|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 23:26:25 [Permalink]
|
quote: Originally posted by H. Humbert
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.
It means a lot more than just “promoter.” It's someone who works with a promoter, but uses deception.
It's carney slang. In a traveling carnival, a shill might be someone who plays a midway game, wins easily, and thus encourages others to pay their money to play only to discover the game isn't so easy.
Or the archetypical shill is the guy who works with the three-card Monte player, who either wins the game easily, or pretends to be such a dunder-head he doesn't notice the card he's supposed to pick has a bent corner. Other people watching, the real marks, can't wait to play so they can take advantage of this “secret.”
So Coulter, Limbaugh and O'Reiley are not shills. They're very open in that they are conservatives promoting conservatism. You may disagree with them on a fundamental level, but they don't pretend to be anything they're not.
quote: Originally posted by H. Humbert 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.
I disagree that I have used gross mischaracterizations or hyperbolic language.
quote: Originally posted by H. Humbert I admitted that it could be unwitting on your part.
But don't you think even suggesting some guy in an internet forum is part of some huge conspiracy to alter language is a bit silly and paranoid? It's just an internet forum, don't take it so seriously.
quote: Originally posted by H. Humbert 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.
I didn't say demonizing. Perhaps I will start a thread on the topic. No promises, though.
|
Edited by - Mycroft on 02/22/2007 23:56:55 |
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 02/22/2007 : 23:39:53 [Permalink]
|
quote: Originally posted by beskeptigal
Leiberman or Zell Miller, take your pick. If I'm not mistaken, Mycroft said he was a Freep,
Nope. Once again you make claims about me that are false.
quote: Originally posted by beskeptigal he did however, defend the Free Republic website, and said some people in the mainstream are OK with torture.
I did not say that people in the mainstream are okay with torture, and my "defense" of Free Republic was only in pointing out that not all it's users could possibly be guilty of making death threats. |
Edited by - Mycroft on 02/22/2007 23:55:44 |
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2007 : 01:16:23 [Permalink]
|
Mycroft: "So Coulter, Limbaugh and O'Reiley are not shills. They're very open in that they are conservatives promoting conservatism. You may disagree with them on a fundamental level, but they don't pretend to be anything they're not."
Sure they do, they pretend to be sane.
Actually, I'm not convinced Coulter doesn't fake a bit of extremism since it has clearly been profitable for her. Hard to say. I think O'Reilly meets the diagnostic criteria for pathologic liar. And Rush repeats a belief pattern he probably actually believes. Denial is typical for addicts so ignoring the hypocrisy isn't quite the same as O'Reilly's "my security guys know your number" stuff.
These are my impressions anyway. Who knows the real story unless you know these guys off camera.
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2007 : 02:55:02 [Permalink]
|
quote: Originally posted by Mycroft
quote: Originally posted by beskeptigal Note that I had defended my assessmetnt of Mycroft: SUPPORTED THE FREE REPUBLIC SAID THE MAINSTREAM ACCEPTED THE TORTURE POLICY
Not only is this wrong, but it's been previously addressed in this post:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7633&whichpage=3#113293
Hey, if I misunderstood your posts, you have every right to clarify your statements. But don't blame me for interpreting the following as I did above:
Mycroft: "I did not say that people in the mainstream are okay with torture, and my "defense" of Free Republic was only in pointing out that not all it's users could possibly be guilty of making death threats."
But you claim I "lied" saying you defended them. Where's the lie?
Beskep: "If anyone is extreme, it's an American political party that has declared torture of prisoners OK and the right to habeas corpus limited. That is valid evidence of extreme views. Being vocal and against such extreme views does not make me far to the left."
Mycroft: "Again, claiming these opinions as my reasons for believing you're outside the mainstream is nothing short of a lie. Lot's of people believe these things who are mainstream, please don't lie and claim I said these opinions are why I think you're outside the mainstream."
There are two issues in those statements. One is your twisted interpretation of my statement as, 'the reason I supposedly gave as what you claimed made me far left'. I made no such claim. The reasons you have stated as to why I am far left in your opinion were absurd. But my example of what was 'extreme' was just pointing out the meaning of the word.
The second thing in those statements is your own words, "Lot's of people believe these things who are mainstream". "These things" as in, "declared torture of prisoners OK and the right to habeas corpus limited". But you say I've made up a lie. Really? Those were your words. There is no 'lie' as you claim.
Mycroft: "I'll add further that the continual misrepresentation of her opponents points of view are further evidence"..."I never said “torture is mainstream”."
You certainly did in that above exchange. And it appears the misrepresentation is your claim I did so. The only thing I got wrong was who claimed to be a Freep and I said in that statement that I could be mixing up posts. So I'll change that to I apparently was mixing up posts. The statement was made on JREF where I have duplicate threads going.
And I take issue with these statements of yours:
"Finding one or two examples of Corporations (Big oil and Tobacco) who did something wrong, using that to “prove” Corporations are bad, and then using that as evidence against one specific corporations (big media).
That's what I'm saying. It's not because you disagree with me, it's how you disagree that I call biased.
