Izzy - Why would you continue to question this? I stated, over and over, it’s the manner of posting, not the content. Are you really trying to claim that I don’t know why he ticks me off?
How ballsy is that? you know better than I what I dislike about some one else?
I’ve not found another conservative poster (other than Wildest Bill) who posts such half baked unsubstantiated, mischaracterizing past the point of no return clap trap, especially as an OP.
the OP frames the debate, and if the original posting is such crap that some one else has to routinely come in and ‘fix’ it (as you ahve done), then I suggest that’s an uncommon phenomenon and suggests, once again it’s not the position, it’s the manner of posting.
So, back to you bucko. I’ve looked and not found one. you tell me who you think would get such attention, and convince me that you know my feelings better than I do.
Wow. That’s about all I can say. Wow. Do we read the same message board? Wow. I guess mileage varies far more than I ever expected. Oh well, if Presidents can re-define the word ‘is’ then I guess it stands to reason there are people who don’t recognize the inordinate number of fallacies in december’s posts.
Wow
Enjoy,
Steven
[sub]PSSTT. Hey Izzy, the phrase “Good Guy/Bad Guy type arguement” is a wonderful synonym for the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle.[/sub]
Your feelings? I am not aware that we are discussing your feelings. As far as I know we are discussing december’s debating habits, and having seen these extensively, I am entitled to an opinion. Are you saying that I cannot express a judgement on matters that I’ve seen with my own eyes because they contradict your “feelings”?
I’m not sure what the rest of your post means - I’ve already discussed why december gets all the attention.
I don’t think so. Here’s how I see it. Using the Republican/Democrat example, the “excluded middle” would apply if december’s goal was to prove that Democrats are totally evil and the Republicans totally good. And that by allowing for no middle ground, he can then attempt to prove this by showing examples of Democratic misconduct.
But I don’t think this is occurring. As best as I can tell, he is trying to show that “the Democrats” sometimes sin, (perhaps more so than Republicans), and by this to dispel what he feels is a raw deal that the Republicans are getting from the media and popular perception. Unfortunately, his attempts to demonstrate this involve pointing to examples of Democrat (or liberal) misconduct, over and over and over again, until many people on this board cringe whenever they see that he has started a new thread. But while this constant pointing to examples of “look how bad the Democrats are” may give the impression that the point being made is that all Democrats are completely evil, that is not the actual point being made, in any thread that I can remember.
The same would go for the Israeli/Palestinian situation. Posters portray the december position as being “all Arabs are evil, and Israel never does any wrong”, but I don’t see this. The actual point being made is that there is a significant difference between the groups as a whole. But the way this point is argued, by repeatedly pointing out examples of Arab wrongdoing (“now look what the Arabs did - let’s see you try to defend that”) gives rise to the misimpression.
So again, the overall tenor of his posts tends to be along black-and-white lines, but the actual arguments being made are not.
Ok you say he doesn’t make black-and-white arguements. Can you show me a place where he give serious creedence to a moderate stance? Almost all the arguements I’ve seen him make look like the statement I’m typing now. “Almost all” “I’ve seen” “look like”, all these statements are qualifiers, but they’re tacked on as an “out” on a statement which is virtually an absolute. It’s a semantic matter that does not invalidate his actual meaning. He throws around absolutes with tiny little phrases/modifiers which give him an out if someone accuses him of being to broad. Even with these escape clauses, his intention comes across loud and clear with statements like “Some Democrats are so committed to the idea that their party is the “good guys” that they will deny the obvious.” When David B hammered him on the point of who, exactly, those “some” were, he waffled, and ended up saying “Would Democrats be more apt to deny an instance of bigotry by one of their own than Republicans would? ISTM that on this message board the answer is yes.”
So, his overall tenor is a fallacy, but his actual arguements are, in a strict technical sense, not fallacies? In some interpretation, maybe. In an interpretation focused on content instead of semantics, what he posts is fallacy-ridden bullshit.
I fully agree with this statement. Though the same would also be true if you substituted “Republicans” for “Democrats”. I think this is so obvious and so a fundamental part of human nature that it’s amazing that anyone would try to deny it (or even to bother pointing it out).
Makes a lot of sense. Supposing you see, for example, that the vast majority of Democrats believe strongly that dimpled chads should count as valid votes, and the vast majority of Republicans believe they should not. You would certainly justified in concluding that a strong element of bias is at play. But despite this, you could not say in any given instance that this person is motivated by bias.
Problem is that by focusing on “content instead of semantics” what you are essentially doing is allowing yourself to decide what he “really means”; in this case all bets are off, as mentioned earlier.
I call bullshit Izzy. It’s a bullshit double standard that you, and december can say Democrats in general, and on this board in specific, would be more apt to deny bigotry by another Democrat than a Republican would, while saying that other individuals on this board can’t draw conclusions about december. Bullshit that you can make generalizations about a diverse group of people from your observations and we can’t make one determination, jerkishness, about a specific person from our observations of his multi-thousand post history.
