Make Toddlers Cry - It's OK, Since It's For the Anti-Bush Cause!

[MaxTheVool]

@Shodan

You wrote post 434. I did not.

Well, duh.

let’s take all the relevant posts, put them in line, and see who’s being dishonest:
Post 432, by ME:
What is certainly NOT true is Shodan’s repeated implication that there is a cabal of “usual suspects” making up some large (although he never specifies HOW large, nor does he usually name names) proportion of the liberal posters of the SDMB who will constantly and reflexively allow their politics to influence their ethical judgments about any issue large or small.

Post 434, by YOU, quotes post 432 and says:
Of course it’s true, as witnessed by this thread and your own post.

Post 441, by ME, quotes 434 and says:
How does my post indicate that I “constantly and reflexively allow my politics to influence my ethical judgments about any issue large or small”? How does this thread indicate this about any significant number of people, and who, specifically, are they?

Post 447, by YOU, quotes 441 and says:
The part in quote marks is something that you manufactured and are apparently trying to attribute to me. You are, in other words, misquoting me, possibly inadvertently, but possibly not.

So, I say “X is not true”
You say, “actually, it IS true”
I say, “Show how ‘X’ applies to me”
You say, “X is something you manufactured and are apparently trying to attribute to me”.
I never tried to attribute it to you. I was the person who originally wrote the phrase “constantly and reflexively allowing (one’s) politics to influence (one’s) ethical judgment about any issue large and small”. I have never claimed otherwise. At no point did I edit a quote header or remove levels of quoting or anything of that sort to imply that you originally typed that phrase. Heck, I’m PROUD of that turn of phrase, as it’s a fairly pithy summation of what Usual Suspects are accused of. But YOU are the one who claimed that this phrase accurately describes many SDMB liberals, including me. You did it in post 434. Then, when I questioned this claim, you suddenly started accusing me of dishonesty, as if I were trying to deceive people into thinking that, instead of claiming X was true, you had first written X and THEN claimed X was true. As if there would be any point to doing so.

I guess the misattribution was deliberate after all.

So you’re not only accusing me of being an idiot, but of being a deliberately deceiptful idiot. Interesting how Bricker and Sarahfeena were both happy to respond to me in a respectful and civilized fashion, while you accused me of lying and called me “pathetic”, a “fucking moron”, and deliberately dishonest. I wonder what that says, and about who?

Gosharoonies, a left-winger being deliberately dishonest in a effort to derail a Pitting of someone being anti-Bush. Who would ever have predicted it?

You got me. I joined this thread on page 9 and started deliberately misattributing quotes in an attempt to derail the discussion. It was a crafty master plan, if only you hadn’t seen through it!

It is an important word. It is also a word that you made up and attributed to my posts.

Note how you go on and on about the supposed misattribution without actually attempting to address the substance of my argument. Even if I had deliberately dishonestly misattributed things, you would still be wrong here.

Two things I’ve pointed out before, and which bear repeating -[ul][li]It is too easy debating knee-jerk liberals. No matter how outrageous the claim, some idiot will show up pretty shortly and demonstrate that it is perfectly valid. [/li][/ul]

So if you start a debate, and get one idiotic response, then you win the debate, regardless of how many non-idiotic responses you get? Wow… I think I’ll go over to some conservative-dominated message board and win 150,000 debates in a row. Seems easy and fun. Now how can I make it lead to profit?

Every time you condemn the Usual Suspects as fools and liars, some idiot shows up and acts huffy because you didn’t include him. And does everything in his power to show that he richly deserves inclusion in the Shit Head Hall of Fame. Congratulations on your membership.

So, the Baseball hall of fame is in Cooperstown, the Football hall of fame is in Canton, and the Shit Head Hall of Fame is, as far as I can tell, located entirely within a fantasy world in your brain? Perhaps the same fantasy world in which the insurgency is in its last throes, the “death tax” is an issue for small family farms, and distributing condoms actually encourages teens to have sex?

[Sarahfeena]

@MaxTheVool

So, the Baseball hall of fame is in Cooperstown, the Football hall of fame is in Canton, and the Shit Head Hall of Fame is, as far as I can tell, located entirely within a fantasy world in your brain? Perhaps the same fantasy world in which the insurgency is in its last throes, the “death tax” is an issue for small family farms, and distributing condoms actually encourages teens to have sex?