Now watch, she's going to ignore it all and falsely claim I'm saying she's against Jews.
Breaking up media corporations doesn't solve the problem of news being a product instead of a source of information. In fact, it may exacerbate it.
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."
Ther |
Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/23/2007 02:58:33 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2007 : 11:09:46 [Permalink]
|
quote: Originally posted by beskeptigal
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.
Well, how can I possibly respond to that? You have made it perfectly clear that regardless of what my writing was intended to mean, you will give it whatever meaning you please. Given such a pronouncement of visciously hostile intent on your part, I cannot be certain that even were I to make a sincere apology, you wouldn't twist it to suit your own purposes, whatever those may be.
However, I find myself unable to resist another attempt to get through to you. The sentence you quoted above, back in its original context (but in bold this time), looked like this: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. Clearly, I was not talking about how I approve of myself and disapprove of you, but instead I was talking about how you are actively refusing to acknowledge criticism of your behaviour, and instead change the subject to be critical of those who criticize you.
I never once claimed to be perfect, as you said I did, nor did I ever imply it. You have simply ripped a sentence of mine from its context and endowed it with a meaning that I never would have thought to give it. I've got lots of faults, but my posts to you lately haven't been about comparative behaviour, they've been about you and the way you are acting. My own behaviour is quite independent of that, and so I'm not criticizing you because I think I'm any better than you.
Why have I been criticizing you? Perhaps I have been too subtle, or perhaps my continuing this sub-topic across a few threads has been confusing, so let me lay this out, highlighted, in as direct a way as I think I can:I've been highly critical of you, beskeptigal, because you have been acting in a manner "unbecoming" of a highly respected skeptic who has read a paper at an Amaz!ng Meeting. You have done this in many ways (in at least four threads here), including (but not limited to):- responding with annoyance to requests for more, or better argued, or more direct references,
- using strawman arguments,
- using arguments from analogy,
- incorrectly telling people what they meant,
- making emotional pleas,
- being obtuse,
- denying facts,
- being dissmisive of requests for information,
- being contemptuously dismissive of criticism (constructive or otherwise),
- refusing to engage substantive points,
- making use of red herrings,
- and the rest of your post that I've quoted, above, appears to be mostly one large tu quoque argument.
And given that last one, along with the knowledge that you may infuse my words with whatever meaning you desire, it now seems to be vitally important that I remind you that I am not claiming to be innocent of the same charges. My faults are whatever they are, they no more excuse your behaviour than your behaviour excuses mine.
I am also not holding you to a higher (or lower) standard because you're now a public figure in the skeptical movement. I have been actively trying to treat you the same as I treat everyone else who posts here. And I've tried to bring up these points in many different ways, from "as nicely as possible" to "with the proverbial cluebat," but you seem to be mostly immune to my attempts.
And I have a feeling that this attempt will be no different. I would like to be surprised.
I won't even try to speculate about why you've been behaving this way, but I will say that it seems to be a recent development. I am concerned about the changes I've seen in you over the past couple/few weeks. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2007 : 15:55:53 [Permalink]
|
quote: I won't even try to speculate about why you've been behaving this way, but I will say that it seems to be a recent development. I am concerned about the changes I've seen in you over the past couple/few weeks.
And we don't need to be concerned as you've always been this way. |
I know the rent is in arrears The dog has not been fed in years It's even worse than it appears But it's alright- Jerry Garcia Robert Hunter
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2007 : 21:42:02 [Permalink]
|
quote: Originally posted by beskeptigal Mycroft: "So Coulter, Limbaugh and O'Reiley are not shills. They're very open in that they are conservatives promoting conservatism. You may disagree with them on a fundamental level, but they don't pretend to be anything they're not."
Sure they do, they pretend to be sane.
That's a cheap shot.
If you want to be a comedian then get someone who will do rimshots for you and take your act on the road. If you want to be a skeptic, then you will pay attention to word definitions and be willing to critically examine if they're actually used properly.
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2007 : 22:04:38 [Permalink]
|
quote: Originally posted by beskeptigal Beskep: "If anyone is extreme, it's an American political party that has declared torture of prisoners OK and the right to habeas corpus limited. That is valid evidence of extreme views. Being vocal and against such extreme views does not make me far to the left."
Mycroft: "Again, claiming these opinions as my reasons for believing you're outside the mainstream is nothing short of a lie. Lot's of people believe these things who are mainstream, please don't lie and claim I said these opinions are why I think you're outside the mainstream."
There are two issues in those statements. One is your twisted interpretation of my statement as, 'the reason I supposedly gave as what you claimed made me far left'. I made no such claim. The reasons you have stated as to why I am far left in your opinion were absurd. But my example of what was 'extreme' was just pointing out the meaning of the word.
Okay, let's parse this out in tiny bits so maybe you can be brought to understanding:
I said: "Again, claiming these opinions as my reasons for believing you're outside the mainstream is nothing short of a lie.”
What did I mean by “these opinions”?
I meant your opinions, at least as described in the above paragraph. Lot's of people share your concerns about torture and habeas corpus whom I don't consider outside the mainstream. I called that a lie because I did not cite those opinions as reasons for believing you outside the mainstream, I cited other reasons.
