Chavez isn’t doing his image any harm by supplying heating oil at a discount to low income Americans.
Who knows, maybe when the republican controlled congress gets back into session at the end of the month, they’ll pass some sort of heating assistance measure, so that poor Americans don’t have to rely on the charity of an evil dictator.
I’d like to start with one exchange, because it reveals the depths to which you’re accustomed, and your stupidity in lying when I can quote you.
And you quote yourself lying… again? Why? Why do you prove that you were lying while denying that you were lying?
Yes, let’s prove it, again.
Funny, you don’t point out one single untruth. What do you call someone who lies about lying?
Plus, you seem to be stupid enough to lie about things where I’ve already quoted you. And, for an added bonus, you’re purile enough to simply attempt to turn my valid criticism of your dishonest behavior back upon me, the analog of you whining “Nawww awww! I know you are, but what am I?”
Nope. I put no words in your mouth. I’ve quoted you already. You asked if “us clowns” and about excusing or applauding shitting on America. Then you backpedaled and claimed you were asking an innocent question, and not insulting people. Words in your mouth indeed, coward.
Again, are you this stupid? How many times did I show just that?
Lying about someone else lying… is that a new low for you?
How many times have I not only not been “unable to”, but I did just that?
One.
Two.
Three (and I especially like your whinging lie that Belafonte is “people”).
Four.
Five.
Five should be enough for now. So the question arises, are you lying, or stupid? Little from column A, little from column B?
Yes, this is one of your backpedaling lies, thanks. Your denial fools nobody, at all.
Jeez, will you stop lying while you’re saying that you’re not lying? You just said that it wasn’t an insult, merely a question. That means it’s not an insult, just an “innocent” question. How stupid are you?
So, it’s lying and dishonest to say that your opinion doesn’t change reality? Are you insane and stupid, or just stupid?
Again, will you stop lying in order to make up the charge that I’m lying? Are you really that pathetic? I refuted your points, several times, with factual challenges.
Again, I understand. You are wrong. I have explained many times why you are wrong. You are too dishonest to actually address the issue, so you say that I just don’t get it. Weak.
More lies. You’ve said that people critizicing Bush weakens America (or whatever mincing semantic bullshit you used instead). As pointed out, there’s something called “global media”, and even something said in America travels. As also pointed out, your after-the-fact revision to “overseas” is dishonest backpedaling. You mentioned nothing about accusing people of accpeting or encouraging people shitting on America. Nothing. Par for the course.
Cite?
You can’t give one, because you’re making it up. What did I actually say?
Oh, and, by the way, you have yet again lied and backpedaled. Which was it? Was it your opinion that people in this thread were shitting on America and thus you were lying when you said it wasn’t an insult, or was it really just an ‘innocent’ question in which case you’re lying now about having the opinion that they were excusing/applauding shitting on America?
In short, were you lying then, or are you lying now?
Which was it? A question, or an accusation in the form of a question?
Again, will you please stop lying while you’re pretending that you’re not lying? It weakens your case somewhat.
And yet, I cited at least five posts where I go into detail on how you’ve been caught backpedaling. Are you dumb enough to think that our posts disapear or that I can’t cite them?
Very cute. But the fact remains, already dealt with this. Again, in a nutshull, were you lying then, or are you lying now?
Do you have any idea what the word “dishonest” means, or are you just using it because I did? Saying that I don’t care about your opinion, only the facts you use to support it isn’t a lie, genius. Try again.
At least five cited posts.
Try again.
Five cited posts, each with a factual rebuttal and analysis of why you were backpedaling. Again, are you dumb enough to think that our posts vanish when they become inconvenient to you?
Aww, it’s so cute watching you try to think. And no, it’s not right. It’s rather pathetic. Why is it that I don’t have a problem with posters like Bricker? Hmmm? Maybe it’s because I don’t think that opinions that might benifit Bush make people shills? Maybe you’re lying again? Who’d a thunk it.
Devestating logical rebuttal.
It was indeed the fallacy of equivocation. Sorry.
Okay, since you asked nicely I’ll fight your ignorance. Read, think, learn.
You used the statement that people can disagree on things to equivocate to suggesting that your belief was one of those things that could have differing modes of belief which were equal.