Sorry that you seem to be getting worked up, but it is not necessary. I am not saying that you “can’t draw conclusions” or “can’t make one determination”. I am merely disagreeing with you. Surely you can live with that.
As for your apparent outrage at the statement that “Democrats in general, and on this board in specific, would be more apt to deny bigotry by another Democrat than a Republican would”, I am amazed and somewhat amused. Can you do this for me? Type these words:
“I, Mtgman truly and honestly believe that Democrats in general and on this board are no more apt to deny bigotry by a another Democrat than a Republican would be”.
In all honesty, if you can say that I believe you are living in an alternative reality.
Not feelings as in emotions, but ‘my feelings’ as in ‘my opinions’, ‘what I’m pissed off /irritated about’ what bugs me.
YOu offer up ‘other people do that too’. the unspoken of course, is that “others do the same things that december does, and yet you don’t get involved in pit threads about them” trying to bolster the position " therefore, no, it’s not his actions. "
Yes, people get partisan. Not to the black/white extent that he does. Yes people get smug and arrogant. Not to the extent and with the simultaneous patronizing attitude along w/absolutely shitty cites to prove their position. Yes, other people post one sided OP/s. Not with the single minded determinedness and frequency of our late year friend. Yes, other people post insulting asides where they don’t belong, but again the frequency signal/noise ratio is really in his favor.
So, yes, it’s his actions, not his position. Were he (thank the dieties he’s not) on my side, I’d likely be taking a different tactic - I’d email them suggestions to taper it back, I’d post clean up posts (much like you do for him in GD), etc. But make no mistake, I’d still be mightily irritated.
I can live with disagreement. What I can’t, and won’t, stand is posting your dissenting opinion as fact. Your statement “I believe you are living in an alternative reality.”, posted in response to my disagreement with december’s assertion, which you agreed with, is technically an opinion, but it has a major problem. It reeks of supercilliousness, an attempt to put yourself in the reasonable/common position and myself in the alternative position, and begs the question of why would it be me, instead of you, who was living in an alternate reality. This is exactly the tactic that gets december in such hot water. His interpretation, and his opinion, is the reality, and other parties are invited to “excuse” or “justify” their position, or face the possibility of being marginalized as “living in an alternative reality.”
Ultimately, not really a big deal. It has the qualifier in there that shows this is your opinion, and the intelligent reader gives it exactly the weight it deserves. In the future you may see more requests for you to add this explicit qualifier when you say things. This is not because of any problems I have with the statement, but strictly as a bookkeeping tactic to keep the reader from mistaking opinions and facts.
Well I’m not completely saying it’s not his actions. I actually pointed to actions of his that do cause this type of situation to come about. Just not the exact actions that you are pointing to.
The problem here is that you are trying to prove facts from your opinion/feeling. What you are essentially saying here is that “since I, wring, know that I am irritated by december’s sleazy debating style, and since no one can challenge me on what irritates me, this proves that he does indeed have a sleazy debating style”. This is absurd.
I don’t see anything to your accusation. It is self understood that anyone posting anything about a topic such as december’s posting style is posting subjective opinion and not objective fact. I did not see you or anyone else feel compelled to qualify your oft repeated statements about december with such disclaimers, and I don’t know why you would chose to make an issue of it here.
Similarly, my statement about you living in an alternative reality would be clearly opinion even if I had not qualified it with “I believe”. What you may really be objecting to in this case is the strength of the statement. But I think - opinion here - the notion that Democrats as a class are somehow immune to bias is so ridiculous so as to deserve it.
So, all we do on the boards boils down to mental masturbation? Discussing opinions isn’t productive. When do we talk about facts? When can we draw conclusions that are valid? I’m not saying it’s my opinion that december is a jerk, I’m saying it’s an objective fact. It’s my -opinion- that your failure to recognize his jerkishness is because you live in some alternate reality where you can give negative labels to broad groups of people for years without ever earning the title of “jerk”.
I’m not sure why the mods haven’t banned him, but my -opinion- is that they’re giving him leeway because he’s been around a long time and they don’t want the headache of the “Why was december banned you NAZIS!” threads. Plus they want to stay away from the slippery slope of “If you ban december then you have to ban Poster X, Y, and Z as well.”
Izzy no, I’m not attempting to prove his debating style sucks by virtue that it annoys me. (doesn’t that qualify in your eyes as “mischaracterizing an argument”). I do happen to believe that his debating style sucks, and it is true that he annoys me, but that’s not remotely the same as suggesting that the fact of irritation proves the sucky debating. The reverse is more likely to be true that a great deal of my annoyance is caused by his sucky debating style.
I’m not even sure what your point is, except that you seem to think ‘we’ are being too harsh w/him.
