¡Religion: not completely evil, just as bad as Nazism!
You know who also though religion wasn’t completely evil?
So how do you judge the accuracy of a book? If you dismiss any that you don’t already agree with, if you always believe that your personal experience trumps the contents of any book, then yes, you don’t value book learning.
And I’m still curious how a list of population density statistics counts as “dishonest verbal sleight-of-hand”. Do tell.
In your own words…
You made absolutely no attempt to question the validity of his specific citation; you just threw out a generalized statement about books, because it didn’t reflect your experiences (actually, because it didn’t reflect your memory of your experiences.) As far as I’m concerned, that’s close enough to what Princhester accused you of for government work.
I frankly couldn’t give a shit what you say about the value of education, because you clearly don’t care much about it when people try to offer you some.
Indeed it is. It is as well as classic SA manuever, when you state an obvious truth as though it supported your argument, hence dignifying your argument. Which works so long as it does, in fact, have some bearing. But it doesn’t, because the book must first be judged as to its accuracy. You must first show good cause why the book offered as cite is erroneous and therefore deserving of the contempt you offer.
Even the sturdiest platitude can’t support an argument based firmly on conjecture and buttressed solely by suggestion.
An advanced degree in malignant harebrained cults?
I don’t reject it because it doesn’t sound convincing; I reject it because anyone with half a brain knows that what it purports can’t be true. And so far no one here has proven me wrong, despite the fact that I have lots of enemies in this thread who’d love to do so if they could.
You misunderstand. The point isn’t that it should be an excuse; the point is that you are cricizing me for what you regard as breach of board ettiquette, while saying not a word about the unscrupulous or downright dishonest behavior of some the other posters here. I think misstating another person’s words; engaging in dishonest attempts at character assassination; and lying are much worse offenses than what you perceive me to be doing. So it isn’t that “others do it too,” it’s that they do worse and you say nothing.
Actually it’s a thread intended to ostracize me from conversation until I show that I have ‘learned’ something from the board’s liberals.
I know that and that’s why I was as respectful to you in my last post as I was.
Oh, please. How many times around here have cites been scorned and blown off because they come from a well known conservative site such as Drudge or Fox or Limbaugh? It appears that your opinion of this board’s integrity is much higher than its behavior would justify.
I don’t remember. It was too far back and I didn’t look into it. I looked only at what he posted to prove that I objected to book learning. His cite proved nothing of the sort, as I knew it wouldn’t. Thus the point of the challenge and the point of his response had been met.
A little too far? A little too far? Maybe? He flat out lied! I never said I objected to book learning. End of story! The whole idea is stupid. And yet here you are again chastizing me and making excuses for him.
But ideology is everything around here. Nothing makes conservative posters look good. Sam Stone, Scylla, Bricker, Shodan…all of them get called stupid and ignorant and liars and the whole range of things I get called. It just isn’t as noticeable because they post less and in a more conciliatory way than I do. So I don’t waste a lot of time worrying about how I appear around here.
Sam is a conservative poster.
Thanks.
I never said his painting me as a racist when I wasn’t made me look good. Where do you get that from?
I debunked two in this very thread: the one about murder rates in non death penalty states vs. those with it; and Princhester’s allegation about my alleged stance on education (sorry, ‘book learning.’ I’m getting tired of saying that stupid phrase).
I’m having enough trouble just keeping up with this thread. If Princhester himself couldn’t come up with a more substantive cite than the one he did, I’m not gonna go look it up for him. Either you or he are welcome to do so, however. If either of you think you can come up with something I said that indicates I don’t value formal education or books, feel free to post it. If it backs you up, I’ll concede it.
When you talk about “criminal culture” as it applies to states like Vermont and Connecticut, are you referring to the bandits who plundered our economy and our Treasury? Or the scruffier sort of brigand who actually goes to jail? Tell me why a kid who sells crack on a streetcorner is more a member of the “criminal class” than the man who denies treatment to the sick because a spreadsheet said so?
As a general and fairly obvious rule, our financial institutions are run by the politically conservative, tres duh. How then is their criminality, their plundering greed, somehow the fault of “liberal permissiveness”? Are they the unwilling victims of the iron fist of “liberal permissiveness”? They didn’t want to do it, but we made them?
Well, that may be fine for you, but what are those of us with whole brains supposed to do? 
Are you still reading, Bricker?
