Why is USMB a hub for bad views?

[Indeependent]

I am sorry that offended you or was taken as disrespect. I wish you would have kept reading my full post. I tried to be clear what my point was...that I am not speaking about people (cons or libs) but merely that arguments and posts I've read have lacked proper reasoning while correctly denoting hostility posts, aka poorly reasoned posts, tended to come from cons. I obviously did not make the claim that all conservatives and their viewpoints are invalid, so I hope you didn't take it that way. I was rather explicit:

"I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often [poorly] founded..."

I was explicit that my interest was not in who was giving the poorly reasoned posts but rather if this represented America? You responded to this and the rest of your post was not based in objective reality but a narrative that sounded pleasant to you, so I called you on it. But sensitive people like yourself become quickly reactionary and now that I'm aware that you judge people lightening fast, I will be extra careful not to disrespect you or criticize any of your views again.

I've taken the liberty to highlight some of the more disrespectful comments you've made about me here. You began by assuming I had not read your entire post. I assure you, I did read it all. Then you accused me of not basing my viewpoint in objective reality and simply giving a narrative of what sounded pleasant to me. Finally, you finish off with a flurry... I am over-sensitive, reactionary, and judge people lightning fast. This is all coming from my rather candid and frank observations, which apparently offended you.

Previously, I stated that you are not rational, and this is an example of what I am talking about. You've automatically drawn assumptions that just aren't true. You throw those assumptions out there as if they are indisputable or obvious without specifics and without backing your assumptions up with anything other than emotion. Rational people do not behave this way.

I appreciate you falling all over yourself to apologize to me, but it's not necessary, I have not complained. I am accustomed to people not being rational here. Posters offend me all the time, and it doesn't bother me in the least. I am simply responding to you in an attempt to help you find your way to reasonable and rational discourse. I think you honestly want to get there but you don't know how. Others are weighing in here and they don't want to give you that benefit of the doubt, but I haven't judged you based on their posts. I only judge you based on the words you choose and what you have to say. And when I say I judge you, I don't hold it against you. None of us are perfect, we all have our flaws.

Are you being paid for word count?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Interestingly enough, this thread is in the Philosophy forum. You got through telling us how many bad ideas come from conservatives, and then turn right back around and say "well conservatism itself isn't bad." Just what are you trying to pull? And who exactly are you to judge?

 

[Boss]

Those phrases you highlighted are factual observations, and are exactly similar to what you observed about me, that I am not rational. How are my factual observations disrespect while yours are not (claiming "I am not rational")?

Because I showed you (use of the word "attack" etc.) how you were not being rational. Just as I am showing you how you are disrespectful. Note that I have not made the claim that I am not disrespectful, I realize I can be very disrespectful to people who are disrespecting me.

In fact, calling me not rational was based on 1 post, maybe 2, less than 500 words. That is quick to judge. Maybe you think you have special powers and that it's ok for you, but not me. This is duplicity.

Wasn't a judgement, it was an observation. I don't claim to have 'special powers' you don't have. I do have a degree that you don't have, and it's a field of study which concentrates on human behavior. Since language is a direct reflection of behavior, it qualifies me a bit more than you to make such evaluations. Not to be duplicitous or to brag, that's just a fact.

Only after at least 6 posts did I make the observations that you do not like to be challenged, in other words are sensitive to challenges, and that you consider challenges to your views to be a form of disrespect. That is quite unrealitistic since discussion must assume each participant can challenge each others view points without being considered disrespectful.

But you are totally wrong, I enjoy being challenged. It is intellectually stimulating to me. We've not really discussed our individual viewpoints much, other than to say that you are liberal and I am conservative. I addressed your OP and you thought I was "attacking" something, and this has been the contention of most of our conversation. Then you raised the issue of "respect" and I've been attempting to help you out by pointing out things you've said that come across as disrespectful. Now it seems you just want to draw me into a fight, but I have no reason to fight with you.

I am not challenging you. The person Boss I respect, or am trying to. But I am challenging your poorly reasoned beliefs, which, in other words is to say I do not think some of the views you have expressed are based in objective reality (logic, rationality, etc.) but are based in a narrative that appeals to your emotions.

