While I would nominate Bricker as one of the contenders for that title (see e.g this thread and the implication of equivalence between evidence for global climate change and loosening regulations regarding firearms) I feel somehow compelled to express my opinion that his example there was not false equivalence.
Olbenmann could certainly show marked incivility, and those remarks were such.
On the whole, are conservatives more commonly incivil? Does a fox shit in the woods?
OK, fair enough. In this thread, yes, I make an affirmative claim that the previous thread represents an example of liberals ignoring hard numbers in favor of ideology.
Fine. I’ll dig up numbers for prior years. May take a day or three. Stand by.
I won’t waste too much time on this, Bricker, because I don’t actually think your bafflement is very sincere.
Fascist is a real political term. I don’t think G. W. Bush was actually a devoted fascist, but one could make the argument (and Olberman did) that Bush promoted or represented fascist political positions. Moreover, the “freedom” rant was based on criticism of actual efforts made by the Bush administration to curtail certain civil liberties. It was not some wild analogy or a stretched and racist comparison such as “Reluctant use of SuperPACs by Obama is the same as that whack nigga be dealing crack cocaine.”
Notice I didn’t say Olberman wasn’t uncivil, I said the equivalence was false. What Olberman had to say was a hyperbolic, combative and rude political argument with a valid basis for a foundation. The crap RT linked to is fundamentally different.
I agree with you there. Being a racist prick does differ from being uncivil. An additional difference is that one of them continues to be employed by a major network despite a history of horrific comments, which are also not civil. The other does not.
Your quote is a little clipped.
The video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u19KHbTJEOk
The actual quote surrounding the “fascist” part:
You’d note, I’m sure, that this was specifically about the Bush admin demanding immunity for telecoms that spied on Americans, presumably illegally. So is the accusation of fascism so far off the mark?
Is it as close to the mark as calling Obama a drug dealer?a
But everyone is equally bad in Bricker-town, right?
That ectoplasmic spirits not visibly present should have weighed in - that’s what counts as too obvious to require proof in Bricker’s courtroom.
Fuckin’ glad you’re not a judge. Never realized what a bozo you were until now.
You can do that, but it would be kinda stupid.
You’ll in all likelihood have less people in the thread in July of this year who were arguing against the law in the original (posts 1-99) phase of the thread than you did in July of last year. So there’s even less likelihood than in last July’s iteration that you’ll have any basis for drawing any meaningful conclusions.
And considering that you can’t be arsed to summarize the data you’re basing your argument on to begin with, it’s safe to assume that a repeat will be another exercise in meaninglessness.
The use you’re making of the ‘guns in bars’ thread is to argue that liberals are as likely as conservatives to ignore inconvenient data. But you won’t produce any data from that thread to substantiate your claim. So on the basis of no data (other than “in my view this is intuitively obvioous [sic]”), you expect me to believe that liberals are ignoring inconvenient data.
It’s like rayayayayn on your wedding day…
Well, that IS why threads tend to sink and die, isn’t it?
And quite frankly, given the level of your discussion in this thread, I think this thread is the last stop for my discussing the implications of the ‘guns in bars’ thread. Go ahead and do what you do this July, but don’t expect to see me there. I have a hard time letting go of a thread once I’ve gotten into it, even if it’s gotten really stupid. But I have an easy time not opening a thread in the first place if I’ve got every reason to expect that it will be a continuation of idiocy I’ve already had my fill of.
Don’t worry about it. I thought you had them at hand because you said that the numbers had continued to go down, and that the article included the number for the previous years. If those were not true, it’s not really worth much effort to dig them up. I mean, they would help minimally, but the data still would suffer from similar problems as above.
Speaking of the “intuitively obvious”, wouldn’t people packing heat while they drink be one of those? Sort of “really not a very good idea” kind of thing?
I think you’ll need to pin **Bricker **down a little more directly, to get a direct answer:
“Are people more likely or less likely, counselor, to exercise good judgment when they’ve been consuming alcohol–please remember, we’re not looking for a subtle answer here, we’re seeking an ‘intuitively obvious’ response, so please go with that in mind: more or less likely?”