And you don’t even have to thank me for educating you.
Again, would you please like to stop lying while denying that you’re lying?
You deny I ever even attmempted to substantiate my claims that you were backpedaling, and then cite a post where I did just that?
Again, were you lying then, or are you lying now?
We made the same point. I made it first. Your dishonesty knows no bounds.
Again, will you stop lying in order to claim that I was untruthful? If I said it, then I said it. No dishonesty, genius.
This again? Again?
Should I just keep reposting “were you lying then, or are you lying now?”
Yes… which is an instance of backpedaling. “He’s not beyond criticism… he just is in lots of circumstances.”
It’s also another point of willful dishonesty. As pointed out to you several times, airwaves… carry. I know, it’s amazing. But people in the rest of the world? They have TV’s too!
Twist your words? I quoted you.
And you’ve repeated yourself. If Bush isn’t beyond criticism that means he’s not beyond criticism. Full stop. If you begin backpedaling, then you’ll being naming instances where it is inapropriate to criticize him. Just like you did.
You’ve already proven that reading comprehension isn’t your strongest talent. Keep it up.
You seem to have as good an understanding of what “backpedaling” means as “dishonesty”. Good job.
Again you display your dismal skills are comprehending text. You also display a total inability to comprehend ‘sarcasm’. This is funny.
You think this deserves a response? Just how dumb are you?
It’s funny that in the post I’m busy quoting, I’ve caught you in something close to a dozen lies, including contradicting yourself within the very post. You still have not shown one single untruth that I posted. Good job.
You know full what what I’ve called you in another neat thread. I don’t think that anymore, I just think you’re painfully stupid and you really believe this inane bullshit.
What it means, genius, is that if in a “very large range of circumstances” it’s improper to criticize Bush then you can’t also say he’s not beyond criticism, because you’ve just stated a “very large range of circumstances” where he is beyond criticism.
That’s also “what we like to call” backpedaling.
You display your rampant dishonesty, and then accuse me of it? Again, there is no functional difference between making a remark that is played around the world that happens to be said in America, and making a remark that is played around the world that happens to be said in Canada. Your denial is more backpedaling.
You’re batting 1000 here.
Why do you think that posting your backpedaling will prove you weren’t backpedaling? If “fanning the flames” is at issue, then it matters not where the statement is made if it inflames passions. Quote yourself backpedaling all you want, it only proves that you were backpedaling.
Again, your stupidity and lack of comprehension? Not my fault, I’m afraid.
You started backpedaling from the word go. You wanted to accuse people of supporting or allowing things which would fan the flames of hatred for america, but backpedaled away rapidly from the fact that there is a global media.
And my “point” is that you were backpedaling. Jeez, how stupid are you?
And yet, you haven’t quoted even one single lie… odd, that.
Indeed.
Laughable, especially if you believe it’s true.
Or all the work lying in order to claim that you weren’t lying.
Just as a reminder of the depths to which you’ll stoop to:
I didn’t attempt to substantiate my charges that you’re a dishonest backpedaling shill, except in my post 34 where I did and you cite it. But I didn’t attempt to substantite it. But I did and you cited it…
What exactly will it take for you to stop polluting this community with your presence?
This [insert adjective] doesn’t deserve civility. Someone whose very argument is nothing but dishonesty piled upon dishonesty deserves only to be reviled for his low character. The Dope would be far better off without people who argue dishonestly, they add nothing.
Why have you taken his bait? These are not pie-in-the-sky hypotheticals. These are real situations in the real world with real people. Hell, people have posted in this thread saying that when they see Americans criticize Bush they realize that we’re not a united front.
Except, you’re still lying.
You say Bush isn’t beyond criticism, then detail the situations in which he’s beyond criticism.
FinnAgain, I like you as a poster and a writer but for the love of hamsters please don’t sink to his level and make 3 foot posts or as I said to magellan01
Jim
I really should’ve ignored it and not sunk to his level, but I can’t let dishonesty like that stand.
It shouldn’t be necessary again, I don’t think.
Is Godot here yet?
Any minute now… any minute…
Second thought: You are of course correct. I know what this poster is and what he’s all about, and shouldn’t have let myself be baited. That is totally my fault.
