Well, quite the little hornet’s nest I stirred up here.
First, lay off on the accusations of self-pity, nailing myself to the cross, etc. You misunderstand me if you think I’m sitting around whining about the unfairness of it all. My attitude comes from exactly one thing: An unwillingness to let assholes employ thuggish behaviour to squelch opposing viewpoints. I never tolerated bullies on the schoolground, and I’m sure as hell not going to tolerate them here. So people like ElvisL1ves, rjung, and others like them can line up and kiss my libertarian ass. You need to learn that just because you think you are correct, or even if you think the other person is ‘stupid’, you do not have the right to demean, mock, or otherwise abuse them.
Second, I’m fully aware that there were people on both sides in most of the threads I linked. Of course, there are plenty of other threads that look innocuous but if you open them up you’ll find another anti-Bush rant. I was simply amused by the fact that I opened Great Debates and found a whole collection of threads espousing completely whacked-out theories that even mainstream Democrats would grimace at. So I posted a pit thread about it. No big deal.
On to some specific points:
Mtgman (and Mr. Svinlesha):
On being accused of “lying with statistics”:
Which I introduced as a data point to refute the notion that Americans go around saying, “Screw the Planet! I’m American!” The implication was that America was particularly bad environmentally. I did a search for the first environmental standard I could think of, which was SO2 emissions. Turns out, the U.S. isn’t as bad as many countries. I think that was a relevant thing to bring up, don’t you?
A perfectly defensible point of view. One which you could make even more compelling by offering other data which shows the U.S. being markedly worse than other countries by a standard which is reasonable. Feel free to do so in that thread.
Well, you could always try to find out. Rather than asking the question, why don’t you answer it? You can start with looking at regulations for coal plant outputs, and the effects of reformulated gasoline.
Which, of course, is why I also used CANADA as an example. Something you have conveniently ignored.
Of course, I also linked to the source data, which shows a whole raft of other countries which are also worse than the U.S. Why are you neglecting that?
I didn’t just throw out a ‘datapoint’. I threw out a WHOLE TABLE full of datapoints. Feel free to go back and look at it again. The second part of your sentence, where you accuse me of thinking other people are ‘partisan shills’ if they disagree with me, really needs a cite. Because you’re putting words in my mouth. It’s ironic, because I’M the one who is constantly being accused of being a ‘partisan shill’ 'round these parts.
But hey, if you think that the picture from my data is incomplete (and it is, and I SAID it is, and I said that the U.S. environmental record under Bush is mixed, AND I linked to a Brookings article by Gregg Easterbrook which listed things that are good and bad), then you know what? That’s what DEBATE is all about. If you don’t like my examples, come up with some of your own. Refute my data.
What you SHOULDN’T do is simply go, “There goes Sam again, not providing every shred of data we need. Therefore, he’s a lying bastard who uses statistics to try and trick us!”
This is essence, by the way, of being “Decemberized”. You can post as much hard data as you want, be as reasonable as you can, and you’ll get responses like this because if you don’t provide data you’re guilty of ‘baseless assertions’ or ‘spewing Republican talking points’, and if you DO provide data, you’re a liar because it’s not the right kind, or incomplete, or whatever. At some point, you simply can’t win.
And of course, if you post a cite from the Heritage Foundation, or the American Enterprise Institute, or the Cato institute, or any number of conservative-leaning organizations and think tanks, you are instantly dismissed for spouting “Republican porn” or some such rot. But of course, the other side routinely links to articles from commondreams.org, or PETA, or any number of left-leaning cites, and this goes without comment.
This is the insidious nature of bias, btw - the assumption that the ‘default’ position is the one that you hold, and that the burden of proof is on everyone else. Take that OP “Screw the Environment! I’m an American!” The OP cited an opinion column - something that December used to be taken to task for whenever he did it. But the ‘default’ position, that Americans are terrible environmental stewards, doesn’t really need a defense, does it? Everyone know it. So cut the OP some slack. But if someone comes along to challenge this, suddenly you’re all about rigorous standards of proof, multiple unbiased sources, many datapoints, etc. Right?
More later.