Note to quixotic: please solve all other problems on the dope before you address any issues with SA. In fact, why would you bother with the dope when there are so many other problems in the world? Please fix Darfur and Trump’s hair. And then the dope. And then Starving Artist.
The statistical sources cited are fact, not political opinion. Unless you’re agreeing with Colbert that reality has a liberal bias, which frankly more and more that sound exactly, literally, what you are explicitly doing.
Are you honestly comparing Limbaugh to scientific research? Do you really, really not understand the difference between the way political opinionaters–such as yourself–and scientists achieve their conclusions? Do you really think that peer reviewed statistical research is exactly the same as Glen Beck’s show?
His cite proved that you have, indeed, explicitly objected to “book learning,” if we define that as information that one learns from secondary sources not of one’s own immediate experience; i.e., from books.
Right. You never said quote-unquote I object to book learning. That is true. Rather, you explicitly objected to book learning. See the difference?
None. Of those posters. NONE. Of them. Is more conciliatory than you. It’s just that, even though they are in the conservative minority, they respond to–and even sometimes employ–reason in their debates. Again, your own point here PROVES that this is not a political pitting: it is a pitting about your methodology, not your politics.
And . . .
Sigh. He never said you said it; the assumption is that you would raise such a point in self defense–i.e., in order to make yourself look better. It didn’t work.
You didn’t debunk it, you simply denied it, dismissed it, refused to recognize it. That’s not what “debunk” means. Look up the word. Hunnert bucks says it’s not defined as sticking your fingers in your ears and going, Nuh uh.
“Substantive”? Again, I don’t think that word means what you think it means. Hunnert bucks that substantive doesn’t mean “already something I agree with.”
I think you mean implictly.
Nope.
Two things: One, what inference do you think most people draw when someone is said to be ‘against book learning’? Would you think that it means they don’t think they can believe the statistics in a book about a certain subject, or do you think it brings to mind some 1880’s farmer threatening school officials with a shotgun when they say his kid has to go to school, with Lucas McCain or Paladin usually needed to step in and make him do the right thing? 
I think it’s pretty clear that most people think something along the lines of the latter, and that is what Princhester was trying to insinuate – that I was some close-minded provincial dumbass who didn’t see value in ‘book learnin,’ when the reality is that I didn’t see value in one particular book and in regard to one particular subject. So, he lied about what I said, and then he used that lie to try to portray me in such a way as to invite scorn and derision from the board’s other posters. So he was doubly dishonest in this regard and clearly showed his true colors (and colors I was aware of already). It’s one of the reasons for the animus between us. (Hey, I’m a poet!)
And two: how do I determine the value of a book or citation, and how does common sense come into play? Let’s say someone posts a cite from a book saying that teen pregnancy was actually higher in the fifties than it is now. Immediately this is suspect because I know that society is much freer now in terms of things that, for want of a better term, sexualize kids. They talk about sex in school in sexually integrated classrooms. Music is full of references to fucking and sucking dick (generally this would be rap, of course). Cable television and movies are full of sexual images and activity, some of explicit on cable. And society as a whole is much more forgiving of youthful sexual activity, with the liberal contingent virtually promoting it. So I don’t think any reasonable person would deny that kids are being sexually stimulated at a rate that far exceeds anything that was around in the fifties, and that they are therefore having sex at a rate that far exceeds that of the fifties. So one would naturally expect that there would be more teen pregnancy.
But wait. Birth control and abortion are available now. Doesn’t that, in conjunction with sex education, lead one to believe that even if kids are having sex more readily and more often than they did in the fifties, there are still fewer pregnancies?
The answer is: not necessarily. For one thing, a pregnancy terminated by abortion doesn’t mean that a pregnancy didn’t occur. So you can toss that out of the equation. Also, many people got married at the age of 17 or 18 in the fifties. It was so common to get married at that age that no one thought anything about it. So what about those pregnancies? Are they counted in teen pregnancy statistics, or are single girls the only ones that count. And then what about the one who get pregnant, get counted and then get married and have their child. Do they get counted?
So then we have questions about the true pregnancy rate in the fifties that I don’t think can be accurately answered. The one thing that is sure is that there was far less in the way of overt sexual stimuli confronted those kids, and that society (and parents) frowned pretty damn strongly on teens having sex, and even moreso on pregnancy.
So I don’t think that any reasonable person would deny that kids in the fifties were having sex in anything like the numbers they are today.