I said” Lot's of people believe these things who are mainstream…”
What did I mean by “these things”? The same as “these opinions” in the previous paragraph. It means, ”Lot's of people believe these same things you believe who are mainstream…”
I said: ”… please don't lie and claim I said these opinions are why I think you're outside the mainstream."
What was I claiming was a lie? I had never cited your beliefs about torture and habeas corpus as reasons for calling you an extremists. Lot's of people share your concerns on these issues. I had specifically cited completely different issues for believing you're an extremist so these issues were a fabrication of yours. A lie.
Clear?
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/23/2007 : 23:47:13 [Permalink]
|
quote: Originally posted by Mycroft
quote: Originally posted by beskeptigal Mycroft: "So Coulter, Limbaugh and O'Reiley are not shills. They're very open in that they are conservatives promoting conservatism. You may disagree with them on a fundamental level, but they don't pretend to be anything they're not."
Sure they do, they pretend to be sane.
That's a cheap shot.
If you want to be a comedian then get someone who will do rimshots for you and take your act on the road. If you want to be a skeptic, then you will pay attention to word definitions and be willing to critically examine if they're actually used properly.
Are you seriously offended by that comment? You've got to be kidding?
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2007 : 02:26:50 [Permalink]
|
quote: Originally posted by Mycroft
Okay, let's parse this out in tiny bits so maybe you can be brought to understanding:
How about WE come to an understanding. That's your first problem.
quote: Originally posted by Mycroft
I said: "Again, claiming these opinions as my reasons for believing you're outside the mainstream is nothing short of a lie.”
Your second problem is this "LIE" bullshit. Just because you used confusing pronouns and I followed what you said doesn't make me a liar. I am more than happy to hear you out on your correction.
So let's just look at that grammar problem. You need both statements.
Beskep:
A) "If anyone is extreme, it's an American political party that has declared torture of prisoners OK and the right to habeas corpus limited. That is valid evidence of extreme views.
B) Being vocal and against such extreme views does not make me far to the left."
Mycroft: "Again, claiming these opinions as my reasons for believing you're outside the mainstream is nothing short of a lie. Lot's of people believe these things who are mainstream, please don't lie and claim I said these opinions are why I think you're outside the mainstream."
"Opinions" is plural. "Things" is plural. These precedes both and designates the three references as referring to the same thing.
(A) contains 2 'opinions', 'declaring torture OK' and 'declaring the right to habeus corpus limited'.
(B) contains one opinion, 'against such extreme views'
Thus you have, "Again, claiming these opinions, [torture of prisoners OK and the right to habeas corpus limited,] as my reasons for believing you are outside of the mainstream is a lie. Lot's of people believe these things, [torture of prisoners OK and the right to habeas corpus limited,] who are mainstream, please don't lie and claim I said these opinions, [torture of prisoners OK and the right to habeas corpus limited,] are why I think you're outside the mainstream."
You are saying that you meant to say, "Again, claiming these opinions, ['against such extreme views',] as my reasons for believing you are outside of the mainstream is a lie. Lot's of people believe these things, ['against such extreme views',] who are mainstream, please don't lie and claim I said these opinions, ['against such extreme views',] are why I think you're outside the mainstream.
Can you see by this why having made 'opinions' and 'things' plural it was your grammatical error here and not my supposed lie that caused the problem?
You essentially said you thought far right views were mainstream but that wasn't why you think I'm far left.
quote: Originally posted by Mycroft
What was I claiming was a lie? I had never cited your beliefs about torture and habeas corpus as reasons for calling you an extremists.
And neither did I say this. You read this into my post when I said no such thing. You are still doing it.
Care to show me how or where I said that was the reason you were using to falsely label my views extreme? Here's the statement:
"If anyone is extreme, it's an American political party that.."
An American political party that [does this] is extreme. It's impossible to change that into something even remotely close to, "cited your beliefs about torture and habeas corpus as reasons for calling you an extremists".
|
Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/24/2007 04:03:32 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2007 : 03:58:44 [Permalink]
|
I'll get to your post tomorrow, Dave. |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2007 : 04:00:40 [Permalink]
|
quote: Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Wait, it gets better. |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 02/24/2007 : 04:06:51 [Permalink]
|
quote: Originally posted by beskeptigal
quote: Originally posted by Mycroft
quote: Originally posted by beskeptigal Mycroft: "So Coulter, Limbaugh and O'Reiley are not shills. They're very open in that they are conservatives promoting conservatism. You may disagree with them on a fundamental level, but they don't pretend to be anything they're not."
Sure they do, they pretend to be sane.
That's a cheap shot.
Are you seriously offended by that comment? You've got to be kidding?
It is a cheap shot. I laughed because I think it was funny, partially true, as well as ironic.
But on one level, it is a bit offensive: it is unbecoming a skeptic engaged in a serious discussion. This thread is the kind of circumstace where taking the high road has its advantages.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..." Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq: Send them unarmed civilians for target practice.. Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
|
|
|