No, but…pffft.
I think this is an excellent post. I’d add to it that there’s a tendency of a majority to want to quash any and all opposition. And the more lopsided the majority the greater the tendency. And then it’s a quick jump from large reasoned majority to emotionally charged mob intent on crushing any dissent. I’ve experienced this myself a time or two. For instance, I never voted for Bush, but because I would try to temper some of the more emotionally charged accusations against him, I would get attacked. Because I wouldn’t say that the man was evil, I would get attacked. Me saying I thought he was wrong was not good enough. No, those with any opposition must knuckle under. The SSM debates are that on steroids. While I agree on every aspect of gay couples enjoying the same privileges and benefits as straight couples, because I think the term marriage should be reserved for traditional man/woman pairings, I am an outright bigot, homophobe, despicable. This is what happens inside a hive. The bees don’t hear their own buzzing. I don’t necessarily fault the board for this, as it is my guess that right-leaning boards do the same thing. I think it’s the nature of the beast. But I do fault the individuals who participate in doing this. Particularly those who really do know better. Simultaneously, I’m very appreciative when a poster might step in and temper the vitriol and straighten out the poor logic coming from a poster on his side of the debate. It’s refreshing when either side does this. But given the slant of the board, it’s definitely needed more from those on the left.
I’ll just add that this needn’t mean that the poster agree with a particular position, but that he point out flaws in logic or straighten out some misstatement of facts. For instance, tomndebb, who is pro SSM, has spent some time pointing out blatant errors in the arguments of those on his side of the debate in the Arguments Against Gay Marriage thread. That goes a considerable way in changing the tone of the board for conservatives.
Judge Smails: I’ve sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn’t want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.
Matthew 7-16: “Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?”
I’ll never have a sit down with Ryan to talk about his heart. I can only judge him by what he does. When his budget plan doesn’t add up and wouldn’t reduce the deficit or create jobs or improve the economy, it ends up with only one guaranteed outcome - severe hardship for poor people. That’s it. There’s no mitigating outcome.
It’s a shitload of thorns and thistles with no figs or grapes.
It’s kind of like the recent proposal to make poor kids work for their subsidized lunches. I could sit back and speculate as to whether the person proposing that thinks it will be a glorious character building exercise that will produce platoons of Henry Fords and Steve Jobs, but the more parsimonious explanation is that the person buys into the moochers and looters framework of characterizing the poor.
By their works. You’ve got to show me the figs and grapes, not the kind eyes.
That’s your slam-dunk that none of the liberals here will acknowledge? The best you got?
The point, I thought, was about some major issue that is a slam dunk for the Right, on par with Global Climate Change, that no liberal posters here (which allegedly is almost all who post here) will acknowledge any ground on. And what you got is one minor thread about taggants? Sorry. Taggants is not a major issue and few of us know or care about what they are or bothered with that thread. As for gun control and gun rights as the major issue - the subject is hardly a Right slam-dunk and the positions of those who post here are wide ranging, often far from simplistic pro- and anti- camps, and with many liberals here having significant pro gun rights positions and some conservatives being in favor of significant gun control measures.
Yes. And on this board many liberals diverge from that position and acknowledge that nuclear power should have a significant role in our long term energy future. Many debates here in which the hard anti-nuke any nuke position has been opposed by many a poster who would generally be considered “liberal.”
So a few conservatives here, not all, will break with conservative positions on obviously wrong major positions like Climate Change denial. Bricker’s contention was that liberal’s here never do that on any issue, including ones that are similarly major “slam-dunk” ones for the Right. That contention is demonstrably false.
So I was perusing the NRA-taggants thread, trying to see why this was such a great example of conservative argumentation. I was really struggling to see how it was so, but thought I was missing something in my relatively brief review. Then I found this.
I couldn’t see any evidence that they were wrong. So, a fact free twat-filled pit thread is what Bricker wants to repeatedly point to as a good example? He calls this “a complete and thorough refutation of the complaint and the underlying thesis”?
I did find this quite amusing.
Oh gee, people here just aren’t welcoming of poor little innocent old me!
Strawman. I never identified it as “the best.” But it’s useful for two reasons: it’s on the front page and current, requiring no real searching; and it’s a very clear factual issue – that is, the factual claims made by the OP have been clearly refuted.