Dang, MaxTheVool, I hate to do this, since you called me “respectful and civilized” in this post (and thanks, BTW! ), but this is exactly the kind of thing that tends to bug. You are trying to make a point to Shodan, and you use these 3 examples as areas where conservatives live in “fantasyland.” I see this kind of thing is a cheap shot at conservativism in general, NOT just a shot at Shodan, and it is sneaked into a post where you can’t really take on a debate about it, because it would derail the thread in 3 different directions.

Mind you, I think it’s an equally cheap shot when conservatives do this kind of thing. There are people around here I expect that kind of thing from, unfortunately on both sides, but I would not expect it of you.

[dropzone]

I know I’m just a wooly-headed liberal but I have the silly idea that ones politics should be defined by his ethical judgment. Should I be thinking politics is a game and my ethics should have nothing to do with it?

[Sarahfeena]

Who is saying that?

[Bricker]

@dropzone

I know I’m just a wooly-headed liberal but I have the silly idea that ones politics should be defined by his ethical judgment. Should I be thinking politics is a game and my ethics should have nothing to do with it?

Of course your ethics should play a role in your politics.

But it’s simply not true that people that reach alternate political conclusions are working from opposite ethical suppositions.

You may say, for example, “I support an increase in the minimum wage, because of my ethical position that people need and deserve a minimum level of support.”

I might say, “I do not support a minimum wage, although I agree that people need and deserve a minimum level of support, because I do not believe that forcing business owners to provide that for their employees is wise.”

If you conclude that my opposition to minimum wage increases means that I don’t share similar ethical concerns with you, you’d be wrong. It’s just that I have a different idea of how to bring them about.

[Sarahfeena]

@Bricker

Of course your ethics should play a role in your politics.

But it’s simply not true that people that reach alternate political conclusions are working from opposite ethical suppositions.

You may say, for example, “I support an increase in the minimum wage, because of my ethical position that people need and deserve a minimum level of support.”

I might say, “I do not support a minimum wage, although I agree that people need and deserve a minimum level of support, because I do not believe that forcing business owners to provide that for their employees is wise.”

If you conclude that my opposition to minimum wage increases means that I don’t share similar ethical concerns with you, you’d be wrong. It’s just that I have a different idea of how to bring them about.

That’s exactly right. The biggest problem in politics today is not that people are coming from different ethical positions, it’s that they have different ideas of how to reach the same goals. Personally, I believe that economic conservativism is the best way to create a reasonable standard of living for the largest number of people. How is this some kind of ethical lapse on my part? How is that different from the ethical stance that any economic liberal would take? You may be able to argue that I am WRONG about my assumption, but I don’t think you could say that it comes from an unethical framework.

[MaxTheVool]

@Sarahfeena

Dang, MaxTheVool, I hate to do this, since you called me “respectful and civilized” in this post (and thanks, BTW! ), but this is exactly the kind of thing that tends to bug. You are trying to make a point to Shodan, and you use these 3 examples as areas where conservatives live in “fantasyland.” I see this kind of thing is a cheap shot at conservativism in general, NOT just a shot at Shodan, and it is sneaked into a post where you can’t really take on a debate about it, because it would derail the thread in 3 different directions.

Mind you, I think it’s an equally cheap shot when conservatives do this kind of thing. There are people around here I expect that kind of thing from, unfortunately on both sides, but I would not expect it of you.

A fair point, and I apologize. Although, in my defense, I was responding to somone who had just accused me of being a deliberately dishonest pathetic fucking moron, so I might not have been at my most fair-minded.

[tomndebb]

you use these 3 examples as areas where conservatives live in “fantasyland.” I see this kind of thing is a cheap shot at conservativism in general, NOT just a shot at Shodan

I dunno. These don’t look to me to be “conservative” views. Two look more like the views of the loony Right.

One can argue the necessity and viability of the current course in Iraq without resorting to claims that the insurgency (which has resulted in increasing deaths in each of the previous months and which a U.S. general, today, publicly worries about the possibility of open civil war), is, somehow, in its death throes.

One can argue that the inheritance tax is either inherently unfair or that it needs to be revamped to some extent without changing the name to “death tax” and deliberately lying that it presents a serious danger to any family farm in which the family bothered to employ an accountant on at least one occasion.

The condom issue is more likely a genuine debateable point.

[Sarahfeena]

@MaxTheVool

A fair point, and I apologize. Although, in my defense, I was responding to somone who had just accused me of being a deliberately dishonest pathetic fucking moron, so I might not have been at my most fair-minded.

I completely understand, and I am not trying to give you a hard time…it was just so convenient to have that nice example pop up! No apology necessary.