Well then, what you need to do is articulate the specific things you believe I have been poorly reasoned or objectively misguided on in reality. You're just making a blanket statement that doesn't really address a specific. You cannot challenge my poorly reasoned beliefs without being specific, I won't allow that. Rational people don't do this.

Like I said in my first reply, you are clearly intelligent but the more you talk, the more you seem to equate disagreement with disrespect. If those are your terms of debate, then no one is allowed to point out flaws in your reasoning without also being accused of a personal disrespect. So what's the point in talking with you unless I agree with all your points of view, whether they are sound or not? Is that how you define as rationality?

But I've never equated disagreement with disrespect. You've not pointed out any specific flaw in my reasoning. I've only pointed out things you said that were disrespectful because you indicated you didn't think you were being disrepectful. I took you at your word and was trying to help. I don't mind you being disrespectful, or not being rational for that matter, it's all up to you how you want to behave here. Just like the others who are posting their opinions about me, and as you see, I am not emotively reacting to them. We're all entitled to behave any way we please here, I can't control that, don't want to. You expressed an interest in meaningful intelligent discourse where people are rational and used critical thinking, and I am just attempting to help you get there. If you want to reject what I have to say, that's up to you.

 

[Unkotare]

You're wasting your time on this kid, Boss.

 

[gnarlylove]

"Well then, what you need to do is articulate the specific things you believe I have been poorly reasoned or objectively misguided on in reality."

Let me quote one of my earlier replies that address specific reason deficient statements and conclusions made by you.

Take your uncritical blanket statements about liberals and idealizing. What is a principle, such as many conservatives talk about, if not an ideal? An ideal for which to strive? Maybe you don't listen to you conservative representatives much. Neither do I but enough to know they use idealistic language.

I wanted to address your Hope and Change objection. You speak as if either concept is idealist. If we take hope at face value, hope is essential to wake up in the morning. Without a motivation that you haven't yet achieved though are striving for, then you don't get out of bed, even if it's just a vague estimate. So Hope sounds very essential to human thinking and life in general, a belief that things can get better.

So I raised very specific objections to your reasoning which is as follows:

Ideas that emerge from the political left are often very idealistic and frivolous. Based on some 'theory' that has yet to ever be proven in practicality. Hopeful and wishful thinking, not critical or reasoned thinking at all. "Hope and Change" is a prime example. Simply changing for change sake and hoping things will turn out for the better, is not a well-reasoned or well-thought-out plan, as it turns out. Conservatives could have saved you the time in trying this experiment.

My whole post linked above offers a complete and quite specific objection, point by point analysis of why I think your post was reason deficient. Now you have forgotten that and moved on to lying or making stuff up that appeals to your emotional narrative that I haven't "articulated specific things."

But I also want to be clear, do you think I'm disrespecting you when I challenge your beliefs but that you do not equate disrespect with a challenge to your beliefs? Something seems fishy.

 

[flacaltenn]

Gnarly loves Hope and unspecified change. Even goes out of his way to defend it.

I wanted to address your Hope and Change objection. You speak as if either concept is idealist. If we take hope at face value, hope is essential to wake up in the morning. Without a motivation that you haven't yet achieved though are striving for, then you don't get out of bed, even if it's just a vague estimate. So Hope sounds very essential to human thinking and life in general, a belief that things can get better.

However -- HOPE is not a strategy or a tool for a changing most anything complex and vital to survival.
Hope derives from "faith in a particular plan or direction of action". Economies, companies and countries don't operate on faith or hope.. And most folks who need fixing shouldn't either..

Hope is not even CALCULATED RISK -- which is a more rational method of decision making and action.

As it applies to anything concrete

-- We don't exterminate our current means of energy production in the HOPE that something better is gonna result..

-- We don't stand down from our role as world-leading nation in the HOPE, it will inspire other countries to step up to crisis.

-- We don't spend $600 Million on a HealthCare Website and HOPE it turns out alright.

-- And I personally don't HOPE that Soc Sec and Medicare will be around when I'm eligible as my primary plan for retirement..

I make calculated risk decisions.. Based on EVIDENCE and RESEARCH.. And I use those words that leftists and dreamers absolutely hate --- like Return on Investment, and Acceptable Risk and Worst Case Design...

Am I getting too specific for the convo???

