|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 02/21/2007 : 19:58:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
If you mean Mycroft, then it's immaterial that he's a "self-described" Democrat, since it's his ability to correctly describe political positions that's in question.
I took his self-description as a Democrat to mean that he is a registered Democrat, not simply as a description of his political position. Unless you think he's a Zell Miller wannabe, I see little reason to doubt Mycroft's word.quote:
At times, she has used extreme language. I've also seen her mischaracterize other people's positions. But that's a result of beskep's personality, not her politics, which is the subject of discussion. Her behavior is a separate matter.
You'll have to convince me that politics and personalities are independent. It's been my experience that people who resort to strawmen and emotional pleading instead of rational argument are also at political extremes. They appear to me to be correlated, and I have a hard time entertaining the possibility that one's personality does not affect one's politics.
As I've said before, I think beskeptigal is very passionate about her politics, and I think her passion clouds her judgement as much as it clouds her perception of others who don't share her politics. Because of that, and because of many of the things she's said to me recently about me which are obviously wrong, I can't help but conclude that beskeptigal's own political positions are more based upon faith than reason, and such seems to be the norm for the political extremist.
And "Democrat," encompassing such a wide array of positions, allows one to go pretty damn far left without being a socialist or a communist. The fact that she thinks a fellow Democrat (Mycroft again) is a right-winger is evidence of that all by itself. She's so far left she sees the moderates of her own party as radical Republicans. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 20:50:04 [Permalink]
|
I might have more later, but let me just comment on this:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
And "Democrat," encompassing such a wide array of positions, allows one to go pretty damn far left without being a socialist or a communist. The fact that she thinks a fellow Democrat (Mycroft again) is a right-winger is evidence of that all by itself. She's so far left she sees the moderates of her own party as radical Republicans.
I don't think that's a fair assumption. Beskep may have jumped to conclusions about your's or Mycroft's positions, but that could be a result of exasperation, not ideology.
You've seen how on the evolution blogs anyone who exhibits the slightest bit of skepticism on evolution is immediately labeled a creationist troll. Sometimes those accusations are premature, but they occur because most of the people posting there have seen so many creationists play the "innocent skeptic" routine that it sets off alarm bells. Same with beskep and politics. She's just probably had to deal with so many conservative trolls here and elsewhere that she has a knee-jerk reaction to people using standard conservative arguments.
And despite you not seeing any reason to doubt Mycroft's sincerity, I definitely can see how many of the things he's said can be construed as coming straight out of the right-wing playbook. But you may be correct.
In my opinion, the only person who posts here with any regularity that I would classify as far left is Gorgo, and that's not to be taken as a criticism of him, just my opinion.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/21/2007 20:51:47 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 20:59:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I might have more later, but let me just comment on this:
Ditto.quote:
She's just probably had to deal with so many conservative trolls here and elsewhere that she has a knee-jerk reaction to people using standard conservative arguments.
I was actually wondering how many of the right-wing trolls she says have appeared on the JREF forums are actually right-wing trolls, but don't have the time to go try to form an independent opinion on the subject.quote:
In my opinion, the only person who posts here with any regularity that I would classify as far left is Gorgo, and that's not to be taken as a criticism of him, just my opinion.
And here I've always thought of him as an anarcho-syndycalist.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 22:52:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Can you please direct me to an unbiased source of information?
I'm not claiming there is such a thing. In fact, back in the day when I was in journalism class we were specifically taught there was no such thing, which was followed by a list of all the many different ways a news story that attempts to be impartial may still be biased.
However, that's journalism that attempts to be impartial. Neither Democracy Now nor FrontPageMag fits that description. They are both unabashedly agenda driven, selectively choosing and editing their stories to advance their cause.
Which is fine. It's an exercise of free speech. It just shouldn't be confused with journalism.
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
It seems to me that we must look at many sources to arrive at something, and even that is colored by our own bias. That is the way of politics…
Or better yet, take care to select good sources to begin with.
