I don’t see how you can blame us for that. If there’s a debate occurring in which most of us are busily debating the issues, we’re generally not going to take time out to point out the flaws in Dio’s reasoning as long as he’s arguing from “our” side. I don’t see you calling out Starving Artist when he says dumb things either.
That’s your job, and while I appreciate that there aren’t many people around to argue the conservative side of a given issue, Starving Artist’s participation vastly increases the noise to signal ratio.
Anyway, there is a big difference between Dio and SA; Dio makes original arguments without much basis in fact in each thread; SA makes the same argument without much basis in fact over and over again.
That’s an intellectually bankrupt argument you’ve just made. It is “our job” to make the argument that an obviously flawed argument is flawed, but no evidence will be accepted that the argument is flawed because you are already ideologically opposed to said evidence.
The deck is somewhat stacked against that happening, wouldn’t you say? I certainly would.
And I have conceded that DtC is more effective a rhetor than SA.
At one time or another, I have disagreed with a conservative position espoused by each of the few other conservatives here. While I don’t now remember any specifics with respect to SA, I’m certain I haven’t left him off the list.
I LOL’d.
But, seriously, this is how you see America? No wonder you’re so mad. I’ve seen a lot of old people turn to local news for their window to the world, and they end up sounding just like this. Turn it off, and go meet some people. Go talk to the young people in your neighborhood. It isn’t this bad, really. You’re letting them scare you.
I don’t see why it would be your job. You have taken several people to task before for describing you as a conservative, as I recall.
In any case, that’s (to quote H. L. Mencken, I believe) a bunch of horseshit. If you really think no evidence offered from the opposing perspective is going to be accepted, you may as well not debate at all, since the same logic ought to apply to issues as it does to posters.
Look, I’m not saying that nobody should ever disagree with anyone who is arguing from their own viewpoint even if they’re making silly arguments. I often do just that (and probably more often people do that for/to me). I’m just saying that it’s only natural to deal with your opponents* first.
Call it inertia, if you like- we’re already going that way, why turn around? Or consider that SA says things that make us angry, and ask yourself who you’re more likely to engage- the guy who says something that makes your eyes roll, or the guy who says something that makes your blood boil?
Well, then you already answered your own question, to some extent.
I think a large part of it is also that Dio does not (always) blame everything on conservatives or conservative permissiveness (actually, I guess conservative authoritarianism would be the logical analogue).
So, where Starving Artist would have blame and condemnation for anything and everything on liberals, Dio would have blame and condemnation disappear into the ether, applied to nobody, for the most part. He is generally positive; SA is almost wholly negative as it relates to the here and now, pining away for a more genteel time that never really existed.
Well, fair enough, but you are in something of a minority among the minority here. Even Scylla usually shows up in SA-related threads (or SA-related-hijackings) to say something about how racism = disagreeing with liberals, or somesuch nonsense.
*debate opponents, not people actually across the line of battle or whatever. I mean, really, aren’t we all on the same side? Group hug?
You recall incorrectly. I am not a Republican. By most people’s standards I am quite centrist (although that was not always the case). However, I am still considered to be one of the board’s conservatives. I take people to task because when I object to the conventional wisdom I’m insulted, but when I do not I’m lauded for my “open-mindedness”.
In any event, that does not detract from the larger point: if you are either unable or unwilling to note and denounce a fallacious argument because it’s made by someone you are ideologically aligned with, how is it reasonable for the “opposition” to have any expectation that their argument will be met with anything but instantaneous rejection? But you would put the burden of convincing you on people whose evidence is rejected out of hand in favor of a flawed argument that you unabashedly admitted that you can’t be troubled to reject?
If a poster ignores cites from reputable sources because the facts contained therin do not align with their personal worldviews, then that particular poster has no place in Great Debates, no matter what their political allegiance.
For example, dismissing a statistical historical analysis of teen pregnancy based entirely on “I strongly suspect a great many girls get pregnant and no one ever knows about it or the information is confidential and protected.” This is ridiculous on its face. “no one ever knows about it?” It’s a rare pregnancy that goes completely undetected from start to finish. Usually when the baby comes out, people suspect. “information is confidential and protected”? Not from those collecting statistics. HIPPA protects individual identities, not the collection of anonymous statistical data. And all this presupposes that pregnancies were better reported in the past compared with today.
But if a poster simply refuses to engage in actual debate about factual points, and only talks about “I think” or “I feel” or “I know” or “I strongly suspect” ------ They need to go to MPSIMS. (not that there’s anything wrong with that) They should stay away from Great Debates.
Perhaps I don’t understand AD properly but he seems to be saying that the only people who can rebut faulty arguments are the people arguing from that side- in which case the only person who can establish the innocence of a defendant is the prosecutor.
Your evaluation is extremely skewed by your biases and partisanship. One poster presents material with reference to past education and training, in regard to current literature or publications, with recognition of new information and with a logical underpinning. The other posts strictly from gut impression relying almost exclusively on his own experiences alone, with interpretations that are completely at odds with any rational consideration of the issues. Furthermore, almost every issue is described by this poster through a single prism.
There’s no doubt that Diogenes is highly opinionated and often adamantine in the expression of those opinions. There’s equally no doubt that his beliefs and the material he presents here is far more likely to be derived from an empirical consideration of the matter than from a gut-based singly-minded worldview. If you honestly wanted to find a like for Starving Artist, kanicbird or that other hoo hoo out of body experience my blog is my cite guy would be a better match.