So I offered it as an example of a factual issue on which the lefty poster was convincingly rebutted, and none of the hard-core Democrats posting therein have acknowledged the refutation. This, in my view, is a serious counter to the claim floated in this thread that the liberal contingent here is all about calm factual reasoning, and the conservative contingent here are the only ones unmoved by calm factual reasoning.
So what? The OP of that thread is RTFirefly, certainly a major player here. And since I’ve linked to it, you yourself are now aware of the issue. Why don’t you go weigh in on the subject?
Part of the issue is simply refusing to engage on an issue where the left is wrong – this allows the ones who DO engage to stand virtually unrefuted.
Agreed. There is no objectively right answer on gun control.
But there is an objectively right answer on the validity of pitting the NRA for opposing taggants in gunpowder such that hindered the Boston bomb investigation.
Right?
That’s not my contention.
And that post came out of the blue, did it? Not a response to anything? Just a vicious attack on RTFirefly unprovoked in any way?
Was it just an attack on RTFirefly? Or was it an aspersion on all “leftists”?
No, you aren’t alone in doing so. I certainly paint conservatives with broad strokes. I just don’t bat my eyelashes and cry foul about my treatment here.
I see that you continue to characterize that thread as somehow overwhelmingly incontrovertibly refuted, whereas others participating in it in an unbiased fashion described it as “fact free”, “tentatively” convincing and full of “twats.”
I wouldn’t be putting this one in bold on my vita, unless it was the one thing I got, I suppose.
Of course not. Why should you? You’re in the majority; any foul treatment directed at you by the small conservative contingent is more that counterbalanced by the approval of your brethern.
Are you suggesting that the NRA is at fault for opposing taggants in gunpowder and this was a hindrance in the capture of the Boston bomber?
sleestak posts:
*However, if you dare to post something that is incorrect, according to the Straight Dope Liberal Hive Mind, the pile on will begin. With Straw Men leading the charge and Ad Hominem (his trusty side kick) right behind.
Take for example this quote from Dinsdale.
So, anyone who disagrees with Dinsdale on these particular issues, regardless of how good of an argument they have for their position, is selfish, intolerant and full of bullshit. Fighting Ignorance, indeed!*
Well, I stand behind what I wrote before. Present a conservative position, and I’ll let you know whether or not I feel there is an element of selfishness, intolerance, or BS involved. In no way did I suggest that I feel that applies to every specific point on every issue. Take gun control, for instance. I do not agree with much of what I hear from the right concerning guns, but I do not know how we can get around the 2d amendment, and I do not see banning specific weapons as effective in doing much than needs to be done. I agree with the NRA and much of the right that what is most needed is stricter enforcement of perhaps more punitive penalties for violations. I would differ from the right, however, believing some form of FOID for purchases would be of some value and not a terrible infringement on 2d amendment rights.
As far as any number of social policies are concerned, I believe a huge aspect of the conservative positon reflects an intolerance of different opinions, and a desire to inflict a specific belief system upon others. Gay rights, abortion, school prayer… I think the liberal position is preferable - respecting the conservatives’ rights to do whatever they want in their homes, in their private institutions, or even in public so long as they do not expect pubic support. I think such position is preferable to a conservative view which does not support similar freedom for folk who do not share their beliefs.
And, I personally have a real difficulty in separating a belief in a Christian mythology from ignorance and/or fear. As a realist, however, I acknowledge that a majority of humanity believe in one mythology or another.
I also have difficulties with the belief that we ought to enforce our national beliefs/preferences/interests on other countries. The desire to invade Iraq - a sovereign state - which posed no imminent threat to us, was to me the epitome of intolerance.
On the economic agenda, I perceive a substantial element of greed behand many conservative policies. I’ve got mine, so I want to protect it, with far less concern over what happens to others. Yes, if things work differently than they seem to have in the past, it is conceivable that conservative policies MIGHT assist all folk. But the most immediate impact appears to be favoring the most favored. IMO, the liberal positions imress me as at least impress aiming at assisting those most in need. Add in a short term perspective for much conservative environmental and energy policy.
Keep in mind, of course, that I think the conservative and liberal positions are equally likely to be unsuccessful in achieving any meaningful, longterm improvement. People (including myself) are greedy and stupid. But I personally prefer social policies that at least appear more intended to directly assist the least fortunate, as opposed to improving the position of the most fortunate.