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Also, just because a group has an agenda does not mean that what they are reporting is wrong. Unfortunately for us, again, it means that we must work harder to figure out if the story is credible.
Just like when you argue an issue you present facts to support your case. You may be aware of facts that don't support your case, but you don't include them. If you're advocating a cause, this is to be expected. But if you claim to be an unbiased journalist, this is dishonest.
FrontPageMag and Democracy Now both use factual information, but both also exclude facts that don't fit their agenda.
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
To paraphrase what Yossarian (sp) said in Catch 22, just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get me…
If you are wedded to a particular world-view, then reading material that supports that world-view is comforting. Personally, I like to keep an open mind and challenge myself by purposefully exposing myself to material I believe I will disagree with.
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 23:21:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Her positions, yes, not her personality.
You seem to be saying her personality is unreasonable, but you agree with her politics. Am I correct?
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Despite your routine use of hyperbolic language in labeling these things "extreme," there is nothing extreme about them. The Democrats have been a pro-labor party for decades, traditionally siding with unions and evironmentalists over large companies that exploit workers or the environment. And beskep isn't wary of "traditional" media, she's pointing out the inherent dangers of allowing big business to take over control of traditional media, something which should make any liberal rightfully concerned. So just where are her politics outside the long-held platform of the Democratic party? They aren't.
Beskep is certainly wary of traditional media. She has routinely bashed it as “anemic” among other sleights.
She certainly does go beyond the Democratic Party platform. On the issue that started this mess, for example. While it's certainly true that some one the left are concerned on this issue, it's not the Democratic party position to break up big media.
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
She does do this, but from what I've seen, you've been just as guilty, including using overwrought language to mischaracterize any opposition to an unrestricted free market a "paranoid delusion." The Libertarian party is that way --------------->.
Except I have never once argued for an unrestricted free market. Markets need regulation, that's one thing governments are good for.
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Also, I'd like to get back to your feigned disgust at my "abominable behavior." Right-wing shills routinely use inflammatory language to demean their opposition, as you have, then immediately put on this air of phoney piousness whenever they receive a negative reaction, as you have. Now let's be clear. I called you a G-rated invective which wouldn't even be censored out of a children's cartoon, yet you immediately used it as a springboard to leap onto your high horse. That duplicitous bullshit doesn't play with me. I speak plainly. If you're going to act like a dick, don't act shocked when someone calls you one.
I question your use of the word “shill”. I know what it means, but I wonder if you do?
Because if you do know what it means, then you are purposefully being inflammatory for the purpose of demeaning your opposition. I don't know you well enough to judge if you are capable of being such a hypocrite, but I do find the irony amusing.
As for your “abominable behavior”, you made a choice to indulge in name-calling rather than making a rational argument. You're free to do that, of course, but you lower the level of debate in doing so. I am not so thin-skinned as to be put off by the word itself, but I am pragmatic enough to judge when someone who chooses to use such words is no longer worth paying attention to.
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2007 : 23:56:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mycroft
You seem to be saying her personality is unreasonable, but you agree with her politics. Am I correct?
I'm saying her behavior has indeed been unreasonable at times, yes. I won't defend that.
quote:
Except I have never once argued for an unrestricted free market. Markets need regulation, that's one thing governments are good for.
Good, glad we can agree on that.
quote:
I question your use of the word “shill”. I know what it means, but I wonder if you do?
Yes, it means a promoter.
quote:
Because if you do know what it means, then you are purposefully being inflammatory for the purpose of demeaning your opposition. I don't know you well enough to judge if you are capable of being such a hypocrite, but I do find the irony amusing.
I wasn't actually calling you a conservative shill (like Coulter, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly, et al), only that noting your tactic was one routinely practiced by them. And there's nothing hypocritical about my behavior, since I've said all along that any inflammatory comments I've made have been in direct response to inflammatory comments you've made. The difference is that I admit it and don't play innocent, nor feign offense to score morality points.
quote:
As for your “abominable behavior”, you made a choice to indulge in name-calling rather than making a rational argument. You're free to do that, of course, but you lower the level of debate in doing so.