That leaves only birth control to offset pregnancy rates now vs. the fifties in kids who are currently having sex in greater numbers and most likely at an earlier age, and given the high number of teen abortions every year, and the high number of teen births every year, it doesn’t look like the availablity of birth control is having a very significant effect, although we wouldn’t know for sure unless we stopped making birth control available and looked at the pregnancy rate then. (I’d wager that it would run 70 to 80%, but I digress.)
And then we have to look at the statistics gathering methods of the fifties and compare them with the statistics gathering methods of today and figure out a way to compare them accurately, and we have to consider that kids in the fifties would be far more secretive than they are today and we have to figure out how that impacts on those statistics gathering methods. Many kids were getting abortions those days that nobody knew anything about, and they weren’t reported. So this confounds efforts to complile accurate statistics.
And then we have a Supreme Court decision that invented a right to privacy that didn’t exist then. Kids these days can get abortions without even their parents’ knowledge. And we have the recent HIPAA law that goes to extremes to keep medical and patient information confidential.
So in the face of all that, how can anyone, right or left, claim that they have uncovered all the conclusive information necessary to determine teen pregnancy rates then and now, and to draw factual conclusions from them?
I submit that they can’t.
Therefore, if someone cites information in some book that claims to know the answers to these questions, I’m skeptical to the point of disbelief. And so I will be very much inclined not to waste my time reading it. There have been times however, when I feel that to give my opponent a fair shake, I will express these reservations and ask if they can show how the questions I have are taken into account, adjusted for and answered, and to date I’ve gotten not. one. single. response.
So you see, a lot more goes into these decisions of mine than simply blowing off something because it doesn’t agree with my preconceived notions. Prove to me that your site is correct and accurate and I’ll pay attention to it. This is what I meant when I said to Princhester in the quoted post: “…so a book has to have some pretty heavyweight credentials before I accept unquestioningly whatever it has to say.” You’ll note that I didn’t say I would refuse it no matter what, I merely said that it has to be pretty heavily qualified before I would be able to believe it.
So in other words, I use critical thinking to determine whether or not a cite is likely to be valid, and is something is supposed to be not only appreciated but expected around here. So which of us is living up more to the board’s standards? Me, who uses critical thinking to determine whether a cite is likey valid; or my opponents, who expect me to accept unquestioningly their version of the truth even though they can’t show me how the questions I have with regard to its veracity have been accounted for and answered?
I don’t really have the time to get into a point-by-point retort/re-retort/etc. ad nauseum with you, Starving Artist. So I leave you with a little thought-exercise that may illustrate why I have a problem with the way you judge the validity of evidence presented.
You’ve stated more than once in this thread that, in contrast to the situation today, there were NO schools in this country in the 1950s with a 1 in 8 pregnancy rate. You just KNOW it. You lived through it (although you’d be very young in the 50s, so I’m not sure how you’re quite so certain, but that’s neither here no there). We have to take it from you – no schools in the 50s with a 1 in 8 pregnancy rate.
Now suppose someone comes in and says, “Actually, my school in Knoxville, TN in 1952 – while small – had about a 1 in 6 pregnancy rate.” What would you do?
Someone like me, I’d say, “Eh, maybe you’re right, maybe you’re exaggerating, maybe you’re misremembering, maybe you’re even lying… but it doesn’t matter, because the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not data. You cannot prove any, any sort of trend based on a single data point. Your school might have been the anomaly to end all anomalies. In other words, the girls must have been really loose in your school, but so fucking what?”
But you, you’ve already established that personal experience/recollection is good enough to be an arbiter of truth. You say no schools were so licentious in the 1950s, but there IS an example of one in Chicago now, ergo society is too sexually liberal today, QED. But here’s Knoxville-Man contradicting you. What do you do? You can’t take my stance, because if Knoxville-Man might be exaggerating/misremembering/lying, then you’re opening up yourself to similar charges, and the ball game is over; you’ve lost. And you can’t dismiss his experience as just one story the way I can, because you’ve only got one story of your own.
That’s why I can’t take your personal life experience as evidence. That’s why when you butt heads with, say, a well-referenced study in a peer-reviewed journal article or book, I can’t take your side just because you say the book is “obviously bullshit.” Your word alone isn’t enough.
Have a good weekend!
