When they’re the entire foundation of your argument, no, it makes you dishonest. Suit yourself, though.
It’s pretty clear he merely c&p’d from some glurge or some RW board post, innit? There is “insufficient evidence” only because he refuses to tell us his source, which is evidence in itself.
Let’s close by agreeing on that.
Richard:
I’ve been wasting my time debating with Sam for the better part of a decade. In all that time, I’ve never known him to change his mind about anything – he will concede he has a detail wrong here or there, but these admissions never lead him to reevaluate his premise. The recent Sarah Palin thread is a case in point; conceding that is original OP is wrong doesn’t change Sam’s position on the issue in the slightest.
I can also tell you with absolute confidence that Sam cherry picks his facts – it’s his definition of good debate technique. For Sam, a skillful debater only refers to facts that support his position, and never admits to knowledge of facts that undercut it. Finding counter-arguments is the job of his opponent, and if his opponent misses a fact that Sam himself is aware of – oh well, better luck in the next thread. Sam wins.
To add to what Mr. Svinlesha said, the fact that I have a specific recollection of the NASA thing should not suggest it was unique. There were so many threads and so many issues.
I agree Richard Parker that we are only human and prone to mistakes. We also come with biases, and I certainly have come here with a cite to the Washington Monthly or another lefty joint more than once.
The thing is, I would feel shame if I posted something that turned out to be false and I would stop relying on that source because I do not like to be embarrassed like that.
I don’t think Sam feels the same, because it never stopped him before, and he’s still doing it today.
I’d love for a contingent of conservatives to be here to bring good, honest debate. What my time on the dope has unfortunately taught me is that most assertions made by conservatives here are at least factually wrong, if not demonstrable lies. I mean that quite literally.
I wouldn’t think to run means on numbers from someone’s cite without some experience to say that I should.
And how is this different from any body else on the board? You are holding him to a pretty high standard that when you give others a pass.
For example, in this very thread, Hentor cherry picked his NASA data. When he wanted to show the Clinton wasn’t so bad, he used actually budget numbers. (Assertion 2) When he wanted to show that the Bushes weren’t so great, he used dollars adjusted to 2007. (Assertion 1). Sam apparently did the opposite.
For you visual people out there, take a look at this graph, ask yourself if it supports Sam’s basic premise that the 2 Bush presidents supported NASA to a greater degree than Clinton: File:NASA budget linegraph BH.PNG - Wikipedia
Yet despite all this, every body is hammering on Sam, and Hentor gets a happy ending.
I’m sorry, but that was just really fucking stupid.
To me it doesn’t look like there is a significant change in NASA spending from 1986 onward. That says to me that Clinton and Bush(s) spent about the same. If that is your sign of support, it seems to me statistically insignificant.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that Sam Stone’s assertion, at least the contentious part, was NOT that the Bushes “supported NASA to a greater degree than Clinton.” There were two specific assertions, which I quoted and repeated to make it clear exactly what they were. And they weren’t that.
I didn’t say that, I’m merely offering my interpretation of the data all by itself.
What percentage change in the budget would you call significant?
When Bush I took office, the NASA budget was $9.1B for 1988. When he left office in 1993, the last budget for NASA under his watch was $13.9B. That’s a 53% increase over 4 years.
When Clinton took office, the budget whas at $13.9B. When he left office the NASA budget was $13.4B. That’s almost a 4% decrease over 8 years.
When Bush II took office, the budget was $13.9B. Over 8 years, he increased that up to $17.3B, an 29% increase.
So, in summary, using nominal dollars, Bush I increased the NASA budget by 50% over 4 years, Clinton reduced it by 4% over 8 years, Bush II increased it by 28% over another 8 years. Pretty much exactly what Sam had claimed.
Do you think 50%, -4%, and 28% are insignificant? If someone offered you a 50% raise over 4 years, would you just shrug it off, and say, “Whatever…”?
ElvisL1ves, you’re scum. You are demonstratively incapable of accepting that even Democrats and liberals can rationally disagree with you (see the Democratic primary election threads for proof), let alone Republicans and conservatives. I see no reason to support you in your rabidness.
In re the Bush supports NASA hijack: Where is the funding and the drive for a permanent manned station on the moon? Where is the funding and the drive for a manned mission to Mars? Where is the funding and the drive for SETI type programs?