But as I said, I found your gross mischaracterizations and hyperbolic language debasing. Bad names are not the only thing which can lower the level of debate. False exaggeration has the same effect.
quote:
What offends me is your avatar. Why would you want to look at such violence?
The reasons are manifold and complex, but mostly because it is funny.
quote:
Part of the issue is that you claimed *I* was part of some conspiracy to change its meaning.
I admitted that it could be unwitting on your part.
quote:
I do agree the meaning has changed in the last 15 years, but I think it's been changed by liberals, not conservatives. That issue may be worth a thread of its own.
I would love to hear you defend the notion that liberals were responsible for demonizing the word which describes them. Please do start a thread.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 02/22/2007 00:08:24 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 00:16:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Can you please direct me to an unbiased source of information?
It seems to me that we must look at many sources to arrive at something, and even that is colored by our own bias. That is the way of politics…
Also, just because a group has an agenda does not mean that what they are reporting is wrong. Unfortunately for us, again, it means that we must work harder to figure out if the story is credible.
To paraphrase what Yossarian (sp) said in Catch 22, just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't out to get me…
This is exactly right. The reason I started this thread was to show the content of these news sources. They are reports of events, of actions, of policies, or quotes, things one can verify. You put the information together to draw your conclusions about what is going on.
Fox news is 90% opinion if you ignore the Natalie Holloway and Anna Nicole reports. CNN and MSNBC are probably 60-70% opinion.
Not all opinion is bad. Olberman's opinion, like Al Franken's is usually supported with some evidence to go along with it. But much of the time on regular news, opinion from various 'experts' is presented as news.
We were having this discussion about the Paula Zahn piece on atheists being discriminated against. After a couple of interviews of people's experiences with discrimination, a couple of different people are interviewed for their "expertise" and their take on the issue. The interviews took up more time than the anecdotes in the report. And the anecdotes were hardly news anyway. So a couple people reported their experiences. It really was a paucity of information and simply a waste of time unless you count tracking how CNN is representing various viewpoints as the thing you were interested in when you watched it.
It isn't so much trusting the news, though that is an issue. But the bigger problem is there is so little news covered on these 24 hour news stations.
The web sources I turn to give you the rest of the story the main news folks left out. Democracy Now covers all sorts of news you only hear a fraction of on regular news broadcasts. And DN covers the stories in sufficient detail that you feel some information was obtained. They have a strong anti-war bias. Considering the pro-war bias every single mainstream news program carried until recently, thank goodness someone was covering the other side.
CSPAN covers a lot of events the main news ignores.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/22/2007 00:19:22 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 00:23:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
....
Someone attempted to persuade me about a particular subject by showing me a number of newspaper articles that showed they were correct. The newspaper articles simply and obviously were just repeating rumors. My "far left" sources were not proved wrong, they were just slammed as "far left."
Like the infamous Bush et al trick of 'leaking' stories to the NY Times then sending the talking heads around to the talk shows to say, "oh yes, the NYTs reported this just today."
That was well documented. How many people in the USA actually know that occurred? My guess is way less than half.
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 00:31:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
....What I and others have said is that when compared to global "traditional" political standards, the Democrats are in fact right of center. American "liberals" are simply less conservative than the Republicans, and so lie more to the left than them. But the Democrats are not actually part of what most of the world would traditionally consider the "left wing." But we call them "the left" anyway, and not because of any neocon propaganda.
In other words, our "left" is everyone else's "moderate right." If you're going to apply "traditional" definitions, then someone on the "far left" in the U.S. would "traditionally" be a centrist, at worst.
About the first part of your post, Nadar on Jon Stewart last week said something like, "of course because they all get their campaign funding from the same sources." To that I think he is absolutely correct. But outside of the top leadership, there at least is a belief in pro-labor, pro middle class, social safety nets, and so on. That is just a tad left of center.
