Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    8 Things Liberals Do to Avoid Having an Honest Debate

    This is dead on the money. You see it done here, at ODN, again and again by the active Liberals that regularly 'debate' here:

    We’ve all been there: Stuck in a hopelessly circular argument with a liberal who won’t get to the point, acknowledge basic facts even exist, or get past juvenile name-calling in debates. It can be really frustrating.

    One thing people can do to fight back is just to code all the non-responses to logical or rational arguments. Cryptically flipping back “Give me a break with that number 5 nonsense” or “Man, number 3, again?” can really humiliate people whose stupidity is broken down to a science.

    tumblr_mtjjfj9CuU1ryu3g1o1_500

    So with no further adieu, here is your Rosetta Stone of Liberal Rhetoric (and it can be done with less-than-bright members of other political persuasions).

    1. Ad Hominem (Name-Calling aka “You’re a Racist!” etc.)



    2. Distracting (aka “Pivoting” aka “Changing the Subject”)



    3. Somebody Else Did It Before (aka Two Wrongs Make a Right)



    4. Obama Doesn’t Know What’s Going On (Or Did I Do That?)



    5. It’s a Far-Right Conspiracy (Or The Koch Brothers Did It)



    6. You Heard That on Faux News



    7. Argumentum Ad Misericordium (Or “Do it for the Children”)



    8. It’s Bush’s Fault



    Four years into the weakest recovery in U.S. history, it will always be Bush’s fault in the minds of liberals – even if Obama doubles and triples down on Bush deficits, declares wars without Congressional authorization, signs the Patriot Act by auto-pen, you name it – those things that liberals said they were opposed to under Bush are no longer attached to President Obama.

    Sometimes, arguing with radicals seems like an exercise in futility. But remember, you’re not always arguing to change their minds, but the minds of rational people who are observing the debate.
    http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/1053...ebate-science/
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 8 Things Liberals Do to Avoid Having an Honest Debate

    The irony this post is one step away from simply being the first thing you call out in the list.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. #3
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,857
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 8 Things Liberals Do to Avoid Having an Honest Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    The irony this post is one step away from simply being the first thing you call out in the list.

    Agreed, lol

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	110609_coulter_bookcover_courtesy_465.jpg 
Views:	56 
Size:	12.9 KB 
ID:	3581
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  4. #4
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 8 Things Liberals Do to Avoid Having an Honest Debate

    I'm not so sure that this *is* ad hominem, or even anything particularly close to it. It seems more accurately summarized as a catalog of the most common mistakes that many of our debaters make, but specifically geared toward the liberal crowd. I can personally vouch for having had to deal with every single one of these items on a fairly regular basis when debating with some of our more .... unconditional ... supporters of the liberal politicians in this country, most especially almost anything related to President Obama or items in his political agenda. It's quite frustrating, especially when the items listed a) don't actually address the points made, b) are treated as if they do, c) are usually false even if they *did* address the points, and d) are often used as a way of shutting down debate (i.e. the "racist card," the "why do you hate the poor/children/women/gays?" card, or other false dilemmas proposed as "the only" alternative to the liberal point being espoused).

    I don't see an ad hominem here. All I see is a somewhat incomplete list of the most common mistakes that people here tend to make, most egregiously from the left-leaning parts of our population, but admittedly from others as well in different forms.


    I just read an interesting opinion piece about how people on both sides of the aisle have a fairly significant degree of cognitive dissonance underlying their assumptions about their beliefs. According to the article, conservatives tend to have a highly inflated perception of the degree to which their own beliefs are echoed and mirrored by a "silent majority" of the country. Liberal politicians don't just get elected by ghosts; somebody has to buy their line, even if I strain to understand why. There is a fairly large segment of the country that seems, for some reason, to actively want the government to intrude on the lives of citizens... usually in matters that aren't directly related to the voter in question, I would personally note. There really are a lot of selfish, greedy people out there who take advantage of those who are not as powerful as they are. There are a lot of people who live in very difficult conditions which are exacerbated by the people who take advantage of them, and the only recourse many of those people have is to get the government to pass laws to protect them and social programs to help them. These are OK, in some form or another. I don't think that any reasonable conservative would really disagree with the idea that as a society, we have an obligation to help those who are less fortunate than we are. I also don't think that it's unreasonable for conservatives to agree that we need to restrain some people from taking unfair advantage of others. The disagreement is not about objective; it's about how we define the terms of those objectives (like "those in power," "unfair," and "those less fortunate"), and the policies put in place to accomplish those objectives. The bottom line is that conservatives need to wake up and smell the sustainably-grown, organic mochachino latte and get their heads around the fact that there is a huge segment of the country that fundamentally disagrees with us about how we should live, what kind of society we should have, and how it should be governed. Until we do that and start trying to meet people where they are instead of simply marginalizing them as brainwashed idiots, we're just spinning our wheels.

