Funny, I though that BobLibDem’s statement was closer to what dopers believe, not what you think they believe, or perhaps how you seem to be redefining the argument
I notice that you have not posted to that thread. If you believe you see a play and simple lie, then surely you can point how obviously false it is to the rest of the group.
SteveG1 said “tried to tie 9/11 to Iraq”. Here’s Bush’s first mention of 9/11:
Emphasis mine.
And then the next one:
Emphasis mine.
and once more:
Emphasis mine.
In the light of the above, I have no further comment.
Here I have to agree with you - these things happen. I was pitted fairly early on at this board because I was pre-emptively grouped with a certain recurring strain bigotry. I think I handled myself just fine there though pretty much by myself, and it has led me to believe that if you persist at being reasonable and honest in your arguments, you’ll get at the very least respect.
If there had been more pile-on than I could handle, I would just have skipped the pit threads and stick to the GD and GC threads.
That, however, is also true. And like many other facts of life, you’ll have to live with it. But always try to keep yourself to the highest standards of truth, and you will prevail eventually.
Yours,
Arwin
Well, if the conservatives are being driven away by the unbalanced (and therefore unfair?) nature of the board, it is good that we have these weekly “This board is unbalanced and unfair” threads to draw them all back! Their conspicuous absence in most debate or political discussion threads these days is balanced, nay outmatched, by their howls of unfair pilings on and intolerable disproportional representation of opinions in these threads.
This board is not an echo chamber, and the claim that it is only serves to undermine the argument. It suggests that you (newcrasher and Sam Stone and anyone else using the term) are blind to what actually goes on here. I don’t go to echo chambers because it is boring. Here, I feel that I better have some support for my argument or it will be picked apart. Nobody echoes what I say, and I don’t simply echo what other members say.
If members of the right don’t like posting here, please do me a favor: Find a smart conservative friend who can hold his or her own in a debate and encourage them to post here. We’ll all be the better for it.
Birds of a feather and all. It’s unfair to say the “boards”, per se, are slanted. That sort of makes it sound like the creator of the Straight Dope is forbidding right-leaning views. It just so happens leftists frequent the bandwidth here.
However, in my opinion, there are more right-wingers than left in most forums around here. But then, I tend to swing a little further left than most.
Regards,
Shodan
Ah yes, the old “Conservatives are dumb” gambit. Are you trying to prove the OP’s point or just being smug?
Actually, somewhere in the first minute or so of his speech, he clearly did:
I fail to see how any reasonable person can read this as anything other than an attempt to link the invasion of Iraq to a response to 9/11.
And I’m finding it difficult to see where anyone in this thread is claiming that it is balanced where political issues are concerned. Again, I see no particular requirement that it be so.
I would still appreciate it if someone would address the issue I raised earlier: do some of you sincerely believe the primary reason for the existence of this board is to provide a forum for your personal political opinions, and if so, how does that square with the (as I understand it) intent of this board as primarily for discussions of a factual nature?
Well, thanks to this lopsided glurge, I can now retract my challenge to Sam for raising his issue; you’ve just confirmed his point.
Example of Ad Hominem
My claim is that Bricker is unable to perceive between a lot of people offering well-reasoned examples why he is wrong, and a pile-on. I offer cities. You seem to be claiming that this is an attack on him, rather then a true statement about how he perceives the world. The “attack” is the whole argument. Thus, is does not become a fallacy, because ad hominem don’t work when my whole claim is the perceived insult.
While admittedly not a right-winger (nor left), the problem I see for the board is that simply most people in the US and the world at large are enfranchised in a party. And when it comes to Dems and Reps, Republicans don’t believe in all the acceptance policies (gay marriage, etc.) nor general higgledy-piggledy (like wife swapping or 18" Ice Blue Double Headed Dildos) and even if they were tolerant of such things–they would probably still not feel terribly homey on a board where such conversations about the things people really do at home (even though they might not speak about it in general) are spoken freely.
Personally, I’m as clean-cut and boring as they come–but an inquiring mind trumps all TMI for me (yes, I have read every Diva Cup thread) and that makes me more interested in staying instead of more inclined to leave. But I suspect that would not be true of most righters.
Heh. Not everybody who finds you difficult to parse is “right wing”, Scott_Plaid. I’m glad Tomndebb found your example workable, but then again he’s smarter than I am.
While I may agree with your assertion that **newcrasher’s ** statement is not always correct, your example is so obtuse that I still don’t see it supporting your position. Perhaps you need another example - preferably, one that doesn’t involve economics, which is notoriously fuzzy, anyway.
And my final point remains; in the real world, you don’t “win” debates until your position is adopted by your intended audience. An elegantly-constructed argument is useless if everyone applauds your logic but dismisses your conclusion.
You are correct. Here’s the fine point, though – Bush didn’t say that Iraq was behind 9-11 (and I don’t believe anyone in the administration thinks this, although some pundits like William Safire were slow to come around). But it is clear that without 9-11, there is no invasion of Iraq.