As to your second claim, sometimes people refer to the left because they simply need a term for those which aren't the Republicans. But the NeoCons often use the term "liberals" with the intent of branding someone as negative, implying the welfare state mentality. It is indeed intended to have the image of 'too far left' override the actual facts.
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 00:48:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
.... Same with beskep and politics. She's just probably had to deal with so many conservative trolls here and elsewhere that she has a knee-jerk reaction to people using standard conservative arguments.
This is an understatement. And I was getting quite disgusted with Mycroft's false characterization of me yesterday. Rather than post any further emotionally tainted reaction, which wasn't helpful anyway, I've no more to say about his incorrect opinion about my politics and views. There's no reason to go round and round as I noted in my last response.
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
And despite you not seeing any reason to doubt Mycroft's sincerity, I definitely can see how many of the things he's said can be construed as coming straight out of the right-wing playbook. But you may be correct.....
Leiberman or Zell Miller, take your pick. If I'm not mistaken, Mycroft said he was a Freep, (perhaps I've blurred that with a JREF post, there are right wing attack dogs on that forum that make Mycroft look tame), he did however, defend the Free Republic website, and said some people in the mainstream are OK with torture. There may be some people in the mainstream with a different view of torture in mind when they say they are OK with it. The government goes out of its way to call it things like "stress positions". I think one of the problems is lots of people are too willing to leave the curtain pulled and make no effort to look beyond that mainstream news. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/22/2007 01:07:24 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 01:04:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
...and I think her passion clouds her judgement as much as it clouds her perception of others who don't share her politics. Because of that, and because of many of the things she's said to me recently about me which are obviously wrong, I can't help but conclude that beskeptigal's own political positions are more based upon faith than reason, and such seems to be the norm for the political extremist.....
Actually, Dave you have grossly misunderstood my posts and imagined I was addressing you when I wasn't. So from my perspective here, the only "obviously wrong" thing according to your further posts was that your position on Net Neutrality gave me the impression you were taking a very Libertarian position. Marf and I both had a hard time understanding why you needed additional evidence that commercial control of Internet content access would risk the Net becoming more like other broadcast media.
You were so entrenched in that position, it just wasn't worth the time to get into it. And from that thread you seem to have carried on being pissed at me. Why should you get angry over being asked to support a Libertarian philosophy? Just say you aren't one or you don't have time to bother and that's it. Where is the insult?
And it has certainly affected your anti-beskep posts in this thread. But I really have no reason to care about that. As far as I see it you have just posted opinion and views. That's different than Mycroft's posting insults and exaggerations. (And yes, I posted a few of those back, I didn't claim to be perfect either.)
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 11:00:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Actually, Dave you have grossly misunderstood my posts and imagined I was addressing you when I wasn't.
If you're going to address others in your replies to my posts, it'd be nice if you let me know.quote:
So from my perspective here, the only "obviously wrong" thing according to your further posts was that your position on Net Neutrality gave me the impression you were taking a very Libertarian position.
And you have maintained that "impression" even after I corrected you on it.quote:
Marf and I both had a hard time understanding why you needed additional evidence...
I needed any evidence, and all I got was a weak argument by analogy.quote:
...that commercial control of Internet content access would risk the Net becoming more like other broadcast media.
Because the Internet isn't like "other broadcast media," as you have pointed out.quote:
You were so entrenched in that position, it just wasn't worth the time to get into it.
My primary "position" was (and is) that an argument by analogy is logically weak, especially when the analogy is weak (as it is between broadcast media and the Internet). I asked for a better argument in favor of Net Neutrality and never got one, I just got your snarkiness that I even asked.quote:
And from that thread you seem to have carried on being pissed at me.
No, I just keep finding things wrong with your posts. You may interpret that as "being pissed," but I can't do anything about that other than remain silent. Would you ask me to do that?quote:
Why should you get angry over being asked to support a Libertarian philosophy? Just say you aren't one or you don't have time to bother and that's it. Where is the insult?