    In contrast, many liberals seem to have a highly inflated view of the "rebelliousness" of their ideas and beliefs and place a fairly high degree of value on concepts like "independent thought," "sticking it to the man," and "not being a conformist." This is particularly ironic, given that the ideas that these people are espousing are echoed by the overwhelming majority of academia, hollywood, the mainstream media, pop culture, and numerous prominent figures. It's not really "sticking it to the man" when all you're doing is echoing what ... pretty much everybody in your dominant cultural pool is saying. The high degree of importance given to "diversity" is also highly ironic and amusing, given the degree of vitriol that liberals tend to spew out against people that put forth ideas into the public sphere which diverge radically from their own, especially when the sources of those ideas are sometimes people that the liberal establishment claims as "their own." Dr. Benjamin Carson is a fairly good example of this, given the amount of hate-mail and demonization he's received from liberals after having spoken out about the many failings of Obamacare. As a successful, well-educated person of color, he should be the poster child of the Progressive left. The fact that as a physician, he speaks the truth about what ails this country's medical system and how Obamacare utterly fails to address any single part of it apparently galls Progressives to no end, judging by what they've said about him. Again, it seems particularly ironic to me.

    Also, people who simply speak the truth as they understand it about what is right and wrong - Phil Robertson, for example - get immediately demonized for simply saying what they think, even to the point that he's been taken horribly out of context and grossly distorted to make him look like the ignorant, racist, backwoods hick that the media seems to have always wanted to portray him as. What confuses me is that liberals are always talking about "speaking your truth" or "speaking truth to power" or "living out loud," mixed in with a whole heaping bowl of "diversity" and "tolerance." I wish that it actually bore out in the actions of said proponents of "tolerance" for those who choose to "live out loud" in ways that aren't sanctioned by the Progressive establishment. Apparently, diversity is fine... as long as you think, act, and look exactly like the Progressives say you should. For liberals, in my mind, the bottom line is that they need to wake up, too.. .and smell the slightly burnt Folgers medium roast in the bottom of the pot... and wrap their heads around the fact that if they want to actually live in a society where people are free to speak their minds and live in a manner that they choose, then they need to be willing to accept the fact that there are people who radically disagree with them and be OK with this. If our ideas are really that bad, they will not hold up under the weight of their own inconsistencies. Shouting conservatives down, demonizing them, and avoiding the crux of the issues at hand to talk about the pathos of the situation won't solve the very real problems that conservatives are talking about.


    Bottom line for everybody: both sides have some good ideas mixed in with some fairly bad ones... and instead of getting hyped up on smug self-righteousness and superiority, we need to actually listen to each other and be willing to engage in honest discussion if we're ever going to come to any sort of agreement about anything.

    ---------- Post added at 08:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 AM ----------

    (It's amazing what taking a brief but unavoidable hiatus will do for your perspective and ability to maintain civility. Good to be back. )
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  5. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
    Likes Someguy liked this post
  6. #5
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,857
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 8 Things Liberals Do to Avoid Having an Honest Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    There is a fairly large segment of the country that seems, for some reason, to actively want the government to intrude on the lives of citizens...
    Yes

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    usually in matters that aren't directly related to the voter in question, I would personally note.
    Could you give an example?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  7. #6
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 8 Things Liberals Do to Avoid Having an Honest Debate

    A few come to mind off the top of my head:

    1) Al Gore's carbon-lavish lifestyle that he uses to travel all over the world and live in - by his standards - multiple, monstrously inefficient and polluting mansions while he tells everyone else that they have to drive expensive and unreliable hybrid cars and avoid flying, to avoid the same carbon emissions he uses much more than they do

    2) Progressives who are in favor of punishing inheritance taxes and other taxes on the wealthy but who, themselves, set up residences in South Dakota or other places with wealth-friendly tax laws by leveraging their money to simply purchase a rent home or something similar to skirt the application of the laws to their own wealth. They even have exotic names for the trusts that they set up, like the "Jackie O" and such, to avoid the taxes they want to impose on everyone else. The same goes for any Progressive who has ever shifted their residence to another state or their primary funds and residence to another country to avoid taxes they advocated for in public discussions. They're all about everybody paying "their fair share" until it comes time for them to empty out their own pockets.

