr. Stone, were engaged in a transparent attempt to smear a man who risked his life in the service of his country, while supporting for president a man who appears to have done everything in his power to avoid such service. That’s what I take offence to.
Rune:
To clarify, I’m asking specifically for examples of a ”dishonest debating style” that typifies the arguments from the left, in which, if the debater ”loses on a point, they simply shift to another, never conceding the first point.” (because I can give a whole slew from the right).
I’ve noted that I have personally shifted rightwards since I began participating on these boards, so I hardly qualify as a member of the ”Progressive is good. Liberal is good. Resistance is futile,” goon squad, if such a thing even exists.
It was just a rhetorical example. My point is that when confronted with unpleasant facts, prominent members of the right – both in the media and on these boards – tend to react by accusing the those who present such facts of partisanship. This is done because they can’t repudiate the facts directly, so they seek to insinuate that those facts are really just wrong-headed opinions presented by wild-eyed leftists.
This technique is extremely effective, especially when employed against the weak-minded – as the results of our recent presidential election make abundantly clear.
Absolutely concur.
Mr. Svinlesha:
How do you know? Have you asked me about them lately? But here’s something else that bugs me: Your problem is that you are not willing to concede that the other side even has a point. The aluminum tubes and the Swift Boat thing are perfect examples. At no point did I say that the aluminum tubes HAD to be for a nuclear program. Nor did I ever say that the Swift Vets HAD to be right about everything. I argued that the administration’s case that the aluminum tubes COULD be used for a nuclear program had reasonable evidence. I conceded that they might not be, but felt that their composition was such that such intended use was likely. But you demanded that I make a categorical statement that the administration was lying, and I didn’t think the evidence supported that.
Same with the Swift Vets. Go back and read those threads. I conceded that there was conflicting evidence. I conceded that there were opposing eyewitness accounts. I even said that some of it could be chalked up to ‘the fog of war’ and honest disagreements about what happened. But again, that wasn’t good enough for you. You wanted a categorical statement that the Swiftboat Vets were a bunch of lying bastards who had been ‘thoroughly debunked’, and I don’t believe the evidence against their claims EVER reached the level of a ‘thorough debunking’. And in fact, Kerry was forced to concede their points on several of them. But I don’t want to go over all that again. Perhaps part of your problem is that you seem to believe that I’m a walking conservative drone, and fail to notice that I’m not taking quite the position you think I am. So we talk past each other.
WTF?
Kerry did not “concede several points” to the Swifties. That’s just bullshit.
I have been reading theese boards most days for more than 5 years and this is one of the funniest lines I have read.
He conceded that he may have been injured by his own grenade when he got his first purple heart.
He conceded that he was not in Cambodia on Christmas Eve.
He conceded that the other boats on the Bay Hap river did not run away while he stayed to rescue a man.
Two of the concessions did not come from his lips, but from official campaign spokespeople, presumably with his approval.
All three concessions contradicted earlier statements of his.
But this is not the thread to discuss this.
If only Camus had lived in our time, and had access to this board, he might very well have used a different symbol for existential despair and futility, The Myth of Sisyphus might have been Arguing with Sam, the Canadian Eagle.
“Once more into the breach, dear friends, once more!” - Hank Five
First, the tubes. Were not for nuclear purposes. As a practical matter, they almost couldn’t have been, since, of course, it has been revealed that Iraq had no nuclear program to use them for. Zero. Zip. Nada. With the patience of a glacier, Big Svin brought you cites and references, showing that nuclear experts had done their very damndest to make this clear to the Bushiviks. They were ignored. The tubes fit precisely to the purpose purported, i.e., they were intended for artillery rockets. Precisely, Sam, not approximately, not in the ball park, the blue prints for the artillery rockets called for aluminum tubes precisely matching the specs.
If you entered the library with your eyes closed, and stepped carefully over the body of Col. Mustard, stubbed your toe on the candlestick, and left through the opposite door, you could say you didn’t know that he was the corpse-in-residence, And you would not, technically, be lying. Even if several expert witnesses had told you so…“Step carefully, there, Sam, dead Englishman, got a bit of brain on your brogans, might want to wipe your feet…” but you had not seen the late Col. Mustard…you would not be lying if you say you didn’t know. This, apparently, is the standard for truth you would have us apply to the Bushiviks. They didn’t lie because they didn’t know, and we know they didn’t know because they made every effort not to.
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!
You also have the unfortunate habit of pretending your contested assertions have been accepted as incontrovertible truth. For instance, this:
Several points? Several meaning at least three, yes? Otherwise, you would have said a “couple of points”. So, you have at your very fingertips at least three points of accusation made by the Swifties conceded by Kerry - not by me, not Big Svin, but Kerry himself. To my recollection, the closest you ever got to that was the question about his presence in Cambodia, as trivial a point as I’ve ever seen argued, and even that was a “maybe”.
Refresh our memory of your glowing triumph: what are at least three accusations made by the Swifties conceded by Kerry?
(And they wonder why I drink…)
It must be a Canadian thing. I never got any liberal viewpoints shoved down my throat in college, much to my disappointment.