The insult is that you asked me to support a Libertarian philosophy instead of engaging with my points. Just like with this post of yours: most of the points I was making were about you and your behaviour, but your response is almost entirely about me. I think you're trying to dodge the real issues.quote:
And it has certainly affected your anti-beskep posts in this thread.
What has? Being insulted?quote:
But I really have no reason to care about that.
Then why do you?quote:
As far as I see it you have just posted opinion and views.
Except for the facts and the questions, I suppose that's true.quote:
That's different than Mycroft's posting insults and exaggerations. (And yes, I posted a few of those back, I didn't claim to be perfect either.)
You're missing the point. Just like you did when you thought I was annoyed only because you didn't respond to one question I asked. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 14:27:35 [Permalink]
|
This probably belongs in a PM but I have no problem discussing it in the open if you don't. Someone make the popcorn.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Actually, Dave you have grossly misunderstood my posts and imagined I was addressing you when I wasn't.
If you're going to address others in your replies to my posts, it'd be nice if you let me know.
The "imagining I was posting about you" was in the post where you said so. You said, "this is about me". That was most imaginary. I don't know where in that exchange you decided one or more of my posts were a reply to one or more of your posts. If you want to tell me where the exchange started, I'll identify who I said what to.
quote:
quote:
So from my perspective here, the only "obviously wrong" thing according to your further posts was that your position on Net Neutrality gave me the impression you were taking a very Libertarian position.
And you have maintained that "impression" even after I corrected you on it.
So I'm a slow learner. I ask again, where's the insult? Especially if you aren't one. I don't care if people are Libertarian, people are what they are. Libertarians aren't out there gay bashing and hate mongering. They aren't especially in favor of war and government condoning torture. Those are the issues that supporters of deserve some kind of condemnation along with disagreement. I'm just waiting for one of the Libertarians to defend the reality of their imagined ideal world. If it doesn't apply, why is it an insult? I thought your Net Neutrality logic was the logic of a Libertarian position, how is that an insult? It would take that sociology dissertation and debate (see below) to find out where your Neutrality position stemmed from. Not worth it.
quote:
quote:
Marf and I both had a hard time understanding why you needed additional evidence...
I needed any evidence, and all I got was a weak argument by analogy."...that commercial control of Internet content access would risk the Net becoming more like other broadcast media." Because the Internet isn't like "other broadcast media," as you have pointed out.
I don't accept your position and didn't bother trying to convince you in that thread. So why are you still trying to discuss it? It isn't a weak analogy, it's an argument that history repeats itself given the nature of human beings and this country's economic structure.
quote:
quote:
You were so entrenched in that position, it just wasn't worth the time to get into it.
My primary "position" was (and is) that an argument by analogy is logically weak, especially when the analogy is weak (as it is between broadcast media and the Internet). I asked for a better argument in favor of Net Neutrality and never got one, I just got your snarkiness that I even asked.
And you're still arguing the Net Neutrality issue, Dave. The "snarkiness" you felt was my frustration over the time and effort it was going to take to discuss why this was history, human and economic nature and not what you were claiming , "a weak analogy". That's somewhere along the lines of writing a sociology dissertation. Not worth the time/effort. End of story.
quote:
quote:
And from that thread you seem to have carried on being pissed at me.
No, I just keep finding things wrong with your posts. You may interpret that as "being pissed," but I can't do anything about that other than remain silent. Would you ask me to do that?
The argument Mycroft just had a personal definition of far left was not something I would have expected without an emotional annoyance toward me in the background. Other people didn't take that position, just you. And you took that position after several previous posts where you expressed your irritation toward me.
quote:
quote:
Why should you get angry over being asked to support a Libertarian philosophy? Just say you aren't one or you don't have time to bother and that's it. Where is the insult?
The insult is that you asked me to support a Libertarian philosophy instead of engaging with my points. Just like with this post of yours: most of the points I was making were about you and your behaviour, but your response is almost entirely about me. I think you're trying to dodge the real issues.