    Just off the top of my head, those two seem perfectly sufficient to make the point. Do you need further elaboration?

    ---------- Post added at 09:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 AM ----------

    Oh... before I forget:

    3) All the liberal groups who lobbied very aggressively for Obamacare but are now pressing the White House for exemptions to the major requirements of the law because of how burdensome the law is to people to whom it actually applies. The unions, Congressional liberals, and pretty much everybody else who supported the law is now exempt if they have the political clout to swing it. Apparently, the law is great, until they have to apply it to themselves.

    ---------- Post added at 09:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:21 AM ----------

    Heh... the hits keep coming:

    4) Gun control advocates who want to prevent citizens from having the means to defend themselves but who employ armed security guards to defend themselves and their own property. Piers Morgan comes to mind immediately.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  8. #7
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,857
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 8 Things Liberals Do to Avoid Having an Honest Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    A few come to mind off the top of my head:

    1) Al Gore's carbon-lavish lifestyle that he uses to travel all over the world and live in - by his standards - multiple, monstrously inefficient and polluting mansions while he tells everyone else that they have to drive expensive and unreliable hybrid cars and avoid flying, to avoid the same carbon emissions he uses much more than they do
    hyperbole accepted...he now has multiple mansions?

    ---------- Post added at 12:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post

    2) Progressives who are in favor of punishing inheritance taxes and other taxes on the wealthy but who, themselves, set up residences in South Dakota or other places with wealth-friendly tax laws by leveraging their money to simply purchase a rent home or something similar to skirt the application of the laws to their own wealth. They even have exotic names for the trusts that they set up, like the "Jackie O" and such, to avoid the taxes they want to impose on everyone else. The same goes for any Progressive who has ever shifted their residence to another state or their primary funds and residence to another country to avoid taxes they advocated for in public discussions. They're all about everybody paying "their fair share" until it comes time for them to empty out their own pockets.

    Just off the top of my head, those two seem perfectly sufficient to make the point. Do you need further elaboration?[COLOR="Silver"]
    .

    But that doesn't stop the other wealthy person from doing the same, no?
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  9. #8
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 8 Things Liberals Do to Avoid Having an Honest Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    hyperbole accepted...he now has multiple mansions?
    Are you seriously using that single point to try to rebut the charge of hypocrisy I have laid against him? To quote another famous liberal hypocrite, "what difference does it make" whether he has one huge, carbon guzzling mansion or multiple, when he has said that others should live in smaller houses? What does it matter, when the man who demonizes drivers of SUVs and hummers jet-sets all over the world in private jets?

    I had almost forgotten why it is so difficult to debate with you. Are you going to be intellectually honest and engage the points I made in a meaningful way, or are you going to waste my time with this sort of thing over and over? If the latter, then tell me now so I can stop wasting my time with you. Otherwise, start being reasonable and do me the courtesy of really addressing the points you asked me spend the time to provide.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  10. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,857
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 8 Things Liberals Do to Avoid Having an Honest Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    To quote another famous liberal hypocrite, "what difference does it make" whether he has one huge, carbon guzzling mansion or multiple, when he has said that others should live in smaller houses? What does it matter, when the man who demonizes drivers of SUVs and hummers jet-sets all over the world in private jets?
    aah...credibility? Maybe? He never flys commercial? You sure?

    and if you think I'm difficult go at odds with Squatch and his marathon of challenges.