 

[gnarlylove]

FLC, so what privilege does economics and ruthless business practices have to do with healthy principles or guides with which to live? If anything, "economics" and profit maximization are harmful to the health of individuals seeking a grounded understanding of how this world operates and how to live in it. Clearly you prefer to operate as a self-maximizing entity, you derive pleasure from insulting me post after post. Without insults your posts are 70% fluff, having no substance, only red herrings and insults. And you will not and cannot change this 70/30 split because the "jokes" are the only part you really care about, the 70%; your become happy when making a supposed witty remark or insult against an opponent and when you do this you equate it with "speaking truth" but your beliefs about how to live reflect a egotistical, "calculating risk" sort of human being. One who thinks socializing cost and externalizations are essential to life as opposed to hope.

"Getting too specific"? What does that have anything to do with the discussion? Oh, that's right, your typical rhetoric that detracts from the point, of which you barely had one. You didn't even read the link, which is my complete reply. But your typical way of responding to a post is distort the focus and isolate one word or phrase and forget the rest. So leaving out 80% of my post was to your advantage to squander and distort. The change and hope I mentioned were not campaign slogans but the very basic definitions that we use every day. You just didn't read my post.

You are skilled at making us direct our attention away from any legitimate discussion and calling attention to the fact of how amazing you are at de-constructing a post. But one is only good at deconstructing a post if they stick to the topic at hand, have a clear understanding of each other's terms and leave personal affirmations aside.

So if you took the time to read my critique, within the context of Boss's reply, you would know calculated risk has nothing to do with the topic at hand. But let's assume it did. Change must be accounted for in calculated risk. And so why do people take calculated risk? They hope for a pay off, and as best they can they calculate the possible changes (i.e. variables) and on that assessment, they either make the decision to go forth. But as every risk taker knows, very few risks are certain wins otherwise they aren't risks. Risks, at best, can be calculate down to the percentage, but one can never be certain. Thus hope enters the scene, a very basic notion that doing X, whether it carries minimal or a lot of risk, is likely to be worthwhile. One only comes to know if their hope was placed in the right basket after the risk had past.

 

[flacaltenn]

FLC, so what privilege does economics and ruthless business practices have to do with healthy principles or guides with which to live? If anything, "economics" and profit maximization are harmful to the health of individuals seeking a grounded understanding of how this world operates and how to live in it. Clearly you prefer to operate as a self-maximizing entity, you derive pleasure from insulting me post after post. What's sad is without insults your posts are 80% fluff, having no substance but red herrings and insults.

"Getting too specific"? What does that have anything to do with the discussion? Oh, that's right, your typical rhetoric that detracts from the point, of which you barely had one. You didn't even read the link, which is my complete reply. But your typical way of responding to a post is distort the focus and isolate one word or phrase and forget the rest. So leaving out 80% of my post was to your advantage to squander and distort.

You are skilled at making us direct our attention away from any legitimate discussion and call attention to the fact of how amazingly you are at de-constructing a post. But one is only good at deconstructing a post if they stick to the topics at hand and leave personal affirmations aside.

So if you took the time to read my critique, within the context of Boss's reply, you would know calculated risk has nothing to do with the topic at hand. But let's assume it does. Change must be accounted for in calculated risk. And so why do people take calculated risk? They hope for a pay off, and as best they can they calculate the possible changes (i.e. variables) and on that assessment, they either make the decision to go forth. But as every risk taker knows, very few risks are certain wins, that at best man can calculate the percentage, but one can never be certain. Thus hope enters the scene, a very basic notion that doing X, while carries minimal or a lot of risk is most likely worthwhile. One only comes to know if their hope was placed in the right basket after the risk had past.

I'll let all that undocumented hatred and misunderstanding of Real Life economics and survival speak for itself. I'm not even upset at how much time you invested in attacking my motives. If you read those posts at #146 and #147 as a pair --- I think we have an answer as to why you BELIEVE that "bad ideas" are rampant at USMB..
That satisfied any questions I had about the assertions in your OP...


"If anything, "economics" and profit maximization are harmful to the health of individuals seeking a grounded understanding of how this world operates and how to live in it. "

".... very few risks actually win."

When you've been at message boards as long as I have, that's pretty much a give-away....
Cheers...

 

[American4Americ]

I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation?

