The use of personal conduct litmus tests in debates on the Dope

[mlees]

[QUOTE=LilShieste]
I see a slight discrepancy even with this, though. The claim wasn’t, “People should drive cars that consume less gas”, but, “People should reduce their driving by ‘x’ percent.” IMO, the driver of a Lincoln Navigator could legitimately make the second statement above, while reducing the amount of driving they actually do (e.g., walking to the grocery store).

However, they could be legitimately asked, “Why exactly do you think driving a Lincoln Navigator is alright, but driving excessively isn’t?”
LilShieste
[/QUOTE]

:smack: Thanks.

[waterj2]

I’m perfectly consistent. I support universal healthcare, but in the meantime I think RTFirefly should purchase healthcare for me out of the goodness of his heart.

[Mtgman]

I think the device is at best an ad hominem. It re-focuses the debate, which was usually about some broad policy affecting tens of thousands to millions or billions, to the personal level. Kind of like the “Al Gore using a private jet while promoting energy conservation” debates we had a while back. No useful discussion about the policy focuses on the individuals promoting various views. It’s no different than bashing a policy put forth by Bush just because “he’s an evil bastard”. At most it points out personal hipocracy, but I don’t really care if the person advancing an arguement is a hypocrite. The arguement stands or falls on its own merits, not the merits or flaws of its proponents.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
I do think that’s a lame argument. On the other hand, there is something interesting about the underlying critique, which is that some of the social groups that argue most for the war are those who face the least personal risk from it. They’re not willing to suffer their share of the burden, in other words. It would be as though someone were arguing in favor of paying for universal health care via a tax that would not affect them, even though they were perfectly capable of paying the tax.
[/quote]
Right, and I have heard a lot of politicians say that we need to fund such-and-such a spending increase by increasing taxes on “the rich”. Which at least implies that voters should support something that benefits them or groups with which they are sympathetic even if, or perhaps especially because, it will cost them nothing.

What would be plainly ridiculous would be to say, “If you support the war so much, why don’t you go step on an IED?” That’s asking the person to take an exagerrated-to-absurdity level of responsibility for the war, in much the same way as demanding that someone pay 6 people’s health-care costs is doing.

Or “why don’t you join the Army” is doing.

I can remember some studies on how lots of voters support universal health care. Then they are asked how much increased taxation they are willing to endure to pay for it. I don’t remember the exact figures, but it wasn’t enough to pay for it.

Regards,
Shodan

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
I can remember some studies on how lots of voters support universal health care. Then they are asked how much increased taxation they are willing to endure to pay for it. I don’t remember the exact figures, but it wasn’t enough to pay for it.
[/QUOTE]

The thing is, I think that’s a perfectly valid question: “Are you willing to pay $6,000 a year (or whatever) more in taxes to pay for universal health care?” is asking someone to shoulder a realistic share of the burden of public policy: that’s what a real person who has their capabilities might be asked to do. “Are you willing to go pay for the health care of half a dozen random people?” is not, unless they happen to be extremely wealthy.

Similarly, “Are you willing to go join the army?” is a very reasonable question to ask of a young, physically fit supporter of the war, since that’s exactly the burden they’re asking other people with their capabilities to share. “Are you willing to go step on an IED?” is not, since that’s actually something we’re trying to avoid with the policy.

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

[QUOTE=Mtgman]
The arguement stands or falls on its own merits, not the merits or flaws of its proponents.
[/QUOTE]

At its best, though, it can function as a reality check. When I worked for the humane society and people suggested that we could avoid euthanasia by just increasing the foster networks, I’d sometimes run some numbers by them, showing that after ten years of that policy, they’d have to be fostering three dozen animals simultaneously, just like every other household in our community.

If a person is a hypocrite, it doesn’t weaken their argument; if a proposed policy imposes an unsupportable burden on individuals, however, it can help people understand that burden by imagining what it would be like to shoulder it themselves.

Daniel

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
The thing is, I think that’s a perfectly valid question: “Are you willing to pay $6,000 a year (or whatever) more in taxes to pay for universal health care?” is asking someone to shoulder a realistic share of the burden of public policy: that’s what a real person who has their capabilities might be asked to do. “Are you willing to go pay for the health care of half a dozen random people?” is not, unless they happen to be extremely wealthy.

Similarly, “Are you willing to go join the army?” is a very reasonable question to ask of a young, physically fit supporter of the war, since that’s exactly the burden they’re asking other people with their capabilities to share. “Are you willing to go step on an IED?” is not, since that’s actually something we’re trying to avoid with the policy.

