So, you’re not saying libs are planet-size hypocrites, just really, really huge hypocrites? As I used to say before I knew better, that’s damn white of you.
To be fair, let’s ask Clothahump why he finds Sen. Obama unqualified. I can think of one valid and a couple not-so-valid answers why someone might hold that opinion.
You said more than that. You said that liberals appeal to cultural sensitivity in other countries for things they denounce in the US.
To wit:
You didn’t just say “indifferent,” you claimed that liberals “excuse it…shrug and say, ‘well it’s another culture…they’re used to it…they don’t want it any different…’” and so on.
None of that is true. Liberals say no such thing.
Que? Where did I say that?
And where did I say, as you claimed upthread, that liberals “defend” human rights abuses elsewhere in the world.
You know I have regard for you Dio, but what’s right is right. I simply never said the things you’re claiming I said.
I’m afraid they do, Dio, and right here on this very board. Now here is something I can readily provide cites for even though I know beforehand that it will settle nothing. Either the cites won’t be of sufficient number to justify my position, or some form of nitpicking will occur along the line of “Well, yeah they said that…but that was only about Iraq, not the world in toto, etc., etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum.” Still, I have clear enough recollection of them that if the threads still exist to be found, I can find cites to prove these sort of things have been both said and left unchallenged by the lefties on this board.
However, one only has to look around at this board and at American society in general to see that there is nowhere near the outrage aimed by the left at foreign human rights abuses as there is at those that can be truthfully (or untruthfully) laid at the hands of the U.S. Further, one only has to look at this board and American society in general to see that there is nowhere near the tolerance shown by the left for Christians and Christianity that there is for virtually any other religion under the sun.
I just quoted it. YOU quote some of it in this very post.
I don’t believe you can. I’ll settle for one example of liberals denouncing something in the US that they say should be tolerated elsewhere.
This is baloney on both counts. That may be the way you interpret things but that’s not the way they are.
And I’ll say again, most of the American political left IS Christian.
Ah yes, Starving Artist, the perfect doper sparring partner; harmless, because he is so predictable and forgetful. We had this conversation before, and he just demonstrated that he will ignore the evidence.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6742721&postcount=88
And after that he is here still insisting he is right on this regard, for him there is no need to confirm anything before saying it.
“Only a fool tests the depth of the water with both feet.”
– African Proverb
Go ahead then. Show us. I asked you to support your assertions on the previous page, and so far you’ve shown no sign of doing so.
This, of course, is typical of your tactics on this board. It should be pinned to the front page as the Starving Artist Debating Strategy.
-
Make a ridiculous claim about liberals/leftists, either those on this board, or those in America more generally.
-
Get asked by other Dopers to provide some evidence for your assertions.
-
Say that you know it’s true, and that you could find a bunch of cites, but that there’s no point doing do because no-one will accept them.
-
Proceed to do provide absolutely no evidence of your assertions, all the while continuing to claim that you’ve proved your point.
-
Go to (1).
You are a disingenuous piece of shit of the worst possible kind, because you actually pretend that citations and evidence mean something to you, that they have a role to play in determining who is correct and who is not. But the furthest you go in support of this position is to assert that citations exist and that they would prove you right, without ever actually offering any for scrutiny or making a logical argument based on reasonable evidence.
I still don’t see where I claim the left “defends” it. (Unless you’re trying to claim that benign tolerance equals defense, that is.)
There you go with the verbal sleight of hand again. I never said they said it in the same breath. And besides, remember when I said I was talking about attitudes? It’s the attitude shown by the left in this country that I’m talking about, not what this or that specific poster said.
Well, you’re certainly right in that that’s the way it seems to me. I’d like to see an agrument disproving it that consists of something other than (and I’m speaking generally, not about you) denials and name-calling. And remember, I’m talking about the overall attitude projected by the left in this country. A persuasive argument is going to have to address that and not claim that simple anecdotal cites of this or that individual person(s) or organization(s) acitivities proves the point. It must attempt to address leftist attitudes in toto.
A sophistic argument. The fact that most of the American political left is Christian in no way proves that most of the derision of Christians and Christianity in this country doesn’t come from the political left, many of whom are not Christians but agnostics and athiests.
One hates to speak in such terms, but…bite me!