Again, don’t lose sight of the assertion in question. Do the two Bushes stand out as the only two larger than average increases in the past 30 years? Using nominal dollars, you get the following rank order:
*Kennedy 243%
*Johnson 67%
Reagan 87%
GHW Bush 54%
Carter 32%
GW Bush 29%
Ford 13%
Clinton -4%
Nixon -24%
Do the Bush boys stand out like they are just nuts about space? Maybe, but if so, not as much as Reagan and Carter. Certainly not the only 2 in the last 30 years.
It’s more than that. Sam is actively, deliberately deceitful in the way he argues.
He knows this is a bullshit comparison. He knows it for a fact. It’s true that his grasp of Keynesian macro is a touch shaky, but the substantive differences between a healthy economy and an economy in crisis has been pointed out to him countless times. I have personally made this distinction clear to him at least three times myself. But he’s happy to ignore that when he wants to make a sweeping, dishonest implication of hypocrisy.
This has nothing to do with whether his views are correct. He might well be right on this particular point. Economics is a science, but it sure as hell ain’t physics. Mainstream theory could, in fact, be wrong.
But he definitely knows what the theory is. He knows that there are essential distinctions between Bush’s irresponsible deficits and Obama’s responsible deficits. He knows that this is absolutely fundamental to any comment about whether Obama’s policies are a good idea, and he yet skips over that point entirely because he thinks it scores him an easy point about liberal “inconsistency”, even when he knows that he’s being unfair.
Mr. Svin has him pegged. The man is unconscionably dishonest in the way he argues, even if he’s sincere in his beliefs.
I agree entirely with this, though. Sam’s “debate” technique is terrible, but I’ve scrapped dogshit off my shoes that has more inherent value than what Elvis has to contribute.
Okay, there are several absolutely amazing things about all this. First, you may notice the rhetorical sleight of hand here - in attempting to refute my point about the NASA budget over the past 30 years, he has to add in Kennedy and Johnson, which happened a lot more than 30 years ago.
Second, if anyone bothered to read that tedious original thread, you’ll see that Hentor made this claim:
Please try to reconcile the claim that Reagan ‘slashed’ NASA’s budget with Hentor’s current claim in the table above that Reagan was actually the biggest booster of NASA in the last 30 years. He can’t even keep his own story straight.
Frankly, I’ve always thought that this was much ado about nothing. Exactly where you split hairs on the NASA budget has a lot to do with how and when you measure it. Do you measure the first year the President is in office? His first budget isn’t even written until sometime after. But you could make a case either way. If you move the baseline by a year for each president, the numbers come out a little different.
Then you can measure funding as a percentage of GDP. Is it really fair to compare two Presidents’ budgets in constant dollars if one presided over a recession while another over a boom? Or if one had to deal with inflation and the other didn’t? None of these are huge deals, but they can move the numbers around somewhat.
But here’s the bottom line: In that thread, I made the relatively uncontroversial claim that Bush I and Bush II were better for NASA than was Clinton. That was about it. I pointed out that it wasn’t JUST about money, but also vision - Both Bush’s set new goals for NASA and tried to expand the mission of the agency. But just on pure funding, you just have to look at the numbers. It’s really not that hard.
This is the same table Sinaijon posted above. Look at that table and tell me my basic point isn’t correct.
Also notice that Hentor’s claim that “NASA got a boost in 1990 after slashed by Reagan, and stayed essentially flat thereafter” isn’t a very accurate description. The table tells us:
This of course is exactly what I said ini that original thread. Hentor’s interpretation is wildly different (you can pick either one, since he contradicts himself mightily, but both are wrong).
In the end, this shouldn’t be that big a deal. I’m not going to jump up and down and call Hentor a liar. Everyone can screw up the numbers. Hell, I did it in this thread yesterday. And because there are so many ways you can spin the data by choosing different baselines, intervals, and yardsticks, there is room for mild disagreement around the absolute claims.
The bizarre thing is that Hentor has been carrying this particular grudge around for five bloody years now, and he periodically throws it out in various discussions as an example of what a complete liar and utter fool I am. And when he does it, I ask him to post the link, and people read it and think, “What the hell is Hentor on about?” You’d think he’d learn from that. But somehow, he thinks this particular episode is a perfect example of what a monster I am. The ironic thing is that he behaved like a complete ass in that thread, and it was in Great Debates.
Then you haven’t been paying enough attention. This board changed my opinion on:
Now, how many large items in your ideological basket have been replaced as a result of debates on this board? Hentor, how about you?