That’s the nature of Great Debates in a nutshell. Hyperbolically, the next person to change a firmly-help position as a result of an argument here will be the first person.
Corrected.
No. There are more posters on the Left than on the Right and the percentage of assholes is fairly steady, leading to a higher percentage of assholes on the Left, not that assholes are more likely to tend left. You have your cause and effect reversed.
On the other hand, one can find several Republicans or Rightwingers or Conservatives or whatever label you wish to attach to them who have spoken out against some of Mr. Bush’s actions. The implication in your statement is that there is a board-wide knee-jerk reaction from the Left that opposes Bush and Republicans. It is more accurate to say that among the disparate members of this board, (which admittedly tilts Left), Mr. Bush’s actions are a lightning rod for comment and have caused even some who are not on the Left to question them. (Unless you have some shifty way of placing Uncle Beer, Airman Doors, and John Mace (for example) onto the “Left” or of claiming that they are fanatically against the Republicans.)
No to get into too great a hijack, but a) I don’t think that people are saying conservatives don’t feel comfortable here because we are talking about double-dongs and bukake; and b) while Republicans may more often want to prohibit others from engaging in such behavior, the Democrats don’t have the market cornered in such behavior. To cite two prominent examples off the top of my head in re: the specific items you mentioned, Jeri Ryan’s husband (a Republican politician whose name escapes me) wanted her to swing with him, and Bill O’Reilly notably was outed as the possessor and user of a vibrator, although what exactly he did with it is not clear. Just for grins, let’s not forget the conservative commentator who suggested that it is normative behavior for Georgia farmboys to nail donkeys.
And what a day that will be.
Get it? Get it?
Not really a highjack, since it’s a debate.
People aren’t, nor am I. But I would list it as a potential reason to debate. Certainly no republicans in my family would feel comfortable discussing such things openly (nor enjoy viewing others do so (except perhaps as a voyeuristic experience.))
Nope, as said–Republicans would be more likely to view that sort of stuff as something that stays in the privacy of their home–which doesn’t mean that they don’t necessarily do those things.
If we’re discussing the article that someone linked to a few months ago, I thought the concensus was that that was a hoax? (I didn’t follow that thread very closesly, so <- honest question.)
I would also like to add the simple fact that due to the last 30 (?) years of mass media, many republican values are now officially non-PC, so even though you might agree with the many are unwilling to argue for their own side–simply because they know it’s non-PC.
For instance, I know there are several gun owners on the board–but outside of the pro-gun-specific threads or the occasional poll, you would think the board as a whole did not support any sort of gun ownership.
^ And again, I’m just throwing this out as another possible hypothesis. Would need to interview republicans who came and didn’t join to find out the real reason.
I think the board skews left (by American standards…which is what, afaik, the majority of the members are). I don’t see it as a major problem…the members are self selected (as another poster said), and if more folks from the center or right of the fence want to join they are welcome too. From my lurking days when Clinton was Prez I know that the present imbalance in the board has not always been here (though I DO think that the libertarian streak that runs through the board has been here for quite a while…one reason I joined up).
Should the SDMB be ‘Fair and Balanced’? No…its not a news organization after all but a message board. It is what it is. Should discussions be more balanced in GD? Well, it would be nice if it worked out that way, but I’m not seeing any practical way to enforce ‘balance’, nor to prevent the pile ons that occur in nearly every thread…not just political anti-Bush either, but just about every topic our there. To get away from the politics and just make a quick example…one time this week take a peak into any thread on the front page dealing with Evolution or God/Spirituality. Try and be as unbiased as possible while reading. If you don’t see a trend of folks piling on anyone hapless enough to take up a Creationist/ID or pro-God/Spirituality stance then you aren’t reading deeply enough. And, I have to admit, were I in the thread I’d probably be part of the pile on. But even though my own opinions on this seem to go along with the majority of those on this board, I still wince sometimes when I go into those threads, seeing the few people attempting to debate or oppose the vast majority getting nipped at from all sides.
Myself, I’ve leared a lot from this board and its helped to shape my positions on some of the key issues out there. I also tend to avoid GD more than I used to though, and I only dip a toe in occationally to give my two cents worth on in a thread. I just find that a lot of folks seem hostile (without crossing the line to banning type offenses) to many of my viewpoints, even when, to me, they seem fairly similar to their own…especially on the economic side.
Anyway, thats my two cents worth, FWIW.
-XT
Perfect example.
There is NOT proof that Bush engineered this war knowing that Sadaam didn’t have WMD or a connection to Al Queda.
There is some evidence to that effect. There is other evidence suggesting it’s not so. You, and you like-minded cohorts, have drawn inferences from that evidence. This is not the same as “proof.”
But do you acknowledge that distinction? No. You repeat the mantra. “Proof.” Indeed.