Daniel
[/QUOTE]
Then we disagree. I think that $6000 a year and joining the army are not very equivalent. Asking "are you willing to pay $X to support the war in Iraq?’ would be.

Regards,
Shodan

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=waterj2]
I’m perfectly consistent. I support universal healthcare, but in the meantime I think RTFirefly should purchase healthcare for me out of the goodness of his heart.

[/QUOTE]
But what if my heart doesn’t have any goodness?

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
I think that sounds fair. But when the suggestion is made that someone who supports the war actually join the military - do you see that as imposing an exaggerated version of the responsibility?
[/quote]
Yes.

But if they say, “this war is an existential conflict upon which the survival of our civilization depends,” that’s a bit different, isn’t it? If you (the general ‘you’) believe there’s no tomorrow for everything you hold dear if we lose this one, with the outcome still very much in doubt, then how can you possibly stay on the sideline? If you truly believe those things, you should be finding a way to get your ass over there and help save Western civilization, even if the Army won’t take you. Are you going to sit by and do nothing but yap about it when a loss would mean the end of our civilization? Good Lord, I sure hope not.

That’s what I was saying in that thread. I still find that compelling.

I was also trying to get across the idea that nobody really believes this is an existential conflict, no matter how much they say it. Which is why all the Young Republicans and whatnot who spout such nonsense aren’t actually over there, fighting for the survival of Western civilization. They know full well that if the Green Zone gets overrun by the Mahdi Army next week, putting our embassy personnel to the sword (or more likely the AK-47), they’ll still be able to go to the mall and buy stuff next year, and the year after next, and the year after that.

Which, IMHO, is why it’s worthwhile to call them on their bullshit. We can’t back out because it’s an existential conflict that we literally can’t afford to lose, but they’re not having to pitch in and help win over there because it ain’t really.

OTOH, if you’re simply in favor of this war, but are somewhat less cosmic about the consequences of defeat (like Rudy Giuliani is, for instance), well, we’re all for a lot of things that we don’t lift a finger to bring about. The fact that we don’t doesn’t make our belief in the rightness of those things any less true.

So confusing what I was saying in that thread with the claim that if you favor the war, you need to fight in it, is WRONG.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Dunno, Shodan. I read that as a rhetorical “you”.
[/quote]
Thanks for noting that.

Doesn’t change the fact that lots of folks in that same thread were a bit more pointed in their suggestions. One poster invited me to join the Army rather directly.

And if this behavior was so disturbing, in a thread RtFirefly was posting in, he sure didn’t speak up against it. He does now, of course, because his ox is being gored.

But that post isn’t a great example of RtFirefly doing what he now decries, only of liberals doing it and him not minding a bit.

You might have noticed that you and several other posters were keeping me quite busy in that thread. Do you make this claim based on evidence that I read that comment? (Can you link to it? I’m certainly not going to search through five pages of thread to try to find it.)

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Do you really think debates here are insulated from ones in the greater society, or much elevated from them? I think you are mistaken in that. Ours are just better moderated, and our mods don’t crack the whip on this debate tactic.

Nor should they.
[/quote]
Well, hell no. If they tossed out warnings on the basis of using unsound debate tactics, we’d lose a lot of posters. Can you see the GD mods warning people about using strawmen or tu quoques? Good grief.

Now, when it comes to personal conduct litmus tests in debate, the 800-lb gorilla in recent debates is the old chickenhawk argument. That is certainly a personal conduct litmus test. It gets trucked out here all of the time. And while to your credit, you haven’t used it against posters here, you aren’t above using it on others when it suits you.

I hope I have now explained that to your satisfaction.

If not, well, screw it. I can’t think of a clearer way to put it.

All in all, I think you ought to just rebut these things as they come. If you can.

Maybe yes, maybe no, but you can bet I’ll be using this technique a lot on people who feel this has a place in debates here at the Dope. (“What - you haven’t written the President and all your Congresscritters about this? Well, you obviously don’t really mean what you say. Why should I take you seriously?”) Even though I feel it’s a crock of shit, for the reasons that my parenthetical should make clear. Maybe it’ll bring them around. But I thought I’d try this approach first; seemed more civilized to discuss before escalating, with the hopes that escalation might not be necessary.

As George Steinbrenner said thirty years ago, he was against free agency, but if those were the rules, he was going to use them to his best advantage.