    "The Center claims that Nashville Electric Services records show the Gores in 2006 averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414 kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours in 2005. During that time, Nashville Gas Company billed the family an average of $536 a month for the main house and $544 for the pool house in 2006, and $640 for the main house and $525 for the pool house in 2005. That averages out to be $29,268 in gas and electric bills for the Gores in 2006, $31,512 in 2005." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Globa...2906888&page=1

    Wish I could cut my utility bills by that much...or even that percentage. Imagine if we ALL did! (which is his point)
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  11. #10
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 8 Things Liberals Do to Avoid Having an Honest Debate

    Right. The latter then. Thanks for wasting my time.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  12. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    A Big State
    Posts
    610
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 8 Things Liberals Do to Avoid Having an Honest Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    This is dead on the money. You see it done here, at ODN, again and again by the active Liberals that regularly 'debate' here:



    http://www.ijreview.com/2014/01/1053...ebate-science/

    Jesus William Christ. You guys, sometimes I'm not sure if trolling or serious. You repost an article from a conservative website and present it here as objective fact about liberals. Forgive me, but I would like an open-dialogue about exactly how liberals offend you because I'm beginning to think ODN is turning into CODN, where only conservatives are only ever right but liberals are invited so that you can take out your butthurt at the White House et al.

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy
    1. Ad Hominem (Name-Calling aka “You’re a Racist!” etc.)
    But...what do you call your entire OP? You basically call liberals intellectually dishonest, and/or stupid.



    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy
    2. Distracting (aka “Pivoting” aka “Changing the Subject”)
    We can debate this one further, but let's take a cursory look at this year's biggest political news stories:

    Affordable Care Act: The issue here, should have been getting healthcare to Americans in the most economically sustainable fashion. As well as critically examining the administrations failures early into the law. But no, the debate devolved in "ObUMMER is a liar!!!"

    Government Shutdown: A wholly undemocratic, almost tyrannical shutdown by the minority, over a law that had already been enacted. The majority of Americans view it as the fault of Republicans...because it was. But the Right Wing Machine are pros at 'Distracting' and misinformation, turned it into a "gridlock" or "failure to disagreee", somehow managing to apportion blame to Democrats and President Obama for an expensive and unnecessary, deeply divisive shutdown.



    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy
    3. Somebody Else Did It Before (aka Two Wrongs Make a Right)
    Please explain further here, I don't quite follow.



    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy
    4. Obama Doesn’t Know What’s Going On (Or Did I Do That?)
    I agree, this is wholly unacceptable in a debate.


    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy
    5. It’s a Far-Right Conspiracy (Or The Koch Brothers Did It)
    Lol, get out. I could paper my walls with Obama conspiracies.

    Birth certificate, Benghazi cover-up, Muslim fascist, Saul Alinsky communist disciple...I can't even keep up with them anymore. Try harder.



    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy
    6. You Heard That on Faux News
    But it's true...unless you don't watch Fox News, in which case I apologize.



    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy
    7. Argumentum Ad Misericordium (Or “Do it for the Children”)
    Oh, please. Conservatives are the biggest pimps of children-as-political-tools. Abortion, sex-education, welfare programs, "War on [insert Christian thing vaguely related to government/education, incite moral outrage], Spanish as a second-language, illegal immigration, same sex marriage... ad nauseum, ad infinitum. Wallahhh the children! The Liberal Agenda is out to corrupt them constantly!



    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy
    8. It’s Bush’s Fault
    But...a lot of it was. How come it's not okay for people to look back at how Bush nearly tanked the economy but it's okay to go to Clinton for you guys? Am I missing something here?


    You guys, if we're going to have constructive debate, you can't post Listicles based in no fact, entirely made up of conjecture, malice and snark. God knows if I posted a Wonkette article this I'd be Infracted in about four and a half minutes.
    Everything is connected.
    Read my new novel here. Join an epic adventure.

    No liberal propaganda, I promise.

  13. #12
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,857
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 8 Things Liberals Do to Avoid Having an Honest Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Right. The latter then. Thanks for wasting my time.
    huh? So how is Al Gore and his wife buying an older home and investing in it by installing solar panels (thereby reducing their energy usage) hypocritical?

    Just sounds like jealousy to me.