Missed the edit window to add a response to your most recent post: SA, all the questions you raise about, in this case, teen pregnancy are indeed examples of critical thinking… but you’re making the assumption that none of the questions were addressed by the cite or that they even COULD be addressed by the cite, so you reject the cite. But if you don’t read the cite, how do you know what they did or did not account for? Perhaps the answers to these questions aren’t as elusive as you seem to think they are. (Small case-in-point, twice you’ve cited HIPAA as making the issue of gathering reliable numbers nigh-impossible, but it has already been pointed out to you that HIPAA only obscures personally identifiable information, not aggregate statistics. Perhaps, maybe – just maybe – you’re not the expert on this issue that you seem to think you are?)
Anyone with half a brain can see that the world is flat. Unfortunately, they never get any further than that because they only have half a brain. All they can do is throw rocks at know-it-alls who tell them something that’s so obviously bullshit.
“Pretty heavily qualified” = “agrees with **SA’s **position”
This is critical thinking like heroin is nutritious.
Classic, just classic. Why do you assume that the scientists making the study didn’t take into account the very things you bring up? Well, the factual things, not the opinion things; the factors that would skew data. Why do you presume to be more knowledgeable about the gathering of historical medical data than someone who is dedicating vastly more effort and energy to it, and also having it reviewed by peers? You’re just having thought experiences inside your own skull; they’re actually gathering the data.
In the second place, this bizarre rightwing fantasy that sex is somehow created by culture continues to astound and amuse me. Do you really think people didn’t know how to have sex before MTV came along? If have the things you believed were actually true, this species would’ve died out millions of years ago. Puberty causes sex, not the Rap music.
And your insistence, when someone offers a legitimate accredited cite, all you have to say is “prove each individual point in the entire document beyond my power of skepticism, or else I shall dub thee REFUTED!” is even more amusing. That’s not how it works. Your personal doubt–usually due, all due respect, to ignorance of the subject under discussion, and conclusions drawn from limited information–your personal doubt is not refutation of peer reviewed, researched and reported fact. It’s just not. You think you’re saying “It’s not true.” All you’re actually saying is “I don’t want it to be true.” You MUST understand that those are two different things.
All of us draw incorrect conclusions sometimes. A person who continues to engage with the world around him, continues to learn, is capable of reconsidering those conclusions when faced with evidence that doesn’t support them. Otherwise, you stop engaging. You shut down, and have nothing more to give to or receive from the world around you.
Bolding mine.
The following post was made less than six months ago:
And you wonder why people are skeptical about accepting your recollections as representative of what was going on half a century ago.
A blown off cite is a blown off site. I’ve seen perfectly valid cites scorned and blown off around here for no reason other than that they came from or were linked to by Drudge, Fox, or in one case, even Charles Krauthammer.
I learn a great deal from books. Next to my bed right now are six books and approximately a dozen magazines. The fact that I may not take seriously some book you cite does not mean I don’t read books.
Indeed it is. Therefore Princhester was lying when he said I did.
I think you meant “implicitly.” That’s what I’m going with anyway.
I declined to accept as truth information from A book. Not the same thing at all.
Hardly. Similar methodology comeing from lefties would raise not a peep. The reason my methodology is found so annoying around here is precisely because of my politics. Similarly, I have no doubt that I could go to virtually any right-wing site anywhre and say exactly the same things there and the backslapping would be nonstop.
I’ll say the same thing to you that I did to mhendo (and I truly apologize for grouping you with him): Are you fucking nuts? 
I defend myself from someone who dishonestly calls me a racist (and I think that was you, btw), and this is an attempt to make myself look good???
Well, I suppose in a way it is. Kind of like the guy who says no when asked if he ever beats his wife is trying to make himself look good.
Look. I debunked Princhester’s cite, as you’ve already admitted to. And I showed that the reason that sparsely populated white-bread states in the far northeast have lower murder rates that states like California, et. al is not because they don’t have the death penalty. I don’t think any reasonable person would look at California, Texas, Florida, Louisiana, etc., and think no more impetus for crime exists there, on a per capita basis, than there is in frickin’ Vermont. So in a sense I suppose you could say the site was self-debunking, but it still took me to point it out.
So out of my 8,200 posts you found one other incident six months ago where I called someone a troll, and that means my recall on everything is shot?
I don’t think so. I don’t permanently remember every word I say here.
And besides, I meant to go back on edit and put an “IIRC” before that line because I knew someone like you would try to trip me up.
I really did.
And remember, Starvey don’t lie. 
Having said that, I’m done with this thread for now. I got other forums to visit, emails to send, and a program coming up on TV in ten minutes.
Chow!
Wait for it…wait for it…five, four, three…