I defy you to post cites to prove I routinely claim that “I could find a bunch of cites but no one would believe me.” I have somewhere in the neighborhood of 4,500 posts to this board. Shouldn’t be too hard. Unless, of course, you want to admit to the actual fact of the matter, which is that I often refuse to be baited by cite demands that would prove nothing as by their very nature the cites demanded would not be probative and are nothing more than transparent attempts to obfuscate and/or derail the matter at hand. This, and the overwhelmingly frequent practice of distorting and/or outright misstating what I’ve clearly said (or believe) are easily the two greatest forms of intellectual dishonesty I encounter on this board.
Further, I defy you to provide evidence where I routinely claim to have “proven” my point despite having allegedly failed to provide cites. Unless you want to admit the fact that I most often do as I have done in this thread which is to post my observations and opinions and leave it to the thread’s readership to decide for themselves whether these opinions and observations have merit. I frequently reiterate my points and beliefs, and I argue against the misstatements and distortions of what I’ve said which, along with bogus cite demands, are the usual defense of my opponents around here, but I rarely, if ever, claim that I’ve proven an opinion or belief based upon my statements alone.
And in closing, I would suggest that if you want to talk to a disingenuous piece of shit, you go stand in front of a mirror and do so.
Cheers.
Heh. Talk about “verbal sleight of hand.” If one “excuses”, “shrug[s]”, says “well it’s another culture…they’re used to it…they don’t want it any different…” about these matters, it’s hard for the casual observer to distinguish such behaviors from defenses of the practices, or at least the pricks who engage in them. They certainly seem to be the type of equivocations that insulate malefactors from the opprobrium they deserve, which can be looked on as a form of defense. Yet because Dio used the word "defends, where you didn’t, you get to leap on that like a dog on a pork chop and shriek that words are being put into your mouth. It’s no wonder you’re starving, SA; it’s the middle of winter. Weasels tend to have a harder time foraging at this time of year.
Preview twice, post once, guys, when you’re responding to this piece of work.
Ha ha!
You’re fucking priceless.
So, it’s no longer about what people actually say, but about some general attitude that only you and a few other lunatics seem able to detect. Is it in the ether? Can you smell it, or do you have some contraption that measures it? Surely, if it’s as pervasive as you seem to believe, you’ll be able to provide us with just one teeny little example?
Thought not.
As your for most recent post, i find it extremely amusing that you now want to call me to adhere to the standards of evidence and citation that you so blithely reject.
In your own words, bite me.
Fucktard.
I suspect that you are doing a bit of sleight of hand, yourself, here.
When you claim “the Left” criticizes “Christianity” or “Christians,” you are using a bit of equivocation by claiming that criticism of the Religious Right or Conservative religious institutions is equivalent to criticism of Christianity. I have never seen a member of “the Left” offer anything resembling actual criticism of Dorothy Day or Rev. Fosdick or Rev. Coffin or either of the Berrigan brothers–all of whom are clearly Christians. I do not recall ever encountering criticism by “theLeft” of the Society of Friends, (unless, of course, you are going to shuffle and jive and make a completely spurious claim that they are not “really” Christians?)
Similarly, your claim that “many” on the Political Left are “not Christians but agnostics and atheists” is nothing more than a numbers shell game. In a nation where fewer that 10% of the population is self-described as agnostic or atheist, your “many” shrinks to a tiny percentage of “the Left” unless you are going to pretend that “the Left” is, itself, some tiny percentage of the population.
So you have set up a bait and switch scenario where you first accuse “the Left” of being anti-Christian when it is only accurate to say that “the Left” opposes that portion of the population that is both Christian and members of "the Right’ and you then try to claim that there is some sort of domination of “the Left” by non-believers when you simply use vague and unsupported terms to create an unsupported belief.
No, actually I’m claiming that time after time around here I’ve seen statements made and go unchallenged with regard to: hate coming from "X"tians; repression coming from "X"tians; bigotry coming from "X"tians, etc., etc. And I have seen virtually nothing similar on this board regarding those who practice the Muslim faith, the Jewish faith, the Hindu faith, Buddhism, etc.
Not quite. You are speaking of the following statement, in which I said:
“The fact that most of the American political left is Christian in no way proves that most of the derision of Christians and Christianity in this country doesn’t come from the political left, many of whom are not Christians but agnostics and athiests.”
If you will note, I said that many of those on the left who deride Christianity are agnostics and athiests, not that many of the left itself are agnostics and athiests. Surely you can make this distinction.
No, it only appears that way to you because you (and the rest of the usual suspects) (and a tip of the hat to Shodan 
) are so invested in your own POV that you simply can’t see my comments for what they really are or derive the correct meaning from them.