If that’s the case, then try this:
I state that he annoys me more than most other GD posters. (no evidence needed, it’s my state of mind/opinion)
Other people seem to be greatly annoyed by him as well (evidence - plethora of pit threads about him)
You seem to suggest that other posters do similar things to what he does, and don’t generate the same amount of irritation. (if that is not correct, then please restate what is your point), to suggest that ‘we’ are being too harsh w/ him.
I would counter that, you seem to be suggesting how much we should or should not be irritated by this guy. and it ain’t up to you. each person can determine for themselves what they find irritating, and what they don’t. it doesn’t have to match.
I think Adam Sandler sucks bigtime. I have a low opinion of his comedic skills. You may disagree with the assesment of his skillsand with my opinion, and indeed you may suggest that I"m judging him too harshly, that he has loads of minute, fine skills if I would only look more closely, that CarrotTop is at least as annoying etc.
So what. I still think Adam Sandler sucks, and is a crappy comedian. Other folks may or may not annoy me as much. Carrot Top is a crappy comedian as well, but he’s not in my face nearly as much, nor do I perceive that he aspires to be much more than an annoying comedian. (vs. ‘actor’ Adam Sandler).
and pretty much that’s my position on this issue. You don’t find him as annoying. shrug. You see him as similar to other posters. I don’t. shrug again.
Izzy, if the mass of people with whom you interact think you’re a jerk, then you are, in fact, a jerk.
There’s no way to measure one’s behavior towards others except by its effect on others. By that measure, the evidence should be overwhelming by now. I do understand that you, RickJay, and others have been maintaining so strenuously for so long that we all really just hate conservatives that it’s probably hard to back down, but really, it’s time, dude.
Well I am discussing whether in fact he has a uniquely unworthy debating style. You interpreted this as being telling you how you feel, or telling you what pisses you off. So if you introduce your knowledge of what pisses you off into a debate, I assmue you are trying to assert that since you know that X pisses you off X must be true. Sorry if I’ve missed your real point.
And it occurs to me now as I type this, that perhaps we’ve been talking at cross-purposes all along. And that you are not asserting (in this particular thread) that december is actually a departure from other posters (though you may also think he is this as well) - only that what happens to piss you off is instances of certain behaviour on his part.
In which case, I’ve not understood you all along. My objective is not to argue against any feelings of annoyance anyone might have. Only to argue against assertions that these derive from certain unique specified failings on the part of december.
So here’s how it stands:
“I hate december with a passion that is almost beyond words” - can’t argue with you.
“I hate december because instances of him misrepresenting my position drive me to distraction” - not going to argue here either.
“I hate december more than any other poster because he is the most prone to misrepresenting other people’s positions” - disagree.
“So long”? I have never said that even once (nor do I think so). And I have commented about december in multiple threads. Reread my posts, if necessary.
No answer to my question about if the boards are useless due to the “opinion” nature of the posts? Well I guess I’ll just have to offer my position then.
Actually I DO feel compelled to qualify my opinions as such. I certainly make the effort when posting in forums where facts are discussed, Cecil’s Columns, Staff Reports, GQ and GD. I think I made it clear in my posts that what I’m saying about december is NOT simply opinion. When analyzing social situations, such as this board, social analysis gives us facts, not opinions. It is the unqualified opinion of pretty much everyone who has weighed in to talk about december, including yourself Izzy that he posts with intent to inflame. Perhaps it’s not his sole intent, but it’s an agreed-upon facet of his character. In social sciences, when a large percentage of the population holds a view, it, by definition, becomes a fact of that society.
Simply put, when talking about society, and this board is a mini-society, opinions, given enough people holding them, become facts. We’re not talking about things that affect the physical universe, belief won’t change gravity, but a large percentage of people thinking a person is a jerk, regardless of what they think of themselves or what a small percentage may think of them, DOES make that person a jerk within the context of the society. We’re not in the realm of opinion, we’re talking facts with regards to society and interpersonal relations.
If you decide to refute this process of judging societal facts, please realize that I may choose to follow your lead in your refutation of the statement “december is a jerk”. I’d probably decide to challenge your assertion that “Democrats in general, and on this board in specific, would be more apt to deny bigotry by another Democrat than a Republican would”. Both are societal “facts” drawn on personal observation of society/interaction with other members of society to ascertain thier position on the issue. You think my challenge to your assertion is so laughable as to not merit a response, I feel the same about yours. The difference here is that you are dismissing mine as opinion and presenting yours as fact. I’m presenting mine as fact and willing to give consideration to yours. Shall we dance?
I’m sorry, I thought your questions were rhetorical, and did not think I needed to add anything, as I considered my position clear.
Again, your positions on such matters are opinion, and highly subjective opinion at that. As are mine. The fact that something is opinion does not make it wrong or worthless, and does not meaqn that it cannot be supported by logical argument. But in the end it is opinion. (As is my position about the statement “Democrats are as apt” etc.).
