Call me an optimist, but i’ve found that even partisans are often willing, at the most basic level, to at least follow the most basic requirements of rational discourse and rules of evidence.
I consider myself a partisan in many ways, particularly where certain causes and issues are concerned, but i also think that i have the capacity to sustain a rigorous defense of my factual (as opposed to merely moral or philosophical) assertions, and to pay attention when those with whom i disagree do the same. I am also happy to have intelligent conversation with those who disagree with me in cases where we can do that in good faith.
Take the issue of abortion, for example. My moral support for a woman’s right to have an abortion is unlikely to be changed or swayed by anyone else’s moral convictions, nor by any particular factual evidence they might be able to show me. But if an abortion opponent makes an assertion regarding (for example) the number of clinics willing to perform third trimester abortions, and that number conflicts with my current understanding of the matter, i’m willing to offer evidence for my own numbers, or concede that i was mistaken.
I’m also willing to discuss abortion with someone who is an unequivocal moral opponent of the practice, so long as we both understand that there are certain things we will never agree on, where our moral and philosophical worldviews are completely incommensurable and not really open to fact- or evidence-based arguments. And i’ve been able to have these sorts of discussions, on a variety of issues, right here on these boards.
But Starving Artist is sui generis. He is the one person who not only has a fundamentally different moral outlook, but who is completely indifferent, and actually actively hostile, to the fundamental requirements of basic debate and rules of evidence. (The late, unlamented milroyj gave SA a run for his money, though.)
He slides blithely between factual assertions and opinions, frequently confusing the two, and making no effort to support the former. When asked for evidence, his standard cry is that it’s no use providing any because (a) liberals just wouldn’t accept it anyway, (b) his factual assertion was just an opinion that doesn’t require evidence, (c) his claim is so patently true that no evidence is needed, or (d) there’s so much evidence out there that he can’t believe that anyone would ask him to provide specific examples. Or some crazy combination of all of those.
On the rare occasions when he actually deals with evidence in any sustained way, his use of it is so dishonest that it would make a Chicago politician blush, and makes any attempt at rational, considered debate completely useless.
I made a comment to Starving Artist a few years back that pretty much sums up his whole debating technique:
I think that still applies, and that it applies more closely to starving Artist than to just about anyone else on this message board.