[tomndebb]

(I also have no idea where Shodan actually stands on those issues. But as an attack on a hypothetical “fantasyland,” I think they work, even if Max is willing to back off the statement for the sake of civility.)

[Sarahfeena]

@tomndebb

I dunno. These don’t look to me to be “conservative” views. Two look more like the views of the loony Right.

One can argue the necessity and viability of the current course in Iraq without resorting to claims that the insurgency (which has resulted in increasing deaths in each of the previous months and which a U.S. general, today, publicly worries about the possibility of open civil war), is, somehow, in its death throes.

In this area, I am out of my ken, so I will stay away from it.

One can argue that the inheritance tax is either inherently unfair or that it needs to be revamped to some extent without changing the name to “death tax” and deliberately lying that it presents a serious danger to any family farm in which the family bothered to employ an accountant on at least one occasion.

I think that stating that the debate against the inheritance tax as only being about people losing the family farm is a disingenuous way to characterize it.

[Guinastasia]

@Shodan

You want to pretend that Guinastasia didn’t dismiss the OP because it wasn’t anti-Bush? She did.

Like fuck I did. It’s interesting how you manage to somehow know my intent without me knowing it myself.

:rolleyes:

[Bricker]

@Sarahfeena

That’s exactly right. The biggest problem in politics today is not that people are coming from different ethical positions, it’s that they have different ideas of how to reach the same goals. Personally, I believe that economic conservativism is the best way to create a reasonable standard of living for the largest number of people. How is this some kind of ethical lapse on my part? How is that different from the ethical stance that any economic liberal would take? You may be able to argue that I am WRONG about my assumption, but I don’t think you could say that it comes from an unethical framework.

Then there are the positions which do indeed arise from divergent ethical assumptioons, but which (hopefully) we can agree that reasonable people can disagree without being considered unethical.

Abortion comes to mind. I am convinced that an unborn baby is a human being, and that because of this, the best, most ethical course our society should take is to provide legal protection for that unborn child.

But I recognize that not everyone shares my view. Others believe that the fetus is simply a mass of tissue, either througout the pregnancy, or until some time during the pregnancy. Reasoning from that, they conclude that abortion should be permissible either throughout the pregnancy or until certain stages of the pregnancy.

While I work to convince them otherwise, I don’t call them evil, dishonest, or unethical.

[Guinastasia]

@mhendo

There have been threads started on these Boards to the tune of “Look at this [insert bad thing here]. I’m waiting for all [liberals or conservatives] to condemn this action.” I’ve always thought such threads were pretty pointless, whether they come from the left or right; the OP for this thread seemed to be of the same genre, and now you’re making a similar argument. It’s all rather silly.

Agreed. That’s why I dismissed the incident in Bricker’s OP because I’m tired of this game-“If you don’t condemn this, you’re a lockstep, unthinking liberal who automatically cheers for all things anti-Bush blah blah blah.” I’m not going to even bother responding to it anymore.

[dropzone]

@Sarahfeena

Who is saying that?

Someone on your “ignore” list!

@Bricker

If you conclude that my opposition to minimum wage increases means that I don’t share similar ethical concerns with you, you’d be wrong. It’s just that I have a different idea of how to bring them about.

Not really, and not JUST because of my earlier statement that I’m usually right. The goal is not the only thing that is influenced by ones ethics; the path is, too. Both of us would agree that the Soviet path to minimal support, via confiscation at bayonet point, was not one we could ethically support. We might even agree that it is our ethical duty to each do what he can to bring about a world in which all are provided. Where we begin to diverge is where I recognize that I and others are not really likely to follow our better angels and that the state sometimes needs to step in and make sure we each donate our fair share, whether through direct or indirect taxation, like a minimum wage. OTOH, you might point to my being on a slippery slope heading to the Soviet model . I then accuse you of Godwinoffing the discussion and we start calling each other names and others join in and soon the thread is ten pages long and I’ve completely lost track of what I wanted to say but I’m pretty sure that I’m right and you are a fascist blockhead who stir-fries kittens.

BTW, and to continue being inconsistent, I was involved in politics long enough that there’s a part of me slaps the sanctimonious part and says, “OF COURSE politics is a game, you moron!”

[Jackmannii]

@Bricker

Abortion comes to mind. I am convinced that an unborn baby is a human being, and that because of this, the best, most ethical course our society should take is to provide legal protection for that unborn child.

But I recognize that not everyone shares my view…Others believe that the fetus is simply a mass of tissue…, either througout the pregnancy, or until some time during the pregnancy. Reasoning from that, they conclude that abortion should be permissible either throughout the pregnancy or until certain stages of the pregnancy.

