There are no words.
…I …yeah
Usually you have lots of words. Low semantic content, to be sure. But lots of words.
What I said is very straightforward. You love the technique of framing your arguments obliquely or with sarcasm, and then feigning surprise when called on it.
But I won’t play. You type it, you mean it.
“Because of Bush, somewhere north of one hundred thousand innocent men, women and children are dead.” OK, that’s the rule you propose we use to evaluate the President.
But because of FDR, many more north of one hundred thousand innocent men, women and children are dead. So that rule doesn’t seem to reach the correct result.
Would you like to modify the rule you proposed?
My post #5216 quotes Magellan and then continues replying to Max. But that flow is unclear.
It should say:
I agree with magellan’s thoughts above. It must be obvious to almost everyone reading this that from a strict debate perspective, yours *[Max’s]*are the only posts that are responding to actual arguments made and scoring legitimate points against me. …
Be careful, Bricker. Because we are all what we pretend to be.
If you keep pretending to be stupid… well, you know.
Same tactic. We don’t have to explicitly make our argument…we all know what it is. You don’t. You’re stupid.
Of course, not explicitly making an argument is an excellent way to shield the argument from attack. I decline your implicit invitation to let you do that.
Your argument is what you write, not what you leave unsaid.
My argument, in this thread, has been said many times. It explicitly shows that your position is irrational and kinda dicky.
As for this tangent, which you are pursuing because you hate the hot feeling in your cheeks when you keep losing this argument, it’s especially banal.
Many wouldn’t judge FDR too harshly for WWII, seeing as Hitler was, as close as the modern world has seen, a super-villain.
Sadam however, was just some douche sitting atop a powderkeg. And Bush dutifully stuck a lit match up his peehole and hip-thrusted his way into the war.
The number of deaths aren’t the metric 'luci meant. The number of needless deaths were the number.
**Note that Bricker is creating another distracting tangent. **
I see. And I should step and help his argument by assuming he meant that, eh?
Nope. I have been burned more than once chasing down my interpretation of an argument only to be told that my guess was wrong. So if he wanted to argue needless deaths, he should have, or clarified when I didn’t add it for him.
If you want to argue it, I’ll point out that a similar problem to our thread issue applies: who gets to decide how needful a set of deaths is?
Max suggests the leftists had more reason to smear Bush than I had to smear Clinton. But that argument suffers from petitio principii – the truth of the question to be proved is included in the initial premise.
Or you could act profoundly stupid in order to try to make a point.
Either way.
If you want to stake your claim on the argument that Bush was as good a president as Clinton was, well good luck with that.
Is Bricker’s latest tangent to distract from how he’s embarrassingly losing this thread’s central debate over? Stay tuned to find out!
That’s not quite the claim, no.
But if you can’t follow the discussion that Max and I are having, maybe you shouldn’t try to contribute.
The thread’s central debate is: you’re upset and want to complain, but have no actual solution to offer.
Well, kind of. Although I feel like you tend to talk about someone saying nothing as if it’s like being present for a vote and then abstaining, consciously choosing not to go on the record, or something like that, which I think implies a level of responsibility-to-comment which I don’t think is present on a message board. But this particular tangent may reached agree-to-disagree level at this point.
Except even if it were true that you are right about voter ID and we are wrong (which I clearly disagree with), a remarkably small amount of what you have posted in this thread actually addresses that. Far more of it is just angry people yelling at you. And angry people yelling at you doesn’t mean that you are right and they are wrong, or that they are right and you are wrong, it just means that you have made them angry. And you might be tempted to say something smug like “well, the fact that I have punctured all of their arguments leaves them with nothing but anger”, or something like that. But, at least in general, that’s not what’s going on. It’s not like it went:
Liberal: argument
Bricker: brilliant counterargument
Liberal: angry fuming, turning into insults
This at least leans toward “I’m happy to piss off all the liberals, because then the neutral parties will see pissed off liberals when I’m not pissed off, and then they’ll think my arguments are right”, which kind of suggests that you would be better off being a deliberate jerk than actually making logically persuasive arguments.
Right. And if there is a situation like that in 2016 with some meaningful-but-not-definitive evidence comes to like that Democrats are stuffing ballot boxes, and that tilts a key state, and Hillary barely beats out Jeb Bush for the presidency, and there’s interesting evidence to be discussed to suss out what really happened and so forth, what I will NOT do is go into a pit thread the very next day started by a conservative entitled “fucking Dems stole the election” and start being all reasonable and wanting to debate subtle points of legality, and the cluck my tongue when all the conservatives who just the day before had an election stolen from them (in their eyes) are pissed off and don’t want to calmly and rationally debate the technicalities, and then somehow claim that the fact that I’m calmer than they are means that an lurkers who are reading the thread should declare me the victor.