Like they say, never try to teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Likewise, never try to teach someone, who enjoys baiting people, why it’s proper to argue with intellectual honesty. You waste your time and end up being baited anyways.
Or, in a nutshell
“Magellan, why must you, a clown, always applaud or excuse people raping and eating kittens? But let it not be said that I am making up a strawman or accusing you, magellan, of anything, I’m just asking a question. Never mind the fact that you’ve never supported or allowed kittens being raped and eaten, I’m still wondering if you must always do it.”
P.S. Check your email JR, and thanks for helping me realize that this… individual, isn’t worth the courtesy of responding to his points with cites.
Hey, eating kittens isn’t all bad.
Well, it is a well known fact that kittens are dangerous America haters who flip out and kill things all the time. I’m pretty sure it can be said that kittens are dangerous and the number one threat to The Republic.
I suspect at least one of our mods might agree with you.
And, of course, by insulting him, I see you’ve run him off the boards easily. :rolleyes:
I’m not saying it’s only possible that people do not equate Bush with America - and i’m not saying it’s only possible that some people do. I’m saying that there are definetly some people who will see Belafonte’s actions and interpret them as “Yet another person stands up to the evils of America, good for them!” and there are definetly some people who will interpret them as “There are Americans who disagree with Bush, not all Americans are bad”.
The hypothetical comes in when we want to know how many of each person there are. We can’t know this. We can speculate, based on what we do know, and our own expiriences - and my personal speculation is that the negative consequences will outweigh the positive. Yours is the same. Magellan believe the opposite. It’s an understandable viewpoint, given that we can’t look inside people’s heads.
Look, I clearly don’t have the history with magellan you seem to have. And i’m not American myself, so i’m not as drastically seperated as to Repub. or Dem. as all you Pit people seem to be. All I can say is what I see - and in this thread, I happen to agree with you rather than magellan. You’re both being pretty insulting to each other though, and i’d rather not get drawn into that.
:rolleyes: right back atcha. The fact that he’s dishonest and dishonorable isn’t dependent on my pointing those facts out. And I’m sure that nothing short of a mod edict would scrape him off the shoe of the Dope. Do with that what you will. But encouraging him and acting as if he’s arguing in good faith is certainly not the way to reward rampant dishonesty and baiting.
But the first class of people won’t ever have their minds changed one way or another. If they’ve already decided that America, not Bush, not some Americans, but America itself is evil then there’s no arguing with them. The second class are rational folks.
But the point is that there’s no convincing the first class of people. If American citizens say that America is great, they’ll ignore them since they’ve already decided that America is evil. If American citizens say that America is evil they’ll “listen” to them because they’ve already decided that America is evil.
Why not?
Why not look at polls?
What they show us is that when America supports Bush, who many in the world view as the greatest threat to world peace, people think that Americans are shitty. This is exactly what I’ve been saying, that the character of America itself is seen as mirroring the degree to which Bush is supported.
Unsurprisingly, if rational people see an America that supports Bush, they’ll assume that Americans endorse his actions. If they see an America that opposes Bush, they’ll assume that Bush really doesn’t speak for the American populace.
See above.
Also there’s a matter of simple common sense. If people are upset with American leaders, but then they see that a majority (or even a massive percentage) of America is also upset with American leaders, then if they’re rational they can’t possibly think that all of America supports American leaders.
In short, the easiest way to ensure that America’s leaders and America’s people are seen as differeing entities is to preserve and use the right to dissent.
Erunh? No real history to speak of, it’s just that intellectual dishonesty (not to mention normal dishonesty) and deliberate baiting drives me batty and soils the Dope.
Dangerous dichotomy, many of us aren’t either. Myself, I tend to look at the issues and decide my positions. I really don’t support either major party, but the current administration certainly has taken the country in a direction I do not care for, at all. I’d vote for McCain in a heartbeat, however.
The point isn’t so much over who is right and who is wrong, although that’s part of it. The situation is one where a poster charged into the thread, accused people of “always [excusing], if not [applauding], America being shit on.” And then after that slander, backed away from it claiming it only to be an ‘opinion’, that it was only a ‘question’ and not a vile accusation. As if that lessens the seriousness of the slander, especially since it was directed at several people who would, I’d wager, be the first to say that they love this country.
