I was suggesting that because you took them seriously last time, it won’t be easy for you to dismiss them out of hand like the rest of us do.
I agree that this story seems to be little more than rumor and innuendo right now. But then, the last one wasn’t much more than rumor and innuendo itself.
Well first off, this doesn’t actually seem to be the Swiftvets. It’s more like somebody invoking them.
Secondly, the Swiftvets actually served with and had knowedge of Kerry. It is from this that their opinions were founded, and hence they had some credibility when they attacked them on those grounds.
I don’t really see how serving with John Kerry gives the Swiftvets any authority or credibility on the topic of Mccain.
[quote[I agree that this story seems to be little more than rumor and innuendo right now. But then, the last one wasn’t much more than rumor and innuendo itself.[/QUOTE]
I actually have the book and read it. I also have and read Kerry’s book. The strongest arguments the Swiftvets make, are arguments they make by quoting Kerry. Remember “Christmas in Cambodia.” Kerry mostly did it to himself.
Doesn’t really seem like much Swiftboating of McCain going on:
I know, you believe the swiftvets were telling the truth. I think we all get that.
No doubt an attack on McCain* if it were to happen* would have to be even more bullshit than the last go-round. But whereas we could all just throw up our hands and say, “Oh, those bastards are at it again,” you would have to take them seriously. That’s my only observation. As you can see from my previous post, I concede that there isn’t anything to this story yet (i.e. there’s no real indication that the swiftvets are going to try to do it again).
As this is MPSIMS, I think I’ll leave it there.
This might be true. I found this 2004 Media Matters article referring to both the Swift Boat Veterans and Sampley, but not actually linking them, except possibly in tactics.
Apparently Sampley has been peddling this crap about McCain since at least 2000.
Apparently McCain is quite familiar with Sampley. Here is a story from TheHill.com.
I have a theory about this. (Actually, I have two, but only one is germane.)
This is another vast right wing conspiracy.
McCain is being slammed to make him more appealing. Committed Republicans are not going to vote for a Democrat. They are not known for staying home on voting day, either.
I’ve also noticed that now that Obama is on a roll, the conservative commentators I listen to have started talking up Clinton. [Not exactly praising her; just comparing Obama unfavorably to her.]
The slams I’ve heard consistently emphasize that he works with people across the aisle, and the biggest change that most voters want is a government that will work across party lines for the benefit of the electorate.
The attacks on McCain are likely to make him more attractive to Unenrolled and less committed Democrats.
The Republican party is also very deeply dependent on ultra-conservatives and evangelicals. If they can win a presidency with a candidate from whom those groups have been alienated, their future options on policy will be broader.
The Republicans are doing this to attract racist and sexist Democrats and unenrolled voters.
And Republicans aren’t stupid; they let dirty campaigning kill a McCain candidacy once, and I don’t think they will fall for it again.
[But, then, I do love a good conspiracy theory.]
No. I wouldn’t have to take them seriously. My taking them seriously has nothing to do with whether or not I took them seriously before.
I would only take them seriously if their arguments merited it.
I can’t understand why you would think my agreeing with the Swiftvets on one subject would obligate me to agree with them on another.
If they attacked Mccain I would judge their attack on it’s merits and make my own decision just like I did the last time.
Right, that’s what I mean by “take them seriously.” Whereas we can peremptorily dismiss them this time as the douchebags they were discovered to be, you don’t have that luxury since you found (and apparently still find) them credible.
I don’t know exactly what it means to judge a lie on its merits, but I suspect that is a subject for a different thread.
Actually, this is correct! This is why my way of looking at things is so superior and why your way of looking at things sucks so badly.
You see, if the Swiftvets make an argument, you say “They are douchebags,” and there, according to your own criteria, is where your analysis ends. “Douchebag” is yor excuse for non-cogitation.
If the Swiftvets make an argument I say “Does this argument make sense?” and am forced to analyze it.
You favor arguments because people you like make them. I favor arguments because they make sense.
I love this. This is beautiful.
If you’ve decided that it’s a lie before you’ve judged it… you really can’t call what you are doing thinking, can you?
Get a room.
Look, as this is MPSIMS, we can’t really have this out (nor am I really interested in doing so). So I’ll make this brief.
If Neo-nazis came forward and said that John McCain had a secret black baby, I wouldn’t read their press release. I would dismiss it out of hand. Most people would. When a thoroughly discredited organization makes an outlandish claim, most of us do not check the merits. Is that pre-judging them? Absolutely. In my mind, entirely appropriately. Clearly you disagree. More power to you.
Where are you getting the ‘this time’ from? Have we not established that this has nothing at all to do with the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth?
If you have any evidence that John O’Neill or any members of the actual SBVT are involved in this, present it. Otherwise, I’ll assume that you’re just engaging in a smear campaign and trying to manufacture an association between them and this Sampley character for the purpose of discrediting them.