Me no smart, not go law school. Too hard!
How is that question relevant?
The law requires that a person carrying concealed in a bar not drink alcohol. A person not interested in obeying the law will presumably carry concealed into the bar anyway, so changing the law would have had little effect on him. And a person interested in obeying the law won’t drink.
And, gee, guys, if your theory is correct, why hasn’t the rate of gun crimes in bars risen? THIS is the fact I haven’t heard anyone answer, except to speculate that it will in the future.
How many years must pass with no crime increase before you concede error?
Evven if the intuitive answer is “more,” how much data is necessary for you to say, “Gosh, looks like this one’s counter-intuitive!”
I thought you understood my point above. I think you said it was a good question. I was so thrilled with your praise that I printed it out and hung it on the fridge at home.
Anyway, it’s safe to say that gun crimes are multidetermined behaviors. It would be quite easy for a factor to act to increase the rate even while other factors are working in the opposite direction.
See, this research thing is a bit more difficult than you thought, eh? Research projects don’t often require hundreds of thousands of dollars just to spot check official records over two data points!
The point here is that even the “intuitively obvious” may on occasion have to be subjected to examination against the evidence (especially if an ideological argument rests on it).
But in answer to your question, for me at least to concede error in holding that intuitive belief as elucidator phrased it is that you’d have to demonstrate through a study conducted over a statistically significant but not prohibitive period of time which also controls for other known variables (such as crime rates in each locality, average customer age/economic background, etc.) that drinking establishments which have a higher average percentage of customers carrying concealed firearms have the same or smaller per capita incidence of behavior in which firearms are used illegally inside those properties.
So far you haven’t even demonstrated an increased percentage of concealed carry in Virginia, much less controlled for other correlated factors.
(ETA: Drat! Beat to the punch -or outdrawn, I guess- by Hentor!)
C’mon guys, it’s librul hypocrisy, can’t you see it? If you even try to ask if five out of a hundred fifty (or whatever, I can’t be bothered to look it up) incidents is statistically significant, or if more or less people owned firearms in Virginia, or more or less people had concealed permits, or more or less joined the teetotalers, or even if every third bar in the state closed down because of the economy, it’s librul hypocrisy. Unless you start a thread pitting yourself and screaming mea culpa! mea culpa! it’s librul hypocrisy. And exactly like global warming deniers.
Sheesh! Some people.
There are some people (not gonna name anyone so don’t ask) who I have sometimes thought about ignoring. But then I’m also afraid I might miss all the really funny stuff. 
Hey! Who do you mean by “some people” ?
I’m not sure which argument this is part of but I’ll take a shot (heh heh) at it.
It’s because law abiding people, normal people, people who aren’t bat shit crazy, go to a bar to have a few drinks, socialize, chatter, relax and have a good time. The crazy psycho assholes, wouldn’t give a damn WHAT laws are in place, so it becomes a moot point. Or something.
Don’t make me go there!!
I never claimed otherwise. If you want to portray that as massive liberal hypocrisy, go right ahead.
I disagree. Your posting style might be actively commented on and criticized less often, but that is not the same thing
At no point have I (as far as I remember) told you what you should do. I’ve made comments about your claims concerning why you post the way you do, the reactions you get, etc. I believe that you are reaping what you sow. I believe if you posted less jerkishly, you would get less jerkish responses. I believe that the response you get is, overall, substantively different than the response that a hypothetical extremely-polite-conservative-poster would get. But hey, it’s your life… I might wish you posted differently, but heck, I also wish I posted differently.
I believe that what I’m saying is (a) it is unfair, (b) and the unfairness is pretty much endemic in any human interaction where there’s a large majority holding one view and a minority holding another (c) so acting all outraged about the unfairness and hypocrisy of it all is a bit silly (d) plus it’s nowhere near as bad as you make it out to be.
But, honestly, I don’t feel like this thread of conversation is going anywhere at all.