The Right and its persecution complex.

[Starving_Artist]

@Harborwolf

You misspelled “they want judges who won’t govern from the bench.”

You guys have been doing it for decades. Most of the so-called “progress” you’ve made over the last fifty or sixty years has come from liberal, activist judges appointed for that very reason given that your positions wouldn’t have survived the popular vote.

(This isn’t to say that some good hasn’t come of it; it has. The trouble is that that good also came with many particularly troublesome side effects that could have been avoided had the citizenry at large been allowed to participate in this “progress” and acheived it in a more reasoned and less harmful manner.)

Anyway, now the worm has turned and you’re all screeching like hell.

I will readily admit that judicial political orientation is now a particular concern of the right, but you guys started it, you ran with it, and now the only defense against it is for our side to do the same.

It’s kind of like that media thing, you know, with Fox, Limbaugh, etc. You don’t like it but it’s of your own creation.

[Harborwolf]

@Starving Artist

You guys have been doing it for decades. Most of the so-called “progress” you’ve made over the last fifty or sixty years has come from liberal, activist judges appointed for that very reason given that your positions wouldn’t have survived the popular vote.

(This isn’t to say that some good hasn’t come of it; it has. The trouble is that that good also came with many particularly troublesome side effects that could have been avoided had the citizenry at large been allowed to participate in this “progress” and acheived it in a more reasoned and less harmful manner.)

Anyway, now the worm has turned and you’re all screeching like hell.

I will readily admit that judicial political orientation is now a particular concern of the right, but you guys started it, you ran with it, and now the only defense against it is for our side to do the same.

It’s kind of like that media thing, you know, with Fox, Limbaugh, etc. You don’t like it but it’s of your own creation.

Oh lighten up monkey man. It’s a joke. Hence the smiley. Watch them knee jerks now. Ya gonna hurt yaself.

[elucidator]

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
You guys have been doing it for decades. Most of the so-called “progress” you’ve made over the last fifty or sixty years has come from liberal, activist judges appointed for that very reason given that your positions wouldn’t have survived the popular vote…

[quote]

Prove it.

[SteveG1]

@Harborwolf

You misspelled “they want judges who won’t govern from the bench.”

Oh yes. Judicial Activism is BAD BAD BAD except when they govern “our” way.

[Zoe]

Sam Stone: The reason those of you on the far left can’t see the Liberal bias is because it is to the right of you.

Then perhaps the reason that those on the right can’t see that the media does not have a liberal bias is that it is to the left of them – in the middle.

Sam: But the incredibly rapid rise and dominance of Fox News shows that there was a pretty big gap between the media and the people.

Have you ever noticed how many of us liberals, like elucidator, keep up with what’s going on at Fox? Don’t make assumptions about the political affiliation of the viewers. I watch it instead of cartoons and go elsewhere for serious conservative insight and information.

I don’t use Al Franken as my main source of news either. :rolleyes:

Starving Artist: Time and again we hear from soldiers and civilian personnel returning from Iraq talking about all the good things that are happening over there and that none of it reaching the American public.

Then how are we hearing about it time and again?

Starving ArtistThe press only supported the war temporarily until they could find good enough grounds to begin to assail it, given the support the president had at the time the war started.

Are you saying that the press should have continued to support the war after finding good grounds not to?

[Starving_Artist]

[QUOTE=elucidator]

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
You guys have been doing it for decades. Most of the so-called “progress” you’ve made over the last fifty or sixty years has come from liberal, activist judges appointed for that very reason given that your positions wouldn’t have survived the popular vote…

Prove it.

Bite me.

[elucidator]

@Starving Artist

…Bite me.

Damn sure more likely than you proving it.

[Starving_Artist]

@Zoe

Then how are we hearing about it time and again?

We darn sure aren’t hearing about it to any significant degree in the mainsteam media, that’s for sure. We’re hearing about it in comments to the editor in various magazines (even in the likes of Vanity Fair) or when one of them shows up on program to discuss something else and it comes up as an aside during the conversation.

And for the benefit of the numerous hair-splitters our there…yes,* Vanity Fair* would probably qualify as part of the “mainstream media,” but I really don’t think that a comment (and to the editor, remember, and not on one of the main pages) on the lack of fairness in that magazine’s articles constitues much by way of their telling both sides of the story.

