lissener, despite your practice in this thread of asking me things and then not responding when I answer, I will get back to your post shortly.
Are you fucking nuts? I said that there were no schools in the '50s that had a one-in-eight pregnancy rate, and that 1950s era teen females did not have 25% STD rates. Period. That’s all I said. And both are correct.
But apart from that, is it your contention that there is nothing to be derived about today’s society from these figures?
As someone once said:
Unless you can show that statement is wrong, I see no problem with it.
I’m not claiming I’m never wrong; I’m just saying that I’ve yet to see a cite that pertains to an instance where I am.
And that would be because I rarely get involved in threads where I don’t know what I’m talking about.
This might be true. It might not be true (i’m certainly not going to take your word for it).
But, whether it’s true or not, the Robeson case of 2009 does not tell us anything about the 1950s. You said that it proves that things like this were not happening in the fifties. It does not. You lie.
Proving nothing. Just disproving your argument as it was presented, and providing a data point that your statements of fact are not always correct.
“Sleight-of-hand”? I posted the names of cities and states along with their population densities; how is that even remotely sleight-of-hand? I just can’t think of a more straightforward way to post than that.
I love it. You don’t get into a thread unless you think you know what you’re talking about, therefore any cite to the contrary you might see in said thread can never prove you wrong.
Which means, of course, that you do get involved in threads where you don’t know what you’re talking about. Albeit “rarely”. Regardless, on those occasions when you were talking out of your ass, you never encountered any citation that exposed your cupidity. This, on a board where citation is the weapon of choice.
Extraordinary.
See? It’s foolproof!
Give him a break. His boast is his right!
I think we’ve lost him; he just started a Roman Polanski thread.
What an odd thread. I’ve debated with Starving Artist once about something or other, I don’t really remember what the subject was. We went back and forth, neither of us convinced the other of anything. You know, typical Straight Dope stuff.
So I went into this thread with sort of an, “Eh, SA’s all right. Nothing exceptional, really. He’s a conservative, so he probably gets a disproportionate amount of crap, and that’s probably what this thread is.”
Man, am I glad I stayed until the end!
Starving Artist, friend, you just DON’T get to say stuff like:
That’s not how this wonderful Western world of ours works! Blame the Greeks if you want, but in factual matters, “Naw, I saw such and such once time” does not get to trump a study by social scientists, probably with a great many degrees, who have spent far, far more time on a given subject than you have. If you want to remain unconvinced because you feel a study is biased or whatever or just couldn’t possibly be right, so be it. That’s your prerogative. But at least do yourself a favor and just jump ship on the thread, because otherwise you just look foolish.
(I know, I know, I’m just part of the liberal conspiracy. Ah well.)
You’ll notice I didn’t title the thread “Noted Hollywood leftie, Gore Vidal…etc.”
And I could have.
I am a normal bitch, not an ass bitch.
Are you actually contending that you don’t do that?
With Beetlejuice, gotta say it three times. With Scylla, once will do.
You don’t understand. I didn’t say I never look at cites; just the ones I know to begin with have to be faulty.
And I can’t tell you how many times around here my own cites, perfectly valid and incontestable, get completely and utterly ignored. You can tell they are beyond reproach because of this. If there is any way in the world to spin them otherwise, that will happen, as this thread shows better than I myself could ever explain.
The difference between me and the ignorers is that I have the gall to admit it. And when asked, I explain the reason why. I’m honest.
Now take a look at this thread. Look at the things I’ve said and look at the responses. I’ve laid poor education; drugs and misery; multiple-conviction convicts; roaming the streets; the breakdown of the family; and all their concurrent death and misery at the feet of liberalism. And the response from the honest and above board lefties here in this “wonderful Western world of ours”? That I’m old. That I want a return to the fifties. That I’m a racist. And I’m laughed at for, of all things, valuing politeness and civility.