I think your use of the word “upbraid” indicates that you’re, if not missing the point, at least misinterpreting the point. I’m not so much accusing you of WRONGDOING by choosing to post in this thread, as I’m suggesting that you might have better succeeded in your self-proclaimed goal by taking another entire approach. So you log on to the SDMB one day, you see a thread:
(1) in the pit
(2) in which people are already angry, saying angry things
(3) and you share some of their angry opinions (in this case, you agree that some of the Republican lawmakers were motivated by scuzziness) but disagree with others of them (in this case, you think that the barriers put in place by these laws will not end up being subsantive, and you think that there is benefit to voter ID laws even without proven cases of in-person-voter-fraud). I contend that if you just go into that pit thread and start arguing, that’s a near-certain recipe for a clusterfuck of a thread. Instead, you could start a GD thread, where you can start out by establishing a tone of civility, and (this is very important) in which you can lay out from the beginning exactly what your position; rather than just wading into the pit thread and taking potshots at hyperbolic statements.
That said, I agree that there’s this weird dynamic in which I kind of follow you around from pit thread to pit thread and offer polite but perhaps condescending criticism about your posting style. Why am I doing that? Do I have some kind of weird homoerotic cross-party man-crush on you or something? After thinking about it some, I think that it’s this: I do genuinely respect you as an intelligent and well meaning person, someone who I enjoy actually debating issues with. But I rarely get to actually do that, because you spend so much of your time on the SDMB in the midst of shitstorms. So it’s to my benefit for there to be fewer Bricker shitstorms and more actual threads in which Bricker is debating issues. And they do happen sometimes. And I think it more likely that you, being one single person, can do things to tilt the shitstorm ratio; than that all the liberals of the SDMB simultaneously change the way they act sufficiently to tilt the shitstorm ratio from the other side, if that makes sense.
That’s harsh. Since you haven’t mastered the concept that making a problem worse isn’t a good way to fix it.
But I do have to get some work done for today, so please, keep chucklefucking around whist trying to pretend you’re winning. I’m sure Magellan and Clothy will strain their britches in admiration.
Well said.
Ok, I concede this point.
Given your goal, your efforts to nudge my behavior as opposed to the …rest… are completely logical.
I’m mildly surprised Bricker acknowledged magellan’s presence. It doesn’t fit with the “man alone against the horde” motif.
For what it’s worth, it is pretty low class to make crude comments about Bricker’s family.
He’s mentioned how he takes his son to a shooting range. I suggest Bricker also arrange for the boy to get a membership here (assuming he’s at least 13), just to expose him to a variety of viewpoints and ideas. The physical danger is certainly less acute, at least in the short term.
I have a liberal friend here in Canada who’s always regaling me with the conservative/Republican outrage of the week.
A few weeks ago he said, “Did you hear that the Republicans are trying to disenfranchise people who won’t vote for them?”
“Oh? How are they doing that?” sez I.
“I’m not sure. Something about making them jump through extra legal loopholes or something.”
I explained to him, “Actually, they just want people to show ID proving that they are who they are before they vote.”
“No, that’s not it. It’s something really bad.”
“No, that’s it. They just want people to show their ID when they vote.”
He flatly wouldn’t believe me, because, as he put it “That’s stupid. Of course you show ID to vote.” Because, you know, that’s what we evil disenfranchising Canadians do. You show up at the polling place, they ask your name, they ask for your photo ID, then compare it against the name on their list, and then they give you a ballot. It’s one of those little basic things that helps build trust in the electoral system, and that’s pretty important.
I’ve never heard a liberal in Canada argue that we should get rid of voter ID. I’m guessing that’s because there isn’t a huge pool of illegal immigrant Liberal voters waiting to be harvested. If there was, I’m guessing it would be the civil rights issue of our age.
Elections Canada Voter Identification Requirements.
Since you guys on the left like to invoke Canada’s regulations and health care system as a model of good governance, maybe you should try our election rules, too.
Not only are they deliberately trying to do that, but some of them even admit it.
I walked across the street today and voted with nothing more than a statement of my name and my signature. Registering to vote should be just about as easy.
Sam, the objection is not to ID requirements. It’s to ID requirements concurrent with a burden of time and money to get an ID, a burden that falls much more heavily on the voters of one particular party. That, combined with evidence that the other party is imposing those burdens intentionally, in order to sway election outcomes through disenfranchisement – that is why there’s a long thread about this.
Seriously, Sam, you didn’t know this? Or, to put it another way, is your view of the left so warped that you actually thought, didn’t even question, that it was all about voter id? Just to be clear, you weren’t thinking anything totally stupid, like the Dems were trying to protect voter fraud so they could exploit it? Sure you’re way too smart for that. Pretty sure. A little reassurance couldn’t hurt.
At any rate, you have inadvertently misinformed your friend. We are confident you will correct that situation at your earliest convenience.
Come to think on it, that has been kind of a recurring thing here. Every once in a while, somebody says just that, they start in arguing or questioning like, gee, what’s the problem with voter id? And then we explain it all again, with any number of diversions, and we’re back on track, and then somebody does it again, like we never explained any of this stuff.
Then, of course, there are those posters…well, just one, really…who insist on misdirecting the debate that way, as if it were really and truly what we are on about.
Like closing the office to get id, shortening the hours of operation, cancelling early voting hours or “Sunday voting”, extra restrictions on voter registration drives to keep the evil plots of the League of Women Voters in check…these are all just coincidence?
No, once is accident, twice, coincidence, three times enemy action.