@Zoe

Are you saying that the press should have continued to support the war after finding good grounds not to?

Zoe, please. I’m saying they were already faunching at the bit to go after Bush and the war, but had to wait until a more opportune time in order to do so.

[Lissa]

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]

[QUOTE=elucidator]

@Starving Artist

You guys have been doing it for decades. Most of the so-called “progress” you’ve made over the last fifty or sixty years has come from liberal, activist judges appointed for that very reason given that your positions wouldn’t have survived the popular vote…Bite me.

hehe why is that the RIGHTS response to everything nowadays.

[Beware_of_Doug]

@Zoe

Have you ever noticed how many of us liberals, like elucidator, keep up with what’s going on at Fox? Don’t make assumptions about the political affiliation of the viewers. I watch it instead of cartoons and go elsewhere for serious conservative insight and information.

I watch Fox for the only reason any thinking man would watch Fox: for the babes. if I see anything of news value, I flip to another station afterwards for some perspective.

[Harborwolf]

[QUOTE=Lissa]

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]

@elucidator

hehe why is that the RIGHTS response to everything nowadays.

Cause they’re pervy.

[elucidator]

@Starving Artist

…Zoe, please. I’m saying they were already faunching at the bit to go after Bush and the war, but had to wait until a more opportune time in order to do so.

Given your astonishing capacity for mind-reading, have you considered changing your cognomen to Amazing Kreskin?

You realize, do you not, that you cannot possibly prove any of this?

And how would you explain such a thing? Consequence implys mechanism, how did this come about?

Do you imagine that the journalism schools of America have been infiltrated by agents of the Great Conspiracy? Were young, naive Americans recruited by Trotskyist high school career guidance counselors, and funneled into journalism programs at Local University (after appropriate indoctrination, of course…you know, the usual: porno, Das Kapital, marijuana…)

Why should journalists, as a class, be any more lefty than architects?

And what of other professions? I think we can fairly say that the tighty righty viewpoint is amply reflected in our graduating crop of business/accounting majors (or, as I like to think of it, the white studies program…) Do you perceive any threat therein, that the majority of the people guiding decisions that effect so many…that such decisions come from people with a distinct political bent?

Hmmm…but I digress.

[Evil_Captor]

@Starving Artist

You guys have been doing it for decades. Most of the so-called “progress” you’ve made over the last fifty or sixty years has come from liberal, activist judges appointed for that very reason given that your positions wouldn’t have survived the popular vote…Bite me.

Yeah, like Social Security … and the Voting Rights Act, and the War on Poverty legislation … all that stuff that judges passed into law against Congress’ better judgement … :dubious:

[Starving_Artist]

You know, this is getting to be absolutely ridiculous. Time and again, over the last few days especially, people seem to feel they’re acheiving some sort of victory if they can come up with some example that is contrary to a comment I’ve made. You, and luci, and Harborwolf, and GIGObuster, and crowmanyclouds, etc., seem to feel you’ve won some sort of victory by pretending that any comment I make has to apply in *Each. And. Every. Instance. *and in regard to Each. And. Every. Person. and/or in Each. And. Every. Result…or it’s not a valid statement.

Everyone try to follow this:

I often speak in general terms! You know, just like you guys do when talking about the “right”, “Pubbies”, “Bushco”, “conservatives”, the “religious right”, and so on and so on, ad infinitum.

To the best of my knowledge I have never tried to use this or that specific, singular contrary fact to try to invalidate someone’s use of obviously general statements, and then try to pretend I’ve acheived some sort of final victory over my opponent as a result.

Many of you here have been doing just this over and over the few days and you’re not fooling anyone and you’re not persuading anyone to your point of view by doing so. There are exceptions to every rule and contrary facts to every trend or movement. The fact that you can ferret one out when you hear something you don’t like proves nothing.

I was accused of lying and cowardice in another thread by just such a disingenuous bozo. The genuine untruth lies in deliberately pretending that someone is saying something as an absolute when it is perfectly obvious they are speaking in general terms.

If you can’t dispute someone’s comments without resorting to this idiotic, transparent and intellectually dishonest tactic, you deserve no response.