The kook right is vastly overrepresented here. Just look at any poll taken here. It will be about 80% conservative, with a big chunk of those conservatives just reciting their endless litanies of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories. You should have been here for the elections, when the whole lot of 'em was screaming that the polls were fraudulent, Romney was headed for a landslide win, and those libtards had to be delusional to think otherwise.

Such kooks have always been with us. There was always the guy at the bar or diner grumbling about something crazy. But before the internet, those people were isolated and kept moored to reality by the normal people around them. Now, they self-segregate themselves into groups on the internet, reinforce each other's dementia, and amp each other up to ever higher levels of stupid. There's just no one around to tell them they're acting like crazy people. Well, except me and some others. The interventions we stage here for unhinged conservatives are a sort of public service.

USMB isn't even especially bad in that regard. Other places are a lot worse, in the sense of being overrun by right-wing-fringe conspiracy theorists who sputter out "libtards!" in a tourettes-like fashion. At least you won't get autobanned for PWL offenses here (Posting While Liberal), as will happen at any openly conservative board.

Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?

It's a difficult line to walk, giving people freedom to talk without letting the loonies take complete control. I look at it as giving the conservatives a sporting chance. If they can rely gang tactics, spamming, deliberately using data they know has been debunked and other bad behavior, then they're not completely helpless against the facts, reason and honesty of the liberals. Consider it a challenge, practice for real world politics where just being correct doesn't guarantee a win.

The kook left is also over represented, as well as the kook center. I haven't seen you complaining about them.

I think it is fair to say that the crazy right is over-represented... do you know why?

This website is 90% conservative, and this is easy to tell by looking at various polls taken. Let's say that every 1 out of 10 people is crazy... naturally that means if we take a sample of 100 people, 9 would be crazy conservatives, and 1 would be crazy other.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

4Americ. What the fuck is an Americ?

And why are you such a whining puss?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The kook right is vastly overrepresented here. Just look at any poll taken here. It will be about 80% conservative, with a big chunk of those conservatives just reciting their endless litanies of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories. You should have been here for the elections, when the whole lot of 'em was screaming that the polls were fraudulent, Romney was headed for a landslide win, and those libtards had to be delusional to think otherwise.

Such kooks have always been with us. There was always the guy at the bar or diner grumbling about something crazy. But before the internet, those people were isolated and kept moored to reality by the normal people around them. Now, they self-segregate themselves into groups on the internet, reinforce each other's dementia, and amp each other up to ever higher levels of stupid. There's just no one around to tell them they're acting like crazy people. Well, except me and some others. The interventions we stage here for unhinged conservatives are a sort of public service.

USMB isn't even especially bad in that regard. Other places are a lot worse, in the sense of being overrun by right-wing-fringe conspiracy theorists who sputter out "libtards!" in a tourettes-like fashion. At least you won't get autobanned for PWL offenses here (Posting While Liberal), as will happen at any openly conservative board.

It's a difficult line to walk, giving people freedom to talk without letting the loonies take complete control. I look at it as giving the conservatives a sporting chance. If they can rely gang tactics, spamming, deliberately using data they know has been debunked and other bad behavior, then they're not completely helpless against the facts, reason and honesty of the liberals. Consider it a challenge, practice for real world politics where just being correct doesn't guarantee a win.

The kook left is also over represented, as well as the kook center. I haven't seen you complaining about them.

I think it is fair to say that the crazy right is over-represented... do you know why?

This website is 90% conservative, and this is easy to tell by looking at various polls taken. Let's say that every 1 out of 10 people is crazy... naturally that means if we take a sample of 100 people, 9 would be crazy conservatives, and 1 would be crazy other.

Polls prove it? Did everyone who posts here answer the polls? If not, all you can really say is that the people that respond to self selecting polls on this site tend to claim they are conservative.

 

[Boss]

"Well then, what you need to do is articulate the specific things you believe I have been poorly reasoned or objectively misguided on in reality."

Let me quote one of my earlier replies that address specific reason deficient statements and conclusions made by you.

Take your uncritical blanket statements about liberals and idealizing. What is a principle, such as many conservatives talk about, if not an ideal? An ideal for which to strive? Maybe you don't listen to you conservative representatives much. Neither do I but enough to know they use idealistic language.