I’m definately in the camp that sees Sam Stone as a deliberately intellectually dishonest debater that skews everything to a righty tighty world. I’ve got no issue and welcome discussions with conservative debators that are honest and can concede when their arguements/facts doesn’t hold water. I think Sam engages in blatant cherry picking and takes a page out of the IBM sales manual “always cast doubt on the competition” (an example would be “*liberal *economist Paul Krugman” instead of “economist Paul Krugman” or "Nobel Prize Winning economist Paul Krugman).
Dunno why but I’m intrigued by Sam and his motivation as the rah rah champ of those poor downtrodden rightwing issues on these boards when as a Canandian he doesn’t have a direct dog in this fight. Sarah Palin maybe as a MILF damsel he wants to go rescue?
Reminds me of Les Csorba, who was another Canadian at UC Davis that was the very outspoken leader of the Young Republicans. Somehow 25 years later I’m not surprised that he: “He served on the White House senior staff as an aide to President George H. W. Bush for Personnel (National Security Affairs), and was a Governor George W. Bush appointee to the Texas Skills Standards Board. On May 31, 2007, President George W. Bush appointed him to the Presidential Commission of White House Fellowships”
Les seems to have acquired an American wife and a quick search of various bio’s don’t mention the born and raised in Canada part of his background.
And just to be clear, I’ve got no problem with people that can’t vote in the USA being an integral part of any and all debates.
I don’t see how someone who has changed these views over a period of a decade (or whatever it is) can be viewed as a conservative. A libertarian perhaps, but probably a closeted liberal in deep denial.
You’ve made your case for Bush 1, but you have no case at all for Bush 2. I’m getting my figures from here: File:NASA budget linegraph BH.PNG - Wikipedia
That source shows virtually no increase for NASA (orange line for adjusted 1996 dollars). How you get 28% out of a no adjusted dollars increase is beyond me. But even if you did get 28% using Republicant “financial manipulation” it is rather paltry and just under 3 percent per year. Nothing considering all the bullshit talk about sending people to Mars.
And what a process it was, too! Like being dragged kicking and screaming, but he’s Canadian, so its twitching and murmuring.
What about this gem?
He pretty much made this up on the fly, got called on it, and has refused to either back it up or retract it.
Let’s review this assertion in its full:
The problem, of course, is that #3 is completely made up. It’s Sam’s uninformed opinion mascarading as fact. But if you accuse someone of hypocrisy because of the way they react to two facts, and one of those facts is completely made-up, and you won’t even try to back it up or retract it, then, yeah, observers will probably conclude that honest debating isn’t really your interest.
If anyone other than Sam Stone had posted the above list, I would simply back up, admit I was wrong, and apologize. But this isn’t any other poster; this Captain Canadian, the master of malarkey. So…
The Death Penalty: I need to see a thread in which you strenuously argue for the application of the death penalty, are presented with counter-evidence, concede that the counter-evidence is better than your own, and publicly admit you were wrong.
Gay marriage: I have to say this is rather weak; you went from supporting civil unions to supporting gay marriage, hardly a massive ideological leap. Still: link to the mea culpa thread, please?
Bill Clinton: a thread in which you argue Bill was a bad president, are presented with counter-evidence, concede the counter-evidence is better than your own, and publicly admit you were wrong.
Hillary Clinton: see point 3, above.
Climate change: see point 4, above.
“Large items in my ideological basket”? Well, going from mild to support of the death penalty to opposition hardly qualifies as a “large item” in my book, ideologically speaking. Neither does going from support of civil unions to support of gay marriage. So that’s two down. Climate change is not an ideological item at all; it’s a matter of evaluating scientific evidence for and against, so it certainly doesn’t count.
That leaves your alleged reevaluation of the Clintons, which you claim were a result of debates on this board. Is it true? Who knows?
When I started posting at the SDMB I was an anarcho-syndicalist Chomskyite. I’ve moved a bit towards the center since then. I can at least claim that no one accuses me of ideological rigidity or dishonesty here (with the possible exception of a few fringe weirdos).
Note as well how Sam, for example, ignores my point for the previous post regarding the manner in which he cherry-picks his facts. In point of fact, he also cherry-picks his opponents’ arguments, and only responds to those he feels he can easily refute. This enables him to keep a steady hand on the direction of the debate, and make sure it moves towards the goalpost he sets up. He’s very, very good at it.