[Harborwolf]

Blah blah blah blah blah. If you don’t feel comfortable with the amount of evidence required to back up your big ass claims, stop making them. Don’t just whine that we’re being unfair and dishonest before you run away screaming that it was your opinion or it was just a joke.

And I have yet to claim victory in this thread or in any thread to the best of my knowledge. If anything, I’m a little disappointed that you can’t be bothered to find even the merest hint of a cite for anything. All you’ve done is tell me to read a book that apparently is far from conclusive and wait for someone with more brains than you to post something so that you can agree with it.

Either man up and do some research or mince your way on out of the thread and leave the grown ups to talk.

[GIGObuster]

@Starving Artist

I was accused of lying and cowardice in another thread by just such a disingenuous bozo. The genuine untruth lies in deliberately pretending that someone is saying something as an absolute when it is perfectly obvious they are speaking in general terms.

http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/000598.php

Apriorism
By Dr Madsen Pirie
Normally we allow facts to be the test of our principles. When we see what the facts are, we can retain or modify our principles. To start out with principles from the first (a priori) and to use them as the basis for accepting or rejecting facts is to do it the wrong way round. It is to commit the fallacy of apriorism.

‘We don’t need to look through your telescope, Mr Galileo. We know that there cannot be more than seven heavenly bodies.’ (A short-sighted view.)
The relationship between facts and principles is a complicated one. We need some kind of principle, otherwise nothing presents itself as a fact in the first place. The fallacy consists of giving too much primacy to principles, and in not permitting them to be modified by what we observe. It makes an unwarranted presumption in favour of a theory which is not supported by the evidence, and therefore rejects evidence relevant to the case.

‘All doctors are in it for themselves. If yours really did give up all that time for no payment, then all I can say is that there must have been some hidden gain we don’t know about.’ (In addition to the less well-hidden fallacy we do know about.)
Aprioristic reasoning is widely used by those whose beliefs have very little to do with reality anyway. The fallacy is the short brush which sweeps untidy facts under a carpet of preconception. It is a necessary household appliance for those determined to keep their mental rooms clean of the dust of the real world. Engraved on the handle, and on the mind of the user, is the legend:

‘My mind’s made up. Don’t confuse me with facts!’

If you can’t dispute someone’s comments without resorting to this idiotic, transparent and intellectually dishonest tactic, you deserve no response.

@Dr Madsen Pirie

It is generally unproductive, when using apriorism, to dismiss the facts out of hand as untrue. After all, your audience might have been there to witness them. You will go much further by reinterpreting those facts, showing how they were not what they seemed. Far from contradicting your contention, they really support it.

‘I still maintain that the books I recommended were the most popular ones. Of course I don’t deny that they were the least read ones in the entire library; but I take that as a sign of their popularity. You see, when a hook is really popular, people buy it or borrow it from friends; they don’t wait to borrow it from a library.’ (At least the fallacy is popular.)

The reality is that it is you who is transparently and intellectually dishonest, when the best evidence you bring is full of holes.
That, or your last post is just sour grapes.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Starving Artist

Everyone try to follow this:

I often speak in general terms! You know, just like you guys do when talking about the “right”, “Pubbies”, “Bushco”, “conservatives”, the “religious right”, and so on and so on, ad infinitum.

To the best of my knowledge I have never tried to use this or that specific, singular contrary fact to try to invalidate someone’s use of obviously general statements, and then try to pretend I’ve acheived some sort of final victory over my opponent as a result.

But, if there’s an example that contradicts a general statement, doesn’t that mean the general statement is incorrect? Or do you mean, by general statement, a statement that may sometimes be true and sometimes not? Or do you mean something that is largely true, regardless of any number of counter examples?

Or are you just a stupid fucking tool, in general?

@Richard Dawson

Show me … Tool!

Bing!

Tool: number one answer!

[Starving_Artist]

@Harborwolf

Blah blah blah blah blah. If you don’t feel comfortable with the amount of evidence required to back up your big ass claims, stop making them. Don’t just whine that we’re being unfair and dishonest before you run away screaming that it was your opinion or it was just a joke.

Cite for my “screaming.”

You can’t! You pulled it out of your ass!