I wanted to address your Hope and Change objection. You speak as if either concept is idealist. If we take hope at face value, hope is essential to wake up in the morning. Without a motivation that you haven't yet achieved though are striving for, then you don't get out of bed, even if it's just a vague estimate. So Hope sounds very essential to human thinking and life in general, a belief that things can get better.

So I raised very specific objections to your reasoning which is as follows:

Ideas that emerge from the political left are often very idealistic and frivolous. Based on some 'theory' that has yet to ever be proven in practicality. Hopeful and wishful thinking, not critical or reasoned thinking at all. "Hope and Change" is a prime example. Simply changing for change sake and hoping things will turn out for the better, is not a well-reasoned or well-thought-out plan, as it turns out. Conservatives could have saved you the time in trying this experiment.

My whole post linked above offers a complete and quite specific objection, point by point analysis of why I think your post was reason deficient. Now you have forgotten that and moved on to lying or making stuff up that appeals to your emotional narrative that I haven't "articulated specific things."

But I also want to be clear, do you think I'm disrespecting you when I challenge your beliefs but that you do not equate disrespect with a challenge to your beliefs? Something seems fishy.

First of all, you have not been rational. In several instances, you have taken things I said out of context and made false conclusions as to what you believe I am saying. I did not "object" to "Hope and Change" nor did I single them out as individual examples of idealism. I presented the mantra "Hope and Change" as an example of how liberals are idealistic as opposed to conservatives. Instead of comprehending my point in a rational way, you emotively reacted as if under attack, you even used the word "attack" in your reply. So you have created an argument from me that never existed and have proceeded to defend against that phantom argument. Rational people don't behave this way.

You continue on to say that you think I am complaining that you are disrespecting me by challenging my beliefs, and I have specifically said that is not the case, but for the second post, you still seem to think that is the case. I explained to you, the only reason I pointed out your disrespect was because you indicated you didn't know how you had disrespected. Here again, instead of reading my words in context, you have chosen to take them out of context (or outright ignore me) and formulate an argument that doesn't exist. Rational people do not behave this way.

 

[gnarlylove]

"I presented the mantra "Hope and Change" as an example of how liberals are idealistic as opposed to conservatives."

Have you not read my reply? I said conservatives used that same exact mantra, and so, like I said, your point is not based in objective reality but is a narrative that is suppose to be right but is indeed factually false. Several Conservatives have used this mantra and so how does it represent a difference? It plainly doesn't.

You are not using attack in the context I used it. I said attack in the context of challenging each other's beliefs, which is perfectly normal in a discussion. You keep returning to the SINGLE example of how I am not rational is because I used the word challenge or attack. That is not "non-rational" behavior as you keep saying. I was describing how you had appropriately brought a challenge to a conclusion. You are exaggerating this to justify how rude and disrespectful your own interpersonal communication skills are.

I just cannot see how you fail to see how you set the terms of debate as "I am not rational" and you are justified in any disrespectful words you may say. You continue to mis-identify my factual observations as disrespectful because they are based in objective reality: you are quick to call someone X and label them not rational in 2 posts and that you are sensitive to challenges because you don't like being challenged. You say you do but your actions speak differently: you continually begin each post with how I am not rational. Even if it were true, you have no evidence. In order to determine someone not sane or not rational. one semantical example based on the the misinterpretation of the word "attack" would not hold up in the court of law. I have told you attack does not mean what you keep repeating but for some reason you cannot stop.

 

[midcan5]

First of all, you have not been rational. In several instances, you have taken things I said out of context and made false conclusions as to what you believe I am saying. I did not "object" to "Hope and Change" nor did I single them out as individual examples of idealism. I presented the mantra "Hope and Change" as an example of how liberals are idealistic as opposed to conservatives. Instead of comprehending my point in a rational way, you emotively reacted as if under attack, you even used the word "attack" in your reply. So you have created an argument from me that never existed and have proceeded to defend against that phantom argument. Rational people don't behave this way.....

While 'hope and change' are idealistic, the conservative's mantra is all you need is 'liberty' or 'freedom,' pick your favorite empty idealistic conservative word. Either one works for conservatives and both are completely meaningless outside of context. People who live....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50727-who-should-rule-test.html
The Regressive Antidote - If Conservatism Is The Ideology of Freedom, I'm The Queen of England
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/88682-a-conservative-wakes-up.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/philosophy/265505-freedom.html

"Where freedom is real, equality is the passion of the masses. Where equality is real, freedom is the passion of a small minority." Eric Hoffer
.