You are REALLY not getting it. The people who subscribe to the “moochers and looters” framework have their opinion, and you have theirs. In reality, neither is 100% right- one may have a better handle on things than the other, but it’s all shades of gray, not black and white.
And yet, you make inflammatory statements about someone’s motivation and effectively accuse them of moral turpitude simply because they don’t agree with you?
And then once that’s been done by someone on the left side, no one else calls anyone out on it.
It’s no wonder that Republican/conservative types don’t want to hang around and be abused like that. It’s not debate at that point- it’s a 3rd grade schoolyard screaming match, complete with “You’re a poopyhead” and “Am not!” type statements, even if they’re more literate than that.
So this is a high Broderism argument. There are no rights or wrongs, there’s just differing opinions, so therefore someone cannot be motivated by undesirable aims.
I’ve made clear that my opinion on Ryan is not simply due to having a difference of opinion. You cannot seem to hear that. Rather than understanding my elaboration of the matter, with explication through links to others who explain the impact of the budget and the degree to which it will result in harm to the poor, you reduce my position to schoolyard taunts.
I suppose you could do that with any argument, but it doesn’t really help to convince me of your position.
Actual title from a conservative just looking for facts in a General Questions thread: “Brady gun-grabbers claims. Anyone have a cite?”. That term(gun-grabber) is being used so often here I think some of you actually think it is neutral in nature. No matter how often you shove it into every damn thread about the 2nd Amendment it will still be a cheap shot invective that has absolutely no place in any reasoned debate you claim you want to have.
Only very rarely do people approve of me here. You can go ahead and take a look. It’s not my goal to get others approval.
You might argue that it is implicit approval if people take a similar line of argument to mine. There’s nothing I can use to evaluate that claim as true or false.
Certainly, I find the ethos of the board to be a positive one. In that regard, I would point to the Bush years as crystallizing. There certainly was a sense of the Emperor’s New Clothes in the early Bush years, and there was a lack of a liberal infrastructure to rely upon on the internet broadly speaking. I found the poster’s here who were providing important information on WMDs in the run up to the war to be highly valuable. Other posters taking on Bush’s fuzzy math and economic positions were also things I came to value.
Relying on my recollection of the thread, this seems like a misrepresentation - at least as to the specific case of the Boston bomber.
I know that I didn’t get a good sense as to whether the NRA has continued to oppose taggants or not, what the true cost of such a process would be, and how many bombings such a thing would help to solve. The take away for me was that, given that these things are not clear, it probably makes sense not to pursue it in earnest. I would agree with Martin Hyde’s position, or that of the poster I quoted above, regarding a tentative conclusion on the subject.
If you could point me to the “complete and thorough refutation of the complaint and underlying thesis” I would be much obliged.
I argue it’s implicit approval when people fail to take you to task for rhetorical excess because they approve of the underlying position, and those same people attack similar rhetorical excess when it’s used in service of an issue they oppose.
But that’s kind of the problem. The challenge was made: show evidence of the NRA’s opposition to taggants in gunpowder after 1999. No one did. But no one admitted, clearly and unequivocally, that they could not. So you, the casual reader, are left with the impression that the issue remains unresolved.
But it was shown that they had opposed it before that, and nobody could show that they reversed their position either.
I did a google search and found dozens upon dozens of examples, including post-Boston bombing statements by Dick Morris, making public statements that the NRA opposes taggants. If they have stopped opposing taggants, why don’t they make a statement refuting the claim?
It’s not a resolved question, but it’s also not quite like the “show me a purple cow” test of proving a negative. They did before. Whether they still do is not clear, but there should be some pressure for them to make clear if they’ve changed their position. So, why do you consider this to be some kind of win?
For that particular term, you have a point. As a general rule, though, this board is waaaaaay more tolerant of casual “cheap shot” terms coming from the left than from the right. It’s laughable to think there is any kind of balance. It’s one of the things I find most distasteful about the culture here.
I’m not saying there aren’t, but could you give some examples of such that were dropped into what was supposed to be a reasoned debate?
You might want to read the thread before posting to it.
Regards,
Shodan
The search function won’t let me search for “gun nut”, but do you honestly think “gun grabber” has been used more than “gun nut” on this MB? Also, can you link to the GD thread you posted about.
But, more generally, a poster here can write “Repuglicans” without anyone batting an eye, whereas you only see a few newbie posters using terms like “Demoncrats” and even then, they are usually jumped upon or hit with a flurry of :rolleyes:.