Right. I'm a real issue dodger.
I tell you your interpretation of my posts has been erroneous and you claim you are only addressing behavior? I'm not sure what kind of junk is sloshing around in your mind here but if you want to point to an issue instead of just general griping, I'll be more than happy to address it.
What points did you wish to discuss and why would an open ended question like "support this philosophy" limit your reply and insult you? Did you consider answering, "I'm not a Libertarian, I don't agree with [x]. Here's what I do agree with"? Or, "go ask someone else"?
quote:
quote:
And it has certainly affected your anti-beskep posts in this thread.
What has? Being insulted?
Thinking you were insulted (even though I haven't figured out why you think my mistaking your political position is such an insult.) Maybe I'm missing something here. I'm trying to compare it to being called "far left". Maybe you don't see the difference. Mycroft used "far left" as an insult. It wasn't clarified as to specific political stands on issues. It was used to say that extreme position is abnormal. It would be akin to saying you were an extreme Libertarian or even that your views were on the extreme side of Libertarian.
I think that would make you an anarchist. If you said, no I don't have anarchist views and I said, yes you do, that gets into insult territory. Saying I was to the left of the American political psyche isn't an insult. Claiming I have some sort of extremist views is.
quote:
quote:
But I really have no reason to care about that.
Then why do you?
If you are speaking about addressing your position on the "far right" issue and still not caring what you think, I had something to say or I wouldn't have addressed it. Discounting actual positions by labeling them as something they are not is a tactic that deserved mention.
quote:
quote:
As far as I see it you have just posted opinion and views.
Except for the facts and the questions, I suppose that's true.
Sorry, didn't mean you exclusively posted opinion. I meant the opinion you did post didn't upset me in quite the same way as opinion that is intended to discount my position by labeling it as extreme.
quote:
quote:
That's different than Mycroft's posting insults and exaggerations. (And yes, I posted a few of those back, I didn't claim to be perfect either.)
You're missing the point. Just like you did when you thought I was annoyed only because you didn't respond to one question I asked.
I never thought you were annoyed 'only' because you were waiting for a reply. I think you are annoyed because I don't agree with you on Net Neutrality and won't discuss it any further, and, you think I've attributed a political position or ideology to you and won't take your word for it that the attribution doesn't fit. Anything else is a mystery but I wouldn't doubt there's more.
What I don't understand is why you are so emotional about any of this. I think you are acting rather immaturely. But other than that, I'm certainly not angry you have different views. I do think your claim of being Mr Perfect only addressing behavior yadda yadda is pure bullshit.
Your reaction is more of a surprise than an insult. Maybe I'm not the most socially skilled person in the world, but I didn't see anything I've said to you that was particularly deserving of your ire. I realize differing opinions are often at the root, but I don't see that having a different opinion alone is a sufficient reason to be annoyed with someone.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 15:24:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I do think your claim of being Mr Perfect...
Well, there we have it. You're just making up more crap about me now.
You're highly critical when the Republicans make up crap about the Democrats, or when big media makes up crap about the Dixie Chicks, but you apparently (the view from my chair) feel that you have every right to make up crap about other people here in these forums.
That sort of hypocrisy, beskeptigal, is of course deserving of "ire." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 20:30:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I do think your claim of being Mr Perfect...
Well, there we have it. You're just making up more crap about me now.
You're highly critical when the Republicans make up crap about the Democrats, or when big media makes up crap about the Dixie Chicks, but you apparently (the view from my chair) feel that you have every right to make up crap about other people here in these forums.
That sort of hypocrisy, beskeptigal, is of course deserving of "ire."
I have no doubt you view the following statement as fact,
Dave W: "Just like with this post of yours: most of the points I was making were about you and your behaviour, but your response is almost entirely about me...."
I view that statement as, "I only discussed your behaviour, you talked about me personally". Regardless of whatever you had in mind, 'you' did such and such but 'I' did something else can only mean you approve of yourself and disapprove of me.