    Guess I was right about the hyperbole.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  14. #13
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 8 Things Liberals Do to Avoid Having an Honest Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalTruth View Post
    Jesus William Christ. You guys, sometimes I'm not sure if trolling or serious. You repost an article from a conservative website and present it here as objective fact about liberals.
    Hold on a second here. I don't think that anybody was positing this article as "objective fact" in any sense other than that the OP has observed these arguments used fallaciously against him in debates here at ODN. The source of the article is irrelevant if the points stand up to scrutiny. So far, you're the first person to really make an effort to subject them to said scrutiny, but it would be better if you'd do it with a bit less snark and more dialogue, as you mention later.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalTruth
    Forgive me, but I would like an open-dialogue about exactly how liberals offend you because I'm beginning to think ODN is turning into CODN, where only conservatives are only ever right but liberals are invited so that you can take out your butthurt at the White House et al.
    This seems a bit uncalled-for and unnecessarily rude. All I've seen in the OP is a list of fallacies that the OP perceives that liberals here at ODN are guilty of using in their debates, to the degree that it bore special mention. If that's not true, it should be fairly easy to point out where that perception is incorrect, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalTruth
    But...what do you call your entire OP? You basically call liberals intellectually dishonest, and/or stupid.
    I didn't see anybody doing that. All I saw was a list of perceived logical fallacies that the OP purports are routinely used by liberals here at ODN when arguing a point. I can attest to the regular use of some of these points (i.e. the "racist/homophobe/misogynist/etc" card, et al), but if you have a different perspective, then share it. Perhaps we've misunderstood something that you can correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy
    2. Distracting (aka “Pivoting” aka “Changing the Subject”)
    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalTruth
    We can debate this one further, but let's take a cursory look at this year's biggest political news stories:

    Affordable Care Act: The issue here, should have been getting healthcare to Americans in the most economically sustainable fashion. As well as critically examining the administrations failures early into the law. But no, the debate devolved in "ObUMMER is a liar!!!"
    This point does have some validity, except that the whole reason that the law passed was that people believed the things that the Obama administration said about the law. If the administration had been honest about what the law entailed and what the known (or reasonably surmised) consequences would be, it would not have passed. Even as it is, it passed only by the barest of margins, and then only with some pretty shady parliamentary tricks to circumvent the regular order. I think that "Obama lied to the American people to get this law passed" is a fairly reasonable objection, given these things, don't you?

    As for what you call the "core issue," I agree: the point *should* have been making sure that Americans have access to affordable health care in an economically sustainable way. The problem is that nothing at all in the ACA actually does that, and with the way it's structured and how those structures have been implemented, it seems clear that it was probably never actually intended to do that as much as it was to allow the government to have an unprecedented amount of control over the health care industry in all its phases. Republicans *did* propose meaningful reforms that could have - and should have - been implemented instead of this law that nobody read: tort reform, allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines, government subsidized HSA to allow people choice in their health care and re-introduce competition into the health care market to drive innovation and efficiency. The problem is that none of those reforms -as well as many others that were proposed and ignored (recall, please, that the ACA was passed without a single Republican vote and without any Republican input whatsoever... by design) - fits within the paradigm outlined by the ACA, which is to expand central control over health care instead of giving individuals greater freedom of choice.

    On every single one of the occasions that the House of Representatives passed a bill to repeal Obamacare, they outlined multiple reasons why the law was flawed, why its implementation was failing or doomed to fail, and what alternatives would be better for the country. Senate Democrats and our President totally ignored these legitimate complaints and gave Kathleen Sebelius free rein to enact fairly controversial regulatory statutes intended to restrict the freedom of conscience, under the guise of "protecting women's health choices." Any dissent was demonized as a "war on women," or "you want to throw Granny off a cliff," or "you hate the poor." No actual discussion of meaningful policy decisions was allowed to penetrate the wall of vitriol and rhetoric against conservatives' legitimate complaints, most of which have come to fruition in the debacle we see unfolding before us... just as we predicted it would.