Hey, I’m just a guy who states his opinons and observations, as I clearly noted in my first posts to this thread. Make of them what you will, but don’t kid yourself that you disprove them by trotting out some relatively obscure counter-example. Argue the big picture folks. I know you hate that because it doesn’t lend itself to nitpicking and obfuscation, but it’s there nonetheless and it’s that which I’m concerned about.
And now I must bid you all a fond goodnight. Well, except for hendo…and the increasingly strident, vulgar and classless kaylas-“What if Rosie said she wants to fuck me” :rolleyes: -dad.
But to everyone else, I bid you a fond goodnight.
Simple answer to a stupid question: because that’s the sort of thing the Times routinely does all the time? It’s a fucking conservative vanity paper for goodness sakes.
We’re going around here in circles, but…
Are there Buddhists in the US who are lobbying to get evolution removed from elementary school classrooms? Are there Jewish TV rabbis who blamed Katrina on the gays and openly prayed that supreme court justices would die? Is the anti-gay-marriage movement in the US largely the result of Moslems?
It’s only natural to care more about what’s going on here, in our country, that affects us; than stuff which isn’t. That no more makes anyone hypocrites than if someone’s own child loses a leg, and they’re more disturbed by that than when 20 people die in a bus crash in Peru.
I can’t say that you’re making up every bit of what you’re saying out of whole cloth, but you’re taking a scattered collection of minor tendencies, cobbling them together, and then inflating them to 500 times their original size.
A slightly different point: compare the reactions to, say, gitmo vs. Daniel Pearl being beheaded. Now, obviously, beheading is quite a bit worse than even the worst things rumored to have gone on at gitmo. BUT, Daniel Pearl was beheaded by people who are evil, who everyone agrees are evil, and no one supports. They are bad evil criminal terrorists. They did something bad and evil and criminal. Well, duh. It’s horrifying, but it’s not really a shock. They did what we expected them to do, and we already have apparati developed and deployed to deal with them. Gitmo, on the other hand, was something that many of us view as evil that was done by US. We’re supposed to be better than that! We’re the good guys! Why shouldn’t that generate more outcry?
But, like I said, we’re going around in circles here.
Obviously I do. A supporting cite for an unsourced allegation from a completely unreliable source cannot be the source itself. Uncorroberated testimony, hearsay or whatever.
It would be different, as others have argued, if the only 2 papers to break the story were not both owned by a right wing nut-case of epic proportions and the claim as worded and as already pointed out, so vaguely worded.
And also - no - clearly a corroborating cite can’t be a reference to the original story as that introduces no new information.
‘I can corroborate the witness testimony M’Lud. He told me it was true himself.’
Against the vague, unsubstantiated lies of the Moonie press we have common sense, we have Clinton denials and we have other right-wing pundits calling bullshit.
We also have, when it comes to vicious smearing, a preponderance of form on the lunatic Right.
Wow, I almost missed the quarterly spasm from Starving for Attention! I really don’t feel the same amount of affect about him as I typically do. Perhaps it’s because he’s clearly engaging in some first-rate trollery and it’s just gotten to be so predictable and tired. I do love how this one has touched all the typical SA bases - outrageous misrepresentations and false claims, a shout out to/from Zoe, multiple statements telling us about when and why he needs to go (as if we were standing around together in a room just waiting and wondering where SA has gone, or if we cared about him as a person in real life), and a bit of meta-level discussion about how he’s given thought in the past to moderating his tone (at the same time that he comes blazing in to this thread in an exceptionally offensive way).
In all seriousness, SA, if you really are running into a lot of hostility from “the Left” (unwanted hostility, that is) then you may want to step back and examine your opening salvo from a different perspective to see if you might be able to figure out how it could be even a little inaccurate and a bit offensive.
No, CBS too. 
Of course, we have seen actual criticism of, for instance, Mother Teresa, who was also Christian. Also see practically anything from Der Trihs or pseudo triton ruber ruber or the late unlamented troll misguided sperm for direct attacks on Christianity.
Actually, people like Dinsdale and Der Trihs do support them, and on this board. So Starving Artist is correct that, on the SDMB, there is support for the Iraqi insurgents to win even though they engage in terrorist acts, but a desire for the US to be defeated because of what are perceived as the same sort of acts.
Regards,
Shodan
From your own post 104 in this thread:
Get your hands outta there. Where’s your mommy?