Analogy is always suspect, but, it’s akin to there being a discussion about how one woman with children was a bitch and someone setting out bait in the thread and saying “Do you clowns always have to applaud or excuse someone shitting on your own mothers?” Then backing away from it by saying that it was only their ‘opinion’ that there was a connection between a single mother and motherhood in general and that people were applauding their mothers being shit on. And then retreating further by claiming that they were only asking a question, and weren’t implying that people always applaud or excuse people shitting on their mothers, but they’re still saying that if you allow someone to talk down to an exemplar of motherhood you’re allowing your own mother to be shit on.
It’s arguing out of both sides of one’s mouth at once; baiting people, slandering people and setting up strawmen and then claiming the role of misunderstood victim when people react to such a vile slander.
Such tactics are shitty, dishonest, and dishonorable, and it’s bullshit baiting designed to sink a discussion to the lowest common denominator as quickly as possible. It should not be encouraged, it should not be tollerated, and it should not be rewarded. It’s not engaging in equal trade via a marketplace of ideas, it’s taking a big reeking shit in the middle of the marketplace and then feigning disbelief that people don’t like the smell.
It’s not about merely being insulting. It’s about how someone who behaves in such a manner deserves no place at a shit flinging fight let alone a debate.
If someone is going to slander people so disgustingly, the least they can do is have an ounce of courage and stand behind their insult instead of feigning shocked surprise that anybody would react with vitriol to being slandered. They shouldn’t try to bait as many people as possible with dishonest rhetoric. Only a coward calls someone out and then runs away and hides.
And while I’m at it, another thing that Dopers shouldn’t tollerate is someone who takes a position and then doesn’t even have the courage/intellectual honesty to provide facts to back it up. Dopers should not tollerate, let alone reward, anybody who instead of citing facts or at least clearly elucidating a logical chain of events, chooses to make a very definite statement and then run away like a coward and claim “But it’s just my opinion and everybody is entitled to an opinion.”
As I stated earlier in the thread, opinions mean nothing. Unless we’re talking about whether people prefer chocolate to vanilla (or something of the sort), there’s no place in most debates for someone to lazily attempt to get out of actually crafting a position by, instead, dropping a turd and then whining “But it’s my opinion!” And it is a revolting dodge once someone has slandered people to not even attempt to substantiate their slander, but instead to continue baiting them and claiming that since it’s just an opinion, that they really can’t be bothered to provide any proof for it and they certainly won’t retract it.
There is a reason why “Cite?” is almost a catchphrase at the Dope. We don’t tollerate gradeschool crap like someone baiting people with inflamatory bullshit and then not even having the courage to take a stand and try to prove why their position is right.
You seemed to be doing a good job of arguing against him based on his dishonesty. I just wanted to try and summarise what would be the honest positions of each side, and explain why I thought they were both reasonable (i.e. not stupid). I do agree with you that someone defending their views with a flawed argument needs someone to point out that their argument is flawed, but simply having a flawed argument doesn’t mean your basic premise is nescessarily wrong. I could say that the sky is blue, because the atmosphere is filled with tiny blue flying chipmunks. Clearly it’s a flawed argument, but that doesn’t mean my viewpoint (the sky is blue) is wrong, too.
Why is there no arguing with them? Is there no chance at all that they will change their minds?
Bit above. I think there are some people who could be convinced. Maybe a large amount, maybe only a few. But some. Opinion, though.
I’ve agreed to this. For non-Americans, often it’s merely seen as Bush was voted in, therefore a significant amount of Americans support him. And they do, from what i’ve seen. Those Americans are, in my opinion, foolish - i’d certainly say Bush was one of the greatest threats to world peace.
I know. I agree with your view, and oppose magellan’s.
Yep, agreement again.
Yep.
Apologies, then. From the level of vitriol I assumed this was a bit of a feud, as opposed to you just very much disliking dishonesty.
Ok. I withdraw “all you people” and replace with “some of you people”.
I agree. People who look on every attacker on Bush as an attacker on America are just as bad as those who see every action of Bush’s as being representative of every American.