    Quote Originally Posted by Liberal Truth
    Government Shutdown: A wholly undemocratic, almost tyrannical shutdown by the minority, over a law that had already been enacted. The majority of Americans view it as the fault of Republicans...because it was. But the Right Wing Machine are pros at 'Distracting' and misinformation, turned it into a "gridlock" or "failure to disagreee", somehow managing to apportion blame to Democrats and President Obama for an expensive and unnecessary, deeply divisive shutdown.
    If you want to talk about abuse of the law, let's talk about our President unilaterally re-writing laws that have been passed and willfully violating those laws for the sake of political expediency. Inconvenient deadline hard-written into the letter of the law? No problem... just declare that it's not going to be enforced. Union buddies being hard pressed by the requirements of the law and it's hurting their bottom line? No problem... exempt all your political allies from the requirements. When the Executive branch refuses to faithfully enforce the laws of the land, in direct violation of both Article I and Article II of the Constitution, it falls to the Congress to rectify the situation. Since the Senate was complicit, and since the House of Representatives was always intended to have "the power of the purse" frequently mentioned by such people as Madison in the Federalist Papers, the House of Representatives had absolutely no choice but to force the government to shut down in hopes that they could force the government to function as it was supposed to instead of as a runaway train without any of the built-in checks and balances it was supposed to have.

    What's more, everything that the House Republicans said was going to happen is happening, and now, even Congressional Democrats are seriously considering trying to push back the individual mandate - which, if you recall, was the point of the shutdown - precisely because of the very things that we warned y'all about. So, all you've got now is a pack of hypocrites who refused to listen to reason and tarred-and-feathered Republicans for the unspeakable crime of speaking the truth and actually proposing common-sense measures to control the otherwise inevitable damage that did occur, precisely because the Democrats didn't listen and wanted to score some political points by blaming someone else.

    The shutdown wasn't tyranny... it was prophecy. It was the last chance that half the Congress had to try to mitigate the damage of the "train wreck" that Obamacare has always been, and because nobody listened because they were too busy playing the most cynical kind of politics, we're all paying the price. I'm betting that lots of Democrats in Congress are wishing they'd listened now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy
    3. Somebody Else Did It Before (aka Two Wrongs Make a Right)
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberal Truth
    Please explain further here, I don't quite follow.
    I believe that Someguy is referring to the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy, which takes the basic form of answering an objection that someone raises with, "well, you did it, too!!" The fallacy, of course, is that whether or not someone else did the same thing is irrelevant to whether or not the action itself is good or bad. I am not sure which specific examples he might have been referring to with this one, but drones, warrantless wiretaps, and Fast and Furious seem to be the cases that come to mind most readily when I try to recall instances where this fallacious defense have been used in arguments.


    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalTruth
    Lol, get out. I could paper my walls with Obama conspiracies. Birth certificate, Benghazi cover-up, Muslim fascist, Saul Alinsky communist disciple...I can't even keep up with them anymore. Try harder.
    You were just asking about "well, they did it, too" (ad hominem tu quoque) fallacies. Well, this is one. First off, several of the things you've mentioned have quite a lot of merit and are actually being weighed in the courts as very real and valid challenges to the Administration. Second, the fact that conservatives bring up what you believe are invalid "conspiracy theories" has nothing to do with the fact that liberals are doing that as well. It also has no bearing on the merit of the objections raised, since each objection must be weighed on its own merits or lack thereof.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalTruth
    But it's true...unless you don't watch Fox News, in which case I apologize.
    Fox News has been consistently rated as the nation's #1 source for news for several years running and, according to independent analyses, has a more or less centrist approach to the news. In contrast, hardly a night goes by when we don't see Chris Matthews or some of the other hosts on MSNBC abdicating their journalistic responsibility in favor of spouting off, sometimes verbatim, the White House talking points. Any time you have huge lists of fairly simple questions that the networks could be asking politicians but don't, it seems reasonable to suspect that reporter's journalistic integrity. I haven't seen much of that on Fox News, since they give conservative politicians a fairly rough time right along with liberal ones. What is your specific objection to the way Fox News handles its reporting?

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy
    Argumentum ad misericordiam (do it for the children)
    Quote Originally Posted by Liberal Truth
    Oh, please. Conservatives are the biggest pimps of children-as-political-tools. Abortion, sex-education, welfare programs, "War on [insert Christian thing vaguely related to government/education, incite moral outrage], Spanish as a second-language, illegal immigration, same sex marriage... ad nauseum, ad infinitum. Wallahhh the children! The Liberal Agenda is out to corrupt them constantly!
    Remember that ad hominem tu quoque you asked Someguy to elaborate on? This is another one. Your objections may or may not have merit, but they have nothing to do with the merit or lack thereof of the objections stated to the liberal position.