Nor is there anything much of a liberal viewpoint present in the media. The opinions that get called “liberal” in the American media are really just centrist to moderate conservative. We don’t even have a liberal party anymore. We have right wingers and we have moderate right wingers.
And I understand them all right.
That argument reminds me of the people who have told me I would convert to Christianity if I just understood it better.
Like Christianity, I understand conservative ideology just fine but I just don’t buy it.
Which is not a “concession” because he never asserted otherwise. Kerry has never in his life claimed that he knew where the shrapnel came from and there is still no proof that it DID come from his own grenade. I’ll also point out just for the hell of it that the Swiftie who claimed to be a witness at that incident was proven to be lying about being there and that the ones who WERE there back up Kerry.
But you already know this, which is why you beong on the list
No he didn’t. His biographer said that, not him. No one has ever proven that Kerry wasn’t in Cambodia, so no “concession” there.
When did he ever state otherwise? You’re just playing a semantic game with this one.
not one of these examples represents a legitimate “concession” that anything he had said before was false.
No, no they didn’t.
Well, don’t make horseshit assertions if you’re not willing to back them up.
Given that English allows for a wonderful range of specificity, why not name names and cite examples, which would actually contribute to the discussion instead of speaking in vague generalities that cannot be refuted WITHOUT some sort of assumption about who you are talking about? Why make such assumptions or further inquiry necessary?
As a devout liberal scumbag, I’d like to chime in and say that the conservatives on this board have to put up with an enormous amount of crap. When I see unreasonable, unfair, or dishonest debating, on balance, it seems much more likely to come from a liberal poster – I imagine that this is because most jerk-ish conservatives here quickly discover that they can’t hope to out-jerk the more numerous jerk-ish liberals, and abandon the project.
I don’t want to get into everything that’s wrong with GD, but it will suffice to say that simple exasperation keeps me out of that forum, and we liberals bear the lion’s share of the fault.
On the other hand, we have this:
Sigh.
This is precisely the kind of outlook that precludes productive debate. “Conservatives understand liberals, and simply disagree. Liberals don’t uderstand conservatives, and are oblivious to the fact. (Good thing I’m a conservative.)”
Gah! Right off the bat, in your mind, you’re starting from a privileged position. You say that liberals don’t see that you have valid reasons for your beliefs, but in doing so you belittle the validity of their own beliefs – how can someone who does not understand the other side of the issue hope to be as enlightened as one who does?
These statements are not entirely stereotyping for gross exaggerative effect, but come close.
There are fewer thoughtful conservative voices than liberal ones available in the mainstream media, and so provocative and reasonable right-wing views aren’t sufficiently heard. This is partly the fault of the media and partly the fault of the Left for not seeking out alternative views.
Since the semi-rabid elements of talk radio and interview programs are so dominant when it comes to right-wing voices in the electronic media, it’s understandable where some of the Left’s stereotypes come from. The Right bears heavy responsibility for promoting thoughtful and decent exponents of its views in these forums (I’m having a hard time thinking of any).
I see tons of stereotyping of left-leaning views among conservatives. We are constantly bombarded with messages, for example, about how environmental laws aim to protect a few unimportant kooky species at the expense of jobs, energy etc., and how liberals don’t want anyone to enjoy recreational uses of wild areas.
I recognize the foolish and counterproductive nature of the frequent leftist sneering about stupid right-wing rednecks. Right-wing ranting about how the ivory tower anti-God liberals don’t understand the conservative mindset* is pretty stupid as well.
*not intended as a paraphrase of Sam’s remarks.
There is no doubt that stereotyping goes on on both sides.
Let me rephrase what I said earlier: I think it’s a natural human tendency to cluster together with people of a like viewpoint, and to read material and listen to people that reinforce what you believe. This is not exclusive to ‘conservatives’ or ‘liberals’. The difference, however, is that conservatives can not avoid the liberal viewpoint. Maybe they would if they could. And in fact, with the rise of Fox news and other mainstream conservative outlets they are. This is probably not healthy. But perhaps until recently, I believe it is true that conservatives are exposed to liberal viewpoints much more than liberals are exposed to conservative viewpoints.
I wasn’t offering this observation as a knock on liberals. I was merely offering a possible explanation why it’s so hard for both sides to communicate with each other.
And by the way, this is the main reason I stick around on the SDMB. It sure as hell isn’t for my peace of mind. But it’s because I think that, while I could toddle off to some conservative web site and get continual ‘attaboys’ for my posts, it would be a total waste of time. I’m not going to learn anything, and no one’s going to learn anything from me. I think it’s useful and healthy to spend your debating time engaging people with opposite viewpoints rather than preaching to the choir.
What’s dismayed me about this place is that it used to be fairly balanced. There were a lot of good conservative posters here - enough that if a pile-on started, they could pile right back. It kept things in check. But a couple of years ago this board changed, mainly due (in my opinion) to a handful of very obnoxious posters who were basically allowed to run amok. It changed the tone of the place, and it hasn’t recovered. And since the hostility was aimed primarily at conservatives, a number of them left. The balance shifted to the left, the pile-on parties started, and now it’s very hard to discuss anything on this board, at least from a conservative viewpoint.
Where do you find all these liberal viewpoints in the media? I never seem to stumble on them.