Subject:
|
Re: Finally--a use of public funding that I can really get behind!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:03:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
614 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Carl Nelson wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Demonstrate this, please! Instead of arguing your point, you are repeating
it, and you are thereby simply assuming your conclusion. Since the article
did not mention the researchers’ agenda, you are only able to infer it,
based on your interpretation of their listed conclusions. You are, in
effect, forming your hypothesis (ie, that the researchers have an anti-Bush
bias) and bending your data to fit that hypothesis (ie, you assume the
existence of data that demonstrates the researchers’ bias).
|
See my other reply to you.
|
See my reply to your reply.
| |
| |
| |
Out of curiosity, how is Bush both a moron and capable of complex nefarious
plots to benefit Enron and undertake a massive campaign of deception to the
world community, Congress, and the American people? Make up your mind.
|
False dilemma. In this example, Bush is considered a simpleton figurehead
at the crest of a coordinated and well-organized effort to achieve certain
ends, namely pro-oil, pro-industry, and pro-Right. It is entirely possible
both that Bush is a moron and that Bush’s administration is capable of
complex, nefarious plots. Further, I would submit that both have been ably
demonstrated to date.
|
Thanks for clearing that up. I really appreciate it.
|
You’re welcome. And I notice that you didn’t attempt to refute my answer.
| |
| |
Strawman, strawman, strawman.
Here’s a quote for you to consider, before you condemn liberals for their
education: “As people do better, they start voting like Republicans -
unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there
can be too much of a good thing” Karl Rove, a senior advisor for George W.
Bush, “The Daily Texan”, March 19, 2001
|
I’m condemning (liberals) for their arrogance, not their education!
|
It’s been a while, so perhaps you’ve forgotten. Here’s what you wrote in your
previous post:
That’s my biggest problem with liberalism, right there in a nutshell. Liberals
are so much smarter than the average person, they know what’s best. People are
too dumb to decide for themselves and need to be told. It’s all up to these
benevolent elected officials and non-elected bureaucrats to tell them what to
do. Arrogance, arrogance, arrogance.
My point in including the Rove quote was to demonstrate his perception that
increased education leads to liberalization of viewpoint, which is to say that a
liberal viewpoint can be indicative of greater education. If Rove The
Puppetmaster feels this way, I wonder how many other Conservative feel the same.
Anyway, if you’re going to make snide comments about liberal arrogance, please
brace for the tidal wave of conservative arrogance, beginning, for example, with
the Texas Republican legislature seeking to lock its hold via redistricting. We
could also discuss the Bush doctrine of do-what-I-say-without-question or you’re
a traitor (or his Cowboy Diplomacy in general, which typifies the not-inaccurate
worldwide perception of the Ugly American.)
| |
It takes an arrogant person to say that we all must have toilets that flush
no more than 1.6 gallons per flush, and the fine for a plumber who installs
one that violates that is $25,000. That regularly leads to incomplete
cleansing of the bowl and clogs in my house.
|
You’re complaining, in essence, that you’re too full of...
| |
| |
That’s a fine summation of the Dubya administration in general and the
Ridge/Ashcroft machine in particular. What’s your point?
|
That someone wanting to do something “for my own good” should probably check
with me first, rather than following the dictates of their conscience that
they just know better than me what’s best for me.
|
Again, you’ve given a fine summation of the Dubya administration in general and
the Ridge/Ashcroft machine in particular, whereas I thought that you were
speaking out against Liberals. What’s your point?
| |
| |
That is witnessing, not debate. If I strapped you to a box-spring and
tortured you to death over a period of 96 hours, I’d argue that it would
likewise be better than crashing a plane into an office building. Do you
therefore advocate the Schuler-96-hour Torture Alternative as a proper
course of action? If not, then please explain the relevance of your
examples above.
|
Sorry, you lost me. Please clarify... I’m a dumb conservative who is
intolerant of ambiguity and not capable of dealing with complex situations.
|
You clipped the part that I was addressing, so here it is again:
No one expects to change the world by posting to lugnet.off-topic.debate. But
having Bush at the helm sure beats being in an office building when homicidal
maniacs fly airplanes into it, being a woman in Iraq who is raped because one of
Hussein’s evil brats think she’s pretty, or being a Kurd who is gassed simply
for existing.
I should reject your point on the grounds that you deliberately confabulate 9/11
and Saddam Hussein, in fine Conservative lockstep (ie, witnessing). And let’s
not forget that Reagan and Bush Sr. provided the gas that Hussein later used on
the Kurds. Apparently WoMD are fine, when dispensed by Conservatives.
Regardless, you are in essence saying that Bush should be in office because he’s
not quite as god-awful as certain anecdotal examples of more dire circumstances.
The fact that you or I can name worse alternatives to our terrible, appointed
president is hardly a glowing endorsement of his performance.
Besides which, as an argument, your witnessing is fallacious on several counts:
false dilemma, straw man, and red herring, to name just the most obvious. What
is the intent of injecting a statement of pure propaganda in what is nominally a
serious debate?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
34 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