And then there are the outright lies told about me. Princhester says I’m against book learning when what I clearly said in the cite he provided when I challenged him was that a book is only as good as the information in it. So he lied and used that lie to try to portray me in a way that was also dishonest. lissener calls me a racist. Etc., etc. But has anyone on this high-minded board, where cites and truth are alleged to be so highly valued, said one single word in condemnation of all that? Have you? No.
This thread has consisted of almost nothing from the other side but character assassination, misdirection, lies and distortions aimed at me or said about me, and you deign to chastise me for having the gall to admit that I let obviously bullshit or impossible-to-prove-cites go by unread?
I don’t think I’m the one flying in the face of the ‘wonderful western world’ or what the Greeks truly valued, my friend.
Scylla hardly ever shows up in threads I’m involved in, and if he does it’s usually because he’s having a separate conversation with someone else.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but the board’s conservatives don’t feel the need to take up for each other and/or pile on to people the way the board’s lefties do.
This is because we believe in self-reliance and pulling our own weight.
(And also because we also don’t necessarily agree even with each other. ;))
I had to re-read my post to be sure, but I didn’t say you don’t look at cites either. I just said that you don’t get to disregard cites just because you know they’re wrong. Well, let me be more specific – you can do whatever the hell you want, but certain activities won’t reflect very well on you. If you can prove a cite is wrong, that’s awesome and you should do that. But rejecting a cite just because it doesn’t sound right to you? Come on, you have to realize that’s not very convincing.
And apparently you’re ~60 years old, so you know that “But others do it too!” doesn’t hold any water. Besides, this is a thread about your malfeasance. If you want to start one about how poorly you’re mistreated, I might put in an appearance, because you’re right, you do generally get more shit than others on this board. But that doesn’t make your behavior exemplary.
Dude, I’m trying to be sympathetic to you, but he schooled you in that exchange. He gave you a cite and you rejected it… why? Because the author had a well-known bias? Because the author had done a poor statistical analysis? Because the author got his degree from West Compton State, and said degree was in Sciencology? No, you rejected the cite because it disagreed with your pre-conceived notion. That shit don’t fly.
To put it another way, sure, obviously, a book is only as good as the information in it. What specifically gave you cause to question said book? If it was anything other than, “That can’t possibly be right!” then I missed it.
He might have gone a little too far to use that example as proof of you being anti-learning. Maybe. But still, if you’re willing to be even a little self-introspective, you’ll admit that exchange did not make you look good, ideology be damned.
Sam Stone did, and he was probably right to do so. You might be a racist; I don’t know, but lissener made a giant leap in logic to go from “Starving Artist likes the 50s!” to “Starving Artist is implicitly a racist.” Consider him chastised by me, if that makes you feel better. But again, that doesn’t make you look any better; it just makes him look worse.
It’s the word “obviously” that I, and I suspect most people, have a problem with. I haven’t seen you take down or debunk any cites. I’ve instead seen you disagree with a cite and call it a debunking because it’s “obviously bullshit.” It’s really annoying, and I know that you know it’s annoying, because you’ve accused others of doing the same thing! Take a deep breath, try to re-read Princhester’s linked post (by you) with as open a mind as you can, and see if you can maybe grasp why you’re being pitted.
Or don’t. It’s Friday night. Go have a beer or something.
Might be that we didn’t condemn him because he was telling the truth, as the link he provided immediately after you accused him of lying demonstrated quite nicely.
I am beginning to suspect trolling. If anyone doesn’t believe me, take note of how often I accuse someone of it. This will be the first time.
Princhester made a bold statement to the effect that I don’t value ‘book learning.’ The cite he provided clearly showed that I said a book is only as good as the accuracy of its information. This is an incontrovertible truth and obvious to anyone with half a brain. For you to claim that he proved with that cite that I am ‘against book learning’ is utterly, utterly specious – especially in light of what I’ve said around here time and again about the value of education and how liberals have fucked it up. And I know that you’re not that stupid. That leaves trolling. And trolling leaves you not worthy of further discussion.