[Incensed]

[QUOTE=elucidator]
…I don’t see how hypocrisy much enters into a political discussion, a rotten human being may well be smart enough to see the truth, and may reveal truth simply to be a prick about it. Similarly, a virtuous person, such as myself, often softens the harsh outlines of fact simply so as to not damage the delicate sensibilities of others.
[/QUOTE]

[Emphasis mine]
Responding to the part I bolded, I’d say that an allegation of hypocrisy ***can ** * (big CAN) alter-or effectively end-a debate, especially if the accused party is unaware that their actions and ideas aren’t in agreement. I don’t think this happens much on this board (since the opinions here are largely well thought out-or have at least had alot of thought put into them), but IRL, I’ve encountered many people who will argue completely contrary to their actions and not be aware of the discrepancy. Obviously the ‘put up or shut up’ gambit would draw their attention to this, perhaps causing them to alter their stance or retract their argument altogether.

Please don’t think I am advocating this approach-for reasons stated above, I think it should be used very sparingly-if at all-on this board.

[Mr.Moto]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
You might have noticed that you and several other posters were keeping me quite busy in that thread. Do you make this claim based on evidence that I read that comment? (Can you link to it? I’m certainly not going to search through five pages of thread to try to find it.)
[/QUOTE]

Happy to oblige.

First of all, you started that thread. I think we can assume you monitor threads you begin. But that’s not all.

In post 29, minty green posted this:

[QUOTE=minty green]
Sounds terrifying. If only there were something you could do about it.
[/QUOTE]

and hyperlinked to a website called Operation Yellow Elephant.

When I pointed out that that criticism was misplaced, at least in the aggregate, I got this later, in post 57, also from minty green:

[QUOTE=minty green]
Yep. Opposed this monstrous disaster from the inception, and have continued to do so through this very moment. How’s your house looking? Wouldn’t want no terra-rist homicide bombers to blow it up now, would ya? If only there were some way you could help prevent that from happening. I understand existential incontinence is no longer a barrier to enlistment.
[/QUOTE]

and hyperlinked to goarmy.com.

Now, I did reply to this immediately afterward:

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Considering that I already have done more than most in this area, and in fact continue to do so, I personally will not consider any criticism directed my way in this area worthy of my consideration.
[/QUOTE]

Now of course, you saw this exchange, because you commented upon it. But did you take minty green to task at all? Hardly. You replied to my last post and commented:

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
I see you’re rationalizing away anything you have a problem with.
[/QUOTE]

So you will forgive me if I take this concern of yours as springing from your own ox being gored. This behavior didn’t raise red flags with you in the past when your ideological compatriots were engaging in it.

I’m sure you’re sincere in this new found belief of yours, but it is telling how this conversion came about.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Happy to oblige.

First of all, you started that thread. I think we can assume you monitor threads you begin.
[/quote]
As in, “read every word.” An interesting new standard.

Bogus, of course, but interesting.

But that’s not all.

In post 29, minty green posted this:
and hyperlinked to a website called Operation Yellow Elephant.

When I pointed out that that criticism was misplaced, at least in the aggregate, I got this later, in post 57, also from minty green:
and hyperlinked to goarmy.com.

Post 29 is mine; post 57 belongs to John Mace.

I can find nothing at all posted by minty green on the first two pages of that thread.

We are talking about the thread you linked to in post 3 of this thread, right?

Now of course, you saw this exchange, because you commented upon it. But did you take minty green to task at all? Hardly. You replied to my last post and commented:
So you will forgive me if I take this concern of yours as springing from your own ox being gored. This behavior didn’t raise red flags with you in the past when your ideological compatriots were engaging in it.

I’m sure you’re sincere in this new found belief of yours, but it is telling how this conversion came about.

There have been a number of instances lately where I have asked you to back up one of your confident assertions, and you’ve come up with nothing. Unlike those other times, this time I’m sure you must be quoting something, somewhere, that were actual words typed in by you, me, and minty.

On the one hand, I can’t just dismiss your claim out of hand (because I feel fairly certain you’re not making this exchange up), but on the other hand, without context to make it clear what was meant by everyone, it’s impossible to rebut, too.

So could you kindly be more careful when making and attempting to substantiate claims such as this?

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
But did you take minty green to task at all? Hardly. You replied to my last post and commented:

@RTFirefly

I see you’re rationalizing away anything you have a problem with.