 

[shart_attack]

Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.

I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.

I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation? Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?

Any thoughts?

I thought perhaps the answer might be the fact the URL contains "US" (message boards) and therefore anyone who wants critical discussion automatically knows US=uncritical thought. Yes? No?

Again, this is a only trend I'm denoting in America. If usmessageboads is a genuine representation of American thought then whoa! America is not what I thought it was! But my opinion is this site is not a genuine representation.

There certainly are a whole bunch of humorless pricks here, I've noticed.

on this thread you got here.

 

[Boss]

"I presented the mantra "Hope and Change" as an example of how liberals are idealistic as opposed to conservatives."

Have you not read my reply? I said conservatives used that same exact mantra, and so, like I said, your point is not based in objective reality but is a narrative that is suppose to be right but is indeed factually false. Several Conservatives have used this mantra and so how does it represent a difference? It plainly doesn't.

You are not using attack in the context I used it. I said attack in the context of challenging each other's beliefs, which is perfectly normal in a discussion. You keep returning to the SINGLE example of how I am not rational is because I used the word challenge or attack. That is not "non-rational" behavior as you keep saying. I was describing how you had appropriately brought a challenge to a conclusion. You are exaggerating this to justify how rude and disrespectful your own interpersonal communication skills are.

I just cannot see how you fail to see how you set the terms of debate as "I am not rational" and you are justified in any disrespectful words you may say. You continue to mis-identify my factual observations as disrespectful because they are based in objective reality: you are quick to call someone X and label them not rational in 2 posts and that you are sensitive to challenges because you don't like being challenged. You say you do but your actions speak differently: you continually begin each post with how I am not rational. Even if it were true, you have no evidence. In order to determine someone not sane or not rational. one semantical example based on the the misinterpretation of the word "attack" would not hold up in the court of law. I have told you attack does not mean what you keep repeating but for some reason you cannot stop.

Again, you are trying (desperately) to create an argument where none exists. Do you think this is behavior of someone who is rational? I did not raise "Hope and Change" as an argument, I presented it as an example while making a point about the difference between liberal ideologues and conservative thinkers. That was presented in the course of trying to answer your questions about USMB and who you find here. I could have given other examples, that seemed to be the easiest to comprehend at the time. Most rational people recognize that as the DNC slogan for the 2008 Presidential campaign.

I pointed out your use of the word "attack" when nothing was being "attacked" by me. Regardless of intended context, the word itself denotes aggressive action. There is no argument among rational people with that statement, but again, you wish to turn this into one. I've not set the terms of debate because this has not been a debate, I entered my comments in an attempt to help you. Yes, I am quick to conclude you are not rational. How many non-rational statements should I observe before I reach my conclusion? I did not determine you weren't sane, I don't understand why you feel compelled to introduce that word now, in the middle of your response. Nor do I understand why you bring up what is acceptable in a court of law. Again, not something rational people do.

I want you to examine the basic morphology of this conversation. If you are having this much trouble communicating with someone who is simply trying to answer your questions and help you find understanding, what does it say about how you come across in a debate or how you interpret the debate points of another?

 

[Unkotare]

I don't know why you are bothering to wrestle this pig, Boss. You are not going to get anything out of it.

 

[gnarlylove]

2008 McCain slogans that represent idealist notions:

"Reform, Prosperity, Peace" (Reform=Change in case you didn't know)
"Best Prepared to Lead from Day"
"Country First"
"A Cause Greater Than Self" (This is 100% idealist, we are to sacrafice our own lives in order to serve the country).

From http://www.ithaca.edu/rhp/programs/...aganda/obama_and_mccain_slogans/#.UyCRVpa-lgM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008

So what've I've been trying to say all along is that your very first premise that Conservatives are practical and do not hold idealist notions like liberals do, is factually incorrect. Conservatives and liberals alike use idealist language and appeal to principles rather than compromise and pragmatism. Instead of getting the country to run smoothly, both parties lack in being practical. One of their rare demonstrations of practical measures is a bill came to the floor that involved the airline industry in late 2012, I think. Voting "Nay" would have meant longer lines at the airport and it was right before Congress let out, so what did they do? Your right, they set aside their ideals and decided to vote almost unanimously to fund the airlines so they wouldn't have to wait in line.