    It seems that at least one of these objections has been verified in your own post, several times. You are proving Someguy's argument for him, as far as I can tell.


    Quote Originally Posted by Liberal Truth
    But...a lot of it was. How come it's not okay for people to look back at how Bush nearly tanked the economy but it's okay to go to Clinton for you guys? Am I missing something here?
    Who here has gone back to Clinton to exonerate Bush for something he did? I don't see a lot of that, honestly. If you have an example you'd like to bring forward, please feel free.

    It still doesn't address the constant abdication of responsibility that this administration has perpetrated on virtually every issue that can possibly be blamed on someone else, whether that's Bush, the "obstructionist Republicans," or even the people themselves, who obviously don't see what a huge gift we're being given. Honestly, your objection is yet another ad hominem tu quoque, except it has less merit than the others.

    Quote Originally Posted by LiberalTruth
    You guys, if we're going to have constructive debate, you can't post Listicles based in no fact, entirely made up of conjecture, malice and snark. God knows if I posted a Wonkette article this I'd be Infracted in about four and a half minutes.
    If you want to talk about conjecture, malice and snark, you need look no further than your own post. I particularly object to the conjecture that the staff here is so blatantly unfair that we would persecute you for the simple "crime" of posting a comparable list written by a liberal. We only issue infractions for people who violate the rules. Nothing about a post from a liberal author is inherently a rules violation unless you start making claims and then refusing to support and continuing to assert them when challenged.

    In the future, please refrain from impugning the integrity and fairness of the Staff. This is a friendly reminder. Please don't make it unfriendly.
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  15. #14
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    2,018
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 8 Things Liberals Do to Avoid Having an Honest Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    The irony this post is one step away from simply being the first thing you call out in the list.
    On oil prices:

    NYTimes.com, April, 2006: "Democrats Eager to Exploit Anger Over Gas Prices:
    It's a metaphor for an economy that keeps biting people despite overall good numbers, said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Mr. Schumer said Democratic candidates in 10 of the 34 Senate races this year had scheduled campaign events this week focusing on gasoline prices. Officials at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which advises House candidates, said they sent a memorandum to candidates on Thursday offering guidance on using the issue to their advantage."

    A Salon.com headline from 2007:Oil companies: "High gas prices are Bush’s fault:
    The president's ethanol push is discouraging the industry from investing in new refinery capacity, executives say."

    Robert Scheer, of the Huffington Post, June, 2008: "Blame Rising Oil Prices on Bush:
    Yep, he did it; Bush's deliberate roiling of world politics is the key variable in the run-up of oil prices. No president has been more brilliant in destabilizing the politics of oil-producing countries from Venezuela to Russia and on to the key oil lakes of Iraq and Iran. This last will go down in our nation's history as one of the dumbest escapades ever, rivaling even the madness of the Vietnam War"

    Here's an instructive video for those with memory loss:



    But in March of 2012 the AP can't seem to accept that either Congress or the President have much to do with gas prices: "In truth, there is not a lot the president and Congress can do in the short term to push down gasoline prices. They are tied to oil prices, which have climbed in recent months, pushed by increased consumption from developing nations in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East and by concerns about supply disruptions in Iran and elsewhere."

    New York Times, March 2012, Richard Thaler suddenly discovers: "Why Gas Prices Are Out of Any President’s Control:
    Here is a one-item test to see whether you are guilty of cloudy thinking about gas prices: Do you believe that they are something a president can control? Many Americans believe that the answer is yes, but any respectable economist will tell you that the answer is no."

    Note to self:



    This is what passes for "ad hominem" these days? We used to call this "remembering".

    If anything, I'd fault Someguy's source for listing this particular manifestation of liberal cognitive dissonance at #8!

  16. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 8 Things Liberals Do to Avoid Having an Honest Debate

    Here's one for are right-ward facing friends (ad-hom, check). I know it's off-topic but it covers two other points (distracting, someone else did it before).
    However, it is better written, with actual descriptions and examples, rather than pictures (yet another difference between right and left). Note also some overlap.

    http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-...ate-tactics-2/

    1) Attack The Messenger: Instead of addressing the argument that has been made, people using this method attack the person making it instead. This is particularly easy for many delusional people on the left who believe that almost everyone on the right is a racist, sexist, homophobic, Fascist who longs for the return of the Confederacy and is planning to start throwing leftists in prison camps if they let their guard down for five minutes. The charge made doesn’t even have to be accurate, in fact it’s better in some ways if it’s off target. That’s because the more whacked out the charge is, the more compelled your opponent will feel to spend his time defending himself while you continue to make your points.