You’re just a dumb fuck who can’t back up his outlandish statements!

@Harborwolf

And I have yet to claim victory in this thread or in any thread to the best of my knowledge.

Cite!!!

Prove I ever said you claimed victory!

Back up your accusations, sir, or admit to being the knee-jerk reactionary that we all know you to be.

I never said you claimed victory, I said you seem to feel you’ve “won some sort of victory.”

If you’re going to make accusations of the sort you have been, you better be more careful about your own words.

@Harborwolf

If anything, I’m a little disappointed that you can’t be bothered to find even the merest hint of a cite for anything.

I’ve been through this time and again over the time I’ve been here. Cites, in my opinion, are largely a complete waste of time. Unless it comes to an absolute concrete fact, like the number of states that went red in the last election or the date that some event occurred, they solve and/or prove nothing, and they accomplish nothing but to derail the conversation…something you and your ilk frequently seem happy to do. It’s hard to argue with someone’s opinion or observation, but any non-fact cite can be disputed all day long. And worse yet, nothing gets proven…nothing gets settled.

I simply refuse to allow myself to fall into the trap of providing “cites” of this, and “proofs” of that when no concrete answer – for your side or mine – exists.

State your opinion and I’ll state mine. Take from mine what you will; I’ll take from yours what I will. But you can stuff your demands for cites.

@Harborwolf

Either man up and do some research or mince your way on out of the thread and leave the grown ups to talk.

I’ll do what I please.

And as far as “manning up”, I’ll have you know, sir, that I just spent the latter part of the afternoon doing manly man work of the kind that would have you crying for your mommy. I just mowed my neighbor’s lawn with my 1300 horsepower, 184" Wide-Trac, Super Hustler Maxi-Z commercial lawn mower, edging with my 128,000 rpm 50 hp LawnMaster commercial lawn edger, and trimming the entire perimeter and decorative features with my 350 hp, 500,000 rpm, commercial Big Boy Weed Gobbler.

I’ll leave the mincing to you, chum.

[Starving_Artist]

@Hentor the Barbarian

But, if there’s an example that contradicts a general statement, doesn’t that mean the general statement is incorrect? Or do you mean, by general statement, a statement that may sometimes be true and sometimes not? Or do you mean something that is largely true, regardless of any number of counter examples?

If I say, “The University of Texas football team is kicking ass all over the country this year”, and you come along and say, “Oh, yeah? Well, they got thrown for a loss twice yesterday and they barely squeaked out a 31 - 24 victory over UCLA, so clearly you just pulled this comment out of your ass”, it would in no way mean my opinion of the Texas football season is erroneous and therefore without merit.

@Hentor the Barbarian

Or are you just a stupid fucking tool, in general?

Oh, I don’t think so. You’ve got that one pretty well sewn up yourself, as you show in virtually every post you make.

[mhendo]

@Starving Artist

I was accused of lying and cowardice in another thread by just such a disingenuous bozo. The genuine untruth lies in deliberately pretending that someone is saying something as an absolute when it is perfectly obvious they are speaking in general terms.

Well, as the “disingenuous bozo” in question (why does an insult from Starving Artist always feel like a badge of honor?), i thought i’d give the same response in this thread as i did in that one:

The fact that you take pride in your unsubstantiated generalizations makes you an object of even greater ridicule.

No-one is disputing that certain generalizations are necessary, and even useful, in discussions of a political nature. But, in order for people to take you at all seriously, you should at least be able to demonstrate that your generalizations are based on some sort of reality.

You said:

@Starving Artist

I’ve always been wondered why it is that liberal concern for human rights seems to evaporate at the country’s border. Treat a woman badly here, or kill her because of some religious motive, and the screeching could be heard (and rightfully so, I might add) for miles; let it happen elsewhere in the world, and…eh, so what?..who are we to interfere with another culture?

I’ve asked you to back up that claim, just as i’ve asked duffer to back up his claim that there are liberals on this Board who would defend the rantings of the Iranian President.

I don’t expect you to be able to demonstrate that your generalization applies in every single case, but you should at least be able to offer some evidence that it applies in some cases. So far, you haven’t even been able to show that it applies in even a single case. And you wonder why you’re not taken seriously?