I agree. But do you really think people will admit to doing that if you’re attacking them so heavily for it? It forces them onto the defensive, whereas a less insulting suggestion that their phrasing is dishonest might draw out an apology and a changed position. If that doesn’t work, then it’d be fine to go into heavy attack - but you’re still probably not going to elicit an apology.
Fair point. But my opinion is that you have to both attack the argument and the original premise - You can prove someone wrong in their argument, and they’ll just go away until they have a new argument to make. If you take away their premise, then they’ll still stick to their argument because people (generally) don’t like to admit they’re wrong, and will defend an indefensible position. If you attack both, and prove them wrong, that’s when you start to see lasting change. You were attacking both, but I thought putting more emphasis on attacking the argument - for balance, I thought i’d attack the premise.
I agree. I just think that in most cases, if you want to change that person’s own position, simply dismissing their argument (flawed though it may be) will not often get them to change their mind.
I’ve always preferred:
“Arguing with is like wrestling a pig. You just end up covered in [mud/shit], and after a while you realise the pig is enjoying it”
Kittens give Morbo gas!
Your powers of observation were correct. You are, of course, considering the source, being lied to. As we can see here when we contrast his claim to you:
with what he said in his post to me:
Now, I do not know which thread in particular that he is referring to here, as there have been two, possibly three, that got pretty ugly. My guess, is that he was attempting to once again call or imply that I was a troll, as he did in this thread , which resulted in him being scolded by a mod. Or maybe it was this Cindy Sheehan thread, which has many insults to choose from.
If you look at those threads and see how much he had invested in them, and then contrast what you find with his claim to you that he and I have “no real history to speak of” and his referring me to “what [he] called [me] in another neat thread”, well, I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusion.
In a small percentage, possibly. But for most people? Put it this way, there are similar processes at work for a racist and for someone who judges all American people (or any other nationality) based on an elected official. In either case, people are ignoring the individuality of people and trying to acribe a group identity to them. Faced with such anti-thought, there’s really not much to do.
Oh, of course not. But then again someone who’s arguing dishonestly and baiting people isn’t going to admit they’re wrong, because that would take intellectual honesty and a commitment to honorable debate. I know it’s not profitable to point out their scummy nature, but they drive me berserk so sometimes I vent.
magellan01, I’ll make this fast because this time your dishonesty is at least quick and your lies easy to uncover, again.
We do have ‘no real history to speak of’. Yes, I know that you’re a dishonest and slimey debater, but calling you out in a thread or two hardly constitutes a ‘history’. I’d wager I’ve done the same for many Dopers. Rest assured, your conduct in this thread, and this thread alone, merited the response you got. No feud.
Oh, and, why lie, again, when I could cite what actually occured? In the thread I drew a mod warning it was for saying you were a step above a troll and that you were either painfully stupid and lying or a troll, but that I thought you were painfully stupid and lying. I actually said that several times, that you were not a troll, just very stupid and a liar. I wasn’t implying you were a troll, as you’re lying and saying. Stop lying about posts which can be cited, it’s not very smart.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled debate.
That was a joke, son! A joke!
That aside, your position in this thread is simply unsupportable. You agree that the right to criticize our own government is important, but at the same time, you seem to feel that it’s something that shouldn’t be seen by “outsiders.” To me, this seems to indicate that you feel this right is somehow shameful, something that needs to be hidden. This is, to be blunt, really fucking stupid. The ability to criticize our leaders is the single greatest and most important of our civil rights in this country. All our other rights depend on that one. As such, it is something to be celebrated, to be shown off at every opportunity, especially in “countries in turmoil.” We need to hold this up as an example of what it means to live in a free country. Hiding this, aside from being impossible (should no one on the Dope criticize Bush, because there are so many non-Americans here? Should no one criticize him in front of a CNN camera, because it might get picked up by the BBC?) shows a grave disrespect to the fundamental freedoms of this nation, and does a disservice to anyone left out there who might still be looking to America as an example of how to run a democracy. Although at this point, I don’t think there are that many of them left. I’d tell you who I think is responsible from that, but Revenant Threshold might over-hear me, and I understand he ain’t from around these parts.