Practical indeed, but most situation invoke idealist principles that are not to be compromised ever no matter the conditions. So what is the result of idealism in Congress? Our Congress is at a gridlock because in almost every discussion they refuse to break with their "Conservative" or "Liberal" ideals to better the American dream for a better life.

I understand you overwhelmingly support conservative viewpoints. Why? Because they are practical? What people say often contradicts their actions. To believe Conservatives almost every time they speak while believing Liberals are not telling the truth is incredible display of gullibility. Preferential gullibility. Both parties tend to deceive us. Why? Self-interest, as we all know, can be highly motivating to the point of deception so we can achieve things for our family and ourselves. So they highlight certain issues to rally support and either lie or more often avoid talking about other issues.

In fact, there is a term for this, Boss. It's called wedge issue which gives rise to wedge politics. Essentially this is a device or technique to emphasis a certain controversial issue to exploit votes in favor or against a certain candidate.

A wedge issue is a social issue, often of a divisive or controversial nature, which splits apart a population or political group. Wedge issues can be advertised or publicly aired in an attempt to weaken the unity of a population; with the goal of enticing polarized individuals to give support to an opponent. The use of wedge issues gives rise to wedge politics. Wedge issues are also known as hot button or third rail issues.
Political campaigns use wedge issues to exploit tension within a targeted population.

So going back to what I said pages ago:

Contrary to your emotional example/narrative about how liberals and Conservatives differ, we find that neither party differs all that much. Rather, they are two factions of the same party, namely, the business party. Libs and Cons stand for principles on certain wedge issues like abortion or gay marriage that appeal to a certain population, usually their emotional faculties, not rational faculties. The reason such an issue is called third rail is because those issues, while important, do not have the significance as do primary issues that politicians often avoid speaking about: like how massive corporate subsidies and consumer subsidies are sometimes covers for welfare for the rich/business party like oil companies; or how US military campaigns are not intended to spread Democracy but rather to gain access to "critical leverage" against the rest of the world so business can do as they please in these countries.

But before we move on to address other topics like subsidies or whatever, I think it is essential for you to acknowledge your factually incorrect blanket statement about liberals and conservatives. While I have no doubt you are practical, the party with whom you associate is in fact not very practical, or at least not nearly as practical as you. So to align yourself with the conservative party based on this factually false narrative undermines some of your credibility in the area of rationality.

So unless you can proffer a critical and adequate defense of your factually incorrect premise, that McCain's slogans and Cons in general are in fact not idealist etc., then a rational person will admit their mistake. I don't need you to type it out but as long as we can agree on this point (that your con/lib blanket statement is false), then I think we have found common ground from which to discuss, aka rationality. However, if you continue to believe factually incorrect statements without sufficient defense, then we cannot proceed rationally because you are not being rational. In other words, you are ignoring laws of thought, namely, for claim X (your blanket statement) to be true, there must be sufficient evidence (emotional narratives sparsely count as evidence) supporting it while any challenging claims (like the evidence that many cons are idealist I offered above) are adequately defended. I am awaiting your rational defense or rational admittance. Of course there are other options but none of them are rational so I hope we can move forward without resorting to those.

 

[Boss]

I am not here to argue politics with you, gnarly. My only point was to attempt to explain the demographics of this and other Internet forums, to help you reach understanding. You continue to try and morph my comments into an "argument" that you can jump into. If you simply wanted to pick a fight and argue with someone, then your OP was completely dishonest and disingenuous. I suppose it is my error for taking you at your word and attempting to help you reach understanding, but I generally accept people at their word because I am rational.

For the record, John McCain is not Conservative. What McCain did or said in his campaign has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was attempting to make or the explanation I was trying to convey. You are off on a tangent in an argument that never was presented, and despite my repeated efforts to point this out, you just continue to persistently act as thought we are in an argument. This is not rational behavior, and demonstrates exactly what I said about you many posts ago.

 

[Boss]

I don't know why you are bothering to wrestle this pig, Boss. You are not going to get anything out of it.

I don't know either at this point. It is purely a selfless act. I read his initial OP and thought I would interject my observations to perhaps help him gain understanding, but I am realizing now that he only wanted to bait someone into an argument and his OP premise was total bullshit.