[/quote]
I did a ‘search thread’ in that thread for the word ‘rationalizing’. No matches were returned.

So you will forgive me if I take this concern of yours as springing from your own ox being gored.

So you will forgive me if I tell you…hell, I don’t know what I can tell you that is both apropos to this, and OK for this forum.

But the best face I can put on this for you is that you’re obviously pulling this exchange from a whole 'nother thread than the one you linked @3, and are being extremely sloppy in your leveling of these claims about my motivation.

[Mr.Moto]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
As in, “read every word.” An interesting new standard.

Bogus, of course, but interesting. Post 29 is mine; post 57 belongs to John Mace.

I can find nothing at all posted by minty green on the first two pages of that thread.

We are talking about the thread you linked to in post 3 of this thread, right?
[/QUOTE]

No we certainly are not. We were discussing your behavior in this thread. That is where the post Shodan linked to is located, and when I mildly defended you but also criticized you, it was with that thread in mind.

Please read that thread. And maybe in the future you could be more careful yourself.

Like I said, you came to this little realization of yours when you found yourself on the receiving end of this treatment. But for groups who you are in opposition to, you happily dish it out. And when one of your ideological compatriots makes a personal attack along these lines, you sit back and grin.

A less fair person than me would question your sincerity entirely. I won’t. But I will say that your sense of injustice wasn’t troubled until recently, which seems fair just from what I observe.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
No we certainly are not. We were discussing your behavior in this thread. That is where the post Shodan linked to is located, and when I mildly defended you but also criticized you, it was with that thread in mind.
[/quote]
Oh, really? Then you should have made that clear. I was assuming we were still talking about the same thread we had been discussing from the beginning. There are certain posters whose posts I skip past.

[Mr.Moto]

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
Oh, really? Then you should have made that clear. I was assuming we were still talking about the same thread we had been discussing from the beginning. There are certain posters whose posts I skip past.
[/QUOTE]

And why you thanked me for noticing your tone in that post? Missed that did you?

Look, I can understand how you skipped grooves here, but don’t pin it all on me.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
No we certainly are not. We were discussing your behavior in this thread. That is where the post Shodan linked to is located, and when I mildly defended you but also criticized you, it was with that thread in mind.
[/quote]
Good. Go read post 43 in that thread, mmkay? I wrote it. You know what I said?

@RTFirefly

Right now, of course, we’re in a war that’s wearing our troops out. It’s a war that Republicans generally support, and Democrats pretty much don’t. Also, according to our President, as well as many conservative war supporters, it’s the main front in an “existential conflict,” i.e. one that our survival depends on. Democrats don’t see it that way.

So the need to volunteer for this particular war is a consequence of the GOP worldview. That is not the case with the Democratic worldview; we see a need to end the war, which vacates the need for anyone to volunteer for it.

But if you believe the future of our civilization hangs on this war, and you see the toll this war is taking on our troops, and you see us recruiting criminals and gang members and the like to sustain recruiting targets, and making liberal use of stop-loss to keep troops in the military well past the scheduled end of their service - how can you not volunteer, if you are in the proper age range and have no physical disqualification?

How can you go, “our civilization depends on winning this war, but even though our troops are suffering serious stress and hardship from repeated, extended deployments, I think I’ll just cheer from the sidelines”?

I don’t see how that makes any sense at all. If, in your worldview, this war is of paramount importance to the United States, at some point you’ve got to step up and do your part, rather than forcing the same people to go through the mill over and over again.

IOW, the same thing I said in the other thread you linked to.

Please read that thread. And maybe in the future you could be more careful yourself.

I could say the same thing to you.

Like I said, you came to this little realization of yours when you found yourself on the receiving end of this treatment. But for groups who you are in opposition to, you happily dish it out. And when one of your ideological compatriots makes a personal attack along these lines, you sit back and grin.

A less fair person than me would question your sincerity entirely. I won’t. But I will say that your sense of injustice wasn’t troubled until recently, which seems fair just from what I observe.

Seems I’ve been quite consistent, haven’t I? The only time I’ve expected a participatory response in any of the threads we’re discussing is when the consequences of failure are absolute.

[RTFirefly]

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
And why you thanked me for noticing your tone in that post? Missed that did you?
[/quote]
Who cares, given how poorly the thread you really meant supports your claim? Really, your argument of inconsistency is an atrocity. Your argument concerning my motivation falls just as hard.

But at the time, I thought you were referring to my use of ‘you’ in the OP of the thread you linked to @3.