While I work to convince them otherwise, I don’t call them evil, dishonest, or unethical.

Nope, of course not. You cast yourself in a noble light while mischaracterizing your opponents’ views, using a cavalier and objectionable phrase ("the fetus is simply a mass of tissue ") that virtually no abortion rights advocates would accept as summarizing their position.

If you hope to convince people that you’re debating honestly and not goading/trolling to get a reaction, you need to change your ways.

[MaxTheVool]

@Sarahfeena

I think that stating that the debate against the inheritance tax as only being about people losing the family farm is a disingenuous way to characterize it.

Right. I think.

Those who argue about the the “death tax” AS IF it were all about family farms and apple pie ARE being dishonest and disingenuous. Someone who believes that family farms are all that that debate is about is a loony rightwing Rush-worshipping idiot. So I was insulting Shodan by implying that he was such a person, without necessarily casting aspersions on other conservatives who might oppose the estate tax, while honestly admitting that the main impact it will have is on wealthy non-family-farm-owners.
There’s a distinction between (to flip it around and assume we were insulting a liberal) saying “…your fantasy world where Bush drinks blood from the skulls of innocent Iraqi babies…” and “…your fantasy world where Bush has made primarily bad decisions during the Iraq war…”. The first is an insult claiming that specific person is a liberal idiot. The second is an insult claiming that ALL liberals (or at least all who disagree with Bush’s handling of the war) live in a fantasy land, ie, are idiots.

[MaxTheVool]

@Jackmannii

Nope, of course not. You cast yourself in a noble light while mischaracterizing your opponents’ views, using a cavalier and objectionable phrase ("the fetus is simply a mass of tissue ") that virtually no abortion rights advocates would accept as summarizing their position.

If you hope to convince people that you’re debating honestly and not goading/trolling to get a reaction, you need to change your ways.

Meh… I see where you’re coming from, and I agree that such a characterization is not precisely accurate or fair. But I think that to leap from there to goading/trolling is unjustified. Casting an opposing position in as harsh and unflattering a light as possible is a time-honored debating tradition. Furthermore, if Bricker is honestly convinced that a fetus is a full and complete human being, with all the rights attendant therein, a soul, etc., then any lesser belief is certainly going to seem a lot like “a mass of tissue” to him.

[Sarahfeena]

@dropzone

Someone on your “ignore” list!

I don’t have an ignore list! I just didn’t get who was questioning your politics were not defined by your ethical judgments.

Not really, and not JUST because of my earlier statement that I’m usually right. The goal is not the only thing that is influenced by ones ethics; the path is, too. Both of us would agree that the Soviet path to minimal support, via confiscation at bayonet point, was not one we could ethically support. We might even agree that it is our ethical duty to each do what he can to bring about a world in which all are provided. Where we begin to diverge is where I recognize that I and others are not really likely to follow our better angels and that the state sometimes needs to step in and make sure we each donate our fair share, whether through direct or indirect taxation, like a minimum wage. OTOH, you might point to my being on a slippery slope heading to the Soviet model . I then accuse you of Godwinoffing the discussion and we start calling each other names and others join in and soon the thread is ten pages long and I’ve completely lost track of what I wanted to say but I’m pretty sure that I’m right and you are a fascist blockhead who stir-fries kittens.

I would not disagree that there are clearly ethical paths and non-ethical paths. What I dispute is the idea that conservatives start from an unethical premise, and deliberatly choose a path reach an unethical goal.

BTW, and to continue being inconsistent, I was involved in politics long enough that there’s a part of me slaps the sanctimonious part and says, “OF COURSE politics is a game, you moron!”

I must admit I have those moments myself.

[Jackmannii]

@MaxTheVool

Meh… I see where you’re coming from, and I agree that such a characterization is not precisely accurate or fair. But I think that to leap from there to goading/trolling is unjustified. Casting an opposing position in as harsh and unflattering a light as possible is a time-honored debating tradition. Furthermore, if Bricker is honestly convinced that a fetus is a full and complete human being, with all the rights attendant therein, a soul, etc., then any lesser belief is certainly going to seem a lot like “a mass of tissue” to him.

I’ll have to disagree with you. If one wants reasoned and rational debate, one does not cast an opposing position “in as harsh and unflattering a light as possible” - especially if one has (like Bricker) elevated oneself to a pedestal based on purported honorable intentions, and stated an intent not to stoop to tactics which are seen as dastardly when employed by opponents.