Remember as you read through the following, I have not made a similar claim of Ms Perfect. Here is a sample from this thread alone. There are a few more in the related thread but this is enough.
Dave W: "You've assumed a definition for him, one he may not share. That sort of behaviour will not serve you well."
I explained that "far" left was dismissive. There was no assumption needed.
And whether you agree or not, HH understood my point indicating my point was reasonable.
HH "No, and if Mycroft had said beskeptigal's politics are "far left" compared to mine, then he might have been correct. However, by just saying she's "far left," he's saying she falls on the far end of the well-known, pre-established political spectrum. She doesn't, so it's clearly just an attempt to smear her as a radical."
Dave W: "beskeptigal brought up context, but she just wants to ignore the context in order to be offended.
Is that statement supposed to be some factual statement about my behavior? Because it looks pretty much like a personal insult to me and given the fact I gave clear explanations of my thinking and at least one other person was able to see the explanation in the context I described, you appear to be the person here with the "clouded judgment".
Dave W: Had you or beskeptigal tried to teach Mycroft that those media outlets actually lie to the right of center on a global "traditional" political scale, I'm sure this thread would have been completely different.
That's doubtful and again HH agreed, "So you don't think he knows that already?"
But then even Mycroft reinforced my and HH's view:
Mycroft: "Bollocks! “Far”, in the sense that I used it means out of the mainstream"
... and he went on to state 4 claims using the words "openly prejudiced", "open hysteria", "anti-corporate prejudice that borders on paranoia", "she believes the “truth” can only be had from a select group of alternative sources", and “Critical Thinking” means agreeing with her". None of those statements are valid and all of them use exaggerated adjectives.
Then there was this post:
Dave W: I'm not so sure, especially after beskeptigal has responded to a self-described Democrat with this:
The problem as I see it is, you like the right wing theocracy, over consuming lifestyle, and don't think it's bad the US has made enemies all over the world.
If that's not "extreme," I don't know what is. She is "cut[ting] off a lot of dialog that might have useful information in it," by attributing to Mycroft and me positions we do not hold. The classic strawman tactics of a radical position that doesn't actually have evidence to support it. Anyone who's cut their skeptical teeth on creationists can see the exact same lack of logic and reason in beskeptigal right now.
I admited I said that in anger toward Mycroft. But you imagined it had something to do with you and that simply wasn't true.
Then there was this:
Dave W: people who resort to strawmen and emotional pleading instead of rational argument are also at political extremes...her passion clouds her judgement as much as it clouds her perception of others who don't share her politics...the things she's said to me recently about me which are obviously wrong, I can't help but conclude that beskeptigal's own political positions are more based upon faith than reason, and such seems to be the norm for the political extremist....The fact that she thinks a fellow Democrat (Mycroft again) is a right-winger is evidence of that all by itself. She's so far left she sees the moderates of her own party as radical Republicans.
Note that I had defended my assessmetnt of Mycroft:
SUPPORTED THE FREE REPUBLIC
SAID THE MAINSTREAM ACCEPTED THE TORTURE POLICY
You don't have to agree that those two things constitute right wing politics but they were factual. And again, HH had a similar view. That whole rant is ridiculous. You can find rude posts of mine, I'm sure. But I doubt you can find very many times I post straw men and emotional rather than rational arguments.
Then you wrote this post:
Dave W: I was actually wondering how many of the right-wing trolls she says have appeared on the JREF forums are actually right-wing trolls, but don't have the time to go try to form an independent opinion on the subject.
Would you like me to find you a few?
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2304152&postcount=326
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2300333&postcount=282
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2301343&postcount=303
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2301409&postcount=305
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2302157&postcount=312
Of course this post, and this one addressing issues and not emotions seems to have been left out of your assessment of my discourse in this thread. Both of those led directly up to your posts claiming I was avoiding the issues and whatever other nonsense you went on about.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/22/2007 20:35:39 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
My supposed left wing media sources