As another take on the matter, I can say that Diogenes seems to be an expert in the study of religion. Do you agree?
What do you think Starving Artist is expert in? I can’t say I honestly have seen any topic or subject matter that he has any particular grasp of common knowledge in, let alone expertise.
I’d rather have a frustratingly obdurate empiricist as a poster here than one who spouts ill-formed bizarre opinions. If you really think the comparison is a tough call, you’re simply an idiot.
Nice dodge, and especially ironic in the midst of a complaint about someone who you feel does not adequately consider other perspectives on the topic. I don’t recall that you ever answered how a voter ID would prevent the fraudulent submission by mail of an absentee ballot.
What I take from AD’s complaint is not that the only people that may rebut faulty argument are on the other side, but that the lack of willingness to rebut faulty argument from your own side is evidence of intellectual dishonesty – by implicitly accepting faulty argument when it favors you but rejecting it when it does not, you signal that what actually matters is the advancement of your position, regardless of the means used.
Yes, DtC brings a full and deep understanding of a number of different topics to the table, and his arguments often reflect that understanding. SA does not give the impression of technical expertise in any area that comes to mind.
Yes.
No. Here is where I part company with your analysis. I find that OFTEN, DtC’s posts result from a gut-based view. He is skilled at marshalling evidence to support his viewpoint, but not able to critically evaluate opposing posts and acknowledge where he’s wrong. I
Yes. I’ve studied the subject a bit myself, and I can say his knowledge is quite admirable and thorough. I’d put him in the top five posters on the board on the subject, knowledge-wise – maybe even the top two.
I’m not aware of any particular expertise of his, no.
The close call was not for which poster we’d rather have here, or which poster is overall more valuable. It was in response to yuor question about which poster values empiricism more:
Your question now seems to generalize that position to some overall expression of value or desirability as a debate participant. I certainly did NOT have DtC in mind when I said “there are at least two.” The only reason I mentioned him was this post by Princhester:
I responded:
(Emphasis added). Note that I was referring precisely to his “frustratingly obdurate” and “adamantine” qualities.
In the case I linked to, the absentee ballots were picked up in person, without the need to show ID. It was by this method that they were fraudulently obtained. Requiring ID for an in-person pickup of an absentee ballot would solve the issue.
Dude, i agree with much of your politics, and as an atheist i also nominally share some of your core views about religion.
I’m completely dismissive of religion as it pertains to my own life. I have no use for it, and am not willing to make concessions on that front. But just because i believe religion to be rather irrational, i don’t believe its adherents are all somehow delusional in a broader sense, or that the simple fact of being a believer automatically makes a person fundamentally untrustworthy in matters of logic and reason.
I make a distinction between religion, on the one hand, and people who are religious, on the other. You, as far as i can tell, make no such distinction. More problematically, you seem to extend this position to an assumption that any individual or social institution that is involved with religion should therefore be dismissed out of hand, rather than being willing to concede that even in its irrationality, religion can, and sometimes has been, a motivating force for good in the world.
I really didn’t mention you in order to begin a debate about this. In fact, i mentioned you to point out that you get piled on quite a bit around here as well. But your attitude to religion is one that not only brooks no argument, but is stubbornly and comprehensively dismissive, and that refuses to see any nuance or shades of grey in the issue. And i think that this sometimes leads you to argue dishonestly in debates where religion is a factor.
There are big differences between Starving Artist, Der Trihs and Diogenes, imho:
Diogenes debates and responds in a seemingly reasonable fashion, but sometimes (not always) stakes out a position and then gets into this mode where he is absolutely furiously unwilling to concede even a single inch of ground no matter how bizarre the position he originally staked out. A good example of this is last week’s thread about The Office, in which he claimed that there was no basis for Pam to be upset that her mother was dating Michael Scott, and that in fact Michael Scott treats women well. A position which, if you watch The Office, you will realize is just stunningly bizarre.
Der Trihs I believe honestly holds the positions he proclaims, and is willing to back them up with not-prima-facie-ridiculous evidence and arguments. It’s just that the positions he holds are incredibly extreme, and he is extraordinarily rude and dismissive in the way he presents them. He’s basically an asshole about a lot of topics; which doesn’t necessarily make him wrong but certainly makes him unpleasant to discuss them with, and also makes him unlikely to convince anyone of anything.
Starving Artist is frustrating because he writes long and seemingly thoughtful posts which seem like the jumping off point for interesting debates, and then the interesting debates never materialize. If he just groused short little grouses about “kids these days” or whatever, it would be easy to ignore him, except that he writes nice long posts with multiple paragraphs and basically coherently and politely states a position. “A-ha!”, one exclaims, “a coherently stated position in a long polite post, but one that I strongly disagree with. By gum, surely an interesting debate will ensue”. And then it doesn’t, and he plays the victim card and grouses about how he’s outnumbered and people are rude to him (both of which are certainly true to at least an extent), and how none of us liberals have ever before been confronted with the idea that liberalism might have a downside (which is clearly ridiculous), and then it all begins again and again and again.
And then there’s that douchebag maxthevool who feels justified in passing judgment on other board members. What a tool!