I have a suspicion that the vast majority of people who slam the ‘Swiftboat Veterans For Truth’ don’t actually know who they were, or what their beef was with Kerry. “Swiftboating” has, like “Neocon”, become a pejorative that some partisans throw around to smear their opposition. Whether the person being smeared is actually a Neocon or a SBVT member hardly matters, right?
Gee Sam, I’m pretty sure I can’t get any more explicit that what I already said twice. To refresh your very short memory:
So assume all you want. But don’t pretend it has to do with what I’ve said here.
You’re welcome to keep defending SBVT. I’m not going to stop you are debate you on the subject. I’m happy to watch you do it.
This is why I am so much better than you. I understand that a dollar in the hand of a Neo-Nazi can buy no more nor less than that same dollar in the hand of a Saint.
You see, great minds such as mine, the ones that founded this country, the ones that created our legal system believe that Judgement must be blind in order for it to be worth anything.
To beleive that the validity of facts or opinions are altered according to the source from whence they derive is the foundation upon which the tyrant, the slaveowner, and oppressors of all ilk build their impregnable castles of circular logic in order to insulate themselves from the consequences of their rationalizations, whilst they pretend they are good people.
Personally, I don’t go with the “prejudice is a good thing” argument, but hey, if it works for you…
Amusing, assuming that was intended as parody.
Christ. I was waiting for a debate to break out before I moved this to GD, but looking at the mess right now, I think the Pit is the better place. Off ya go.
Only a little bit. You are arguing that you can dismiss an argument based simply on its source.
The Only way that makes sense is if an arguments’ truth or validity is changed based on who is making it.
Personally, if Hitler says “Two plus two equals four,”
and Ghandi says “Two plus two equals five.”
Then I am scoring one point for the Fuhrer.
How about you?
And if the SBVT came forward with a mathematical syllogism, you’d have a point. But there is a difference between facts and opinions. There is also a difference between verifiable facts and testimony about facts.
We impugn the testimony of witnesses based on the witness himself all the time in our legal system and in our daily lives. We have to do so in a world where most assertions are not objectively testable. When a witness is a proven liar, we take them less seriously the next time they come forward.
On the other hand, if we have found someone to be credible and trustworthy, we generally take them more seriously.
I highly doubt that you actually find this way of operating to be repugnant to God, the Founders, and all that is good and just. Instead, I think you’re just trying to make a hyperbolic point. One that I actually agree with (!) when it comes to evaluating some kinds of arguments. I might even agree in theory for all arguments, but in practice I think we all discount the words of known liars, for better or worse. Sure sometimes the boy is actually being eaten by a wolf. But if we check for wolves each time, we have a lot less time to enjoy life.
So can we just hug and get back to our lives or what?
Well yes, there is a difference. Since men of goodwill may differ in opinions one should count them neither for nor against a person when judging the merits of their arguments.
Even if one applies rigorous standards and employs them consistently it is still fallacious.
One statement does not affect the validity of another unconnected statement any more than one coin toss affects the outcome of a future coin toss. To prove reasonably that a given coin is biased requires a very large statistical sample. Whether or not you favor or disfavor the Swiftvets’ arguments re: Kerry, you do not have a large enough sample to reasonably impugn subsequent arguments they might hypothetically make on other subjects before they have actually made them.
To do is foolhardy prejudice in my opinion, and actually takes more work and rationalization than a simple honest consideration of the argument in question based on it;s own merits.
I really do. It’s a slipper slope, and most often when I see this sort of thing it is nothing more than a rationalization constructed post facto to support a prejudice without foundation.
It is inherently more complex and difficult to prove such a bias to an extent that is sufficient to dismiss a proposition unconsidered than it is to simply consider and judge the proposition itself.
Therefore, I conclude that people who are doing so, are simply rationalizing their prejudices after the fact.
An argument must stand or fall on its merits. Period.
I’ll let you in on a little secret. Everybody lies. The only people who don’t lie are those that don’t communicate and those people still lie to themselves. Some people lie more than others, some lie less. But everybody lies. You can’t help it. It’s our nature as humans.
This being the case, you are likely to catch people in lies when you disagree with them because you are looking for ways to poke holes in their arguments. You are less likely to catch people in lies when you agree with them because you aren’t looking as hard.
Because of this, most people will tend to think that people who have views counter to their own are less honest than those whom they agree with. Their experience will justify this. In such a circumstance though, it may actually be true that the level of honesty is consistent across the sprectrum of viewpoints. It is simply one’s preferred perspective that makes it seem otherwise.
Following your way of doing things, one would then have an inherent tendency to dismiss arguments they disagreed with as “dishonest,” while accepting those they agreed with as “honest.”
Such a person would have a flawed and invalid way of evaluating things.
It is far simpler, easier, accurate, and defensible to simply judge an argument according to its merits.