    2) The Bait & Switch: When a claim is made and your opponent refutes it, don’t try to respond, simply change the subject. Example,
    Lefty Debater: I think we all know what kind of job George Bush has done with the economy. Right off the bat, he got the economy into a recession.
    Conservative Debater: Excuse me, but you’re incorrect. The recession started under Bill Clinton, not George Bush.
    Lefty Debater: Well what about his tax cuts? They’re for the rich, the rich I tell you!
    Conservative Debater: What about getting rid of the marriage penalty and increasing the child tax credit? Are you arguing that only rich people get married and have kids?
    Lefty Debater: Haliburton, did I mention Haliburton? What about that, huh? I guess you want to dodge that issue.
    The best part about this from the left-wing debater’s perspective is that since they never acknowledged they were wrong, they can feel free to make the exact same incorrect claim in future debates.

    3) The Blitzkrieg: The goal here is blast your opponent with so many accusations that they can’t possibly respond. Example,

    Lefty Debater: George Bush? Who would defend someone who was AWOL from the National Guard, used coke, lied about weapons of mass destruction, raised taxes on the poor, wants to cut Social Security, is the worst environmental President we’ve ever had, and who has destroyed the US economy?
    Moderator: That’s great, but the question was, “Should the Israelis kick Arafat out of the “Disputed Territories”?
    It doesn’t matter if all — or even any — of the accusations are true, relevant, or make any sense. The goal is just to get them out there. Making an accusation takes a few seconds, refuting one takes much longer. So an opponent confronted with these accusations will never actually have time to respond.

    4) Enter The Strawman: Tremendously exaggerating your opponent’s position and then claiming to fight against a position they don’t hold is always a great way to dodge the issues. In all fairness, this is a technique often used by the left & right. But still, the right can’t hold a candle to the left in this area. I mean how many times have you heard, “Republicans are going to take your Social Security away,” “The GOP wants to poison the water and the air,” “Republicans want to take away your Civil Rights” etc, etc?

    This whole concept has gotten so out of hand on the left that we now even have some people on the left comparing the Israelis to Nazis. Look, when you’re claiming that a bunch a Jews defending themselves from people who want to kill them are like Nazis, you’ve gone so far past irony that you almost need a new word to describe it like — “Idiorony” or “outofyourmindony”. But that’s what happens when people wink at all these strawmen that are tossed out in debates. Eventually some people start to take them seriously and build on them.

    5) History Will Be Kind To Me For I Intend To Write It: The technique is similar to using strawmen in some respects. What you try to do is to rewrite history, to claim that a debate in a previous time was different than it actually was. Here’s an example of how this is done,

    Mother: I told you to be back by 11 PM and you’re just getting in at 1:30 AM!
    Teenage Daughter: I don’t think I remember you mentioning that…
    Mother: I told you 3 times to be in by 11, I left a note reminding you on the dinner table and snuck one into your purse, I called you on your cellular phone at 10:30 and reminded you to make it home by 11 and I even told your boyfriend he’d better have you back in time.
    Teenage Daughter: Oh, oh, oh wait…I remember now — you meant 11 PM? I thought you meant 11 AM. I thought that by getting in at 1:30 AM I was here 9 and 1/2 hours early. Silly me!
    Mother: Nice try, you’re still grounded!
    The build-up to Iraq war has been treated in a similar fashion by the anti-war crowd. Before the war there were complaints that Bush wouldn’t stick to one reason for invading, now there are claims that it was only about WMD. There was almost no debate on Capitol Hill between Dems & the GOP about whether Iraq actually had WMD until after the war when it became apparent that none were going to be quickly be found. Throwaway lines that were hardly noticed before the war (like the controversial yet true 16 words in the State of the Union speech) have been treated as if they were core arguments made by the Bush administration after the fact. It’s all just a way to rewrite history.

    6) I’m Not Hearing You — La La La: Just totally ignoring what your opponent has to say and going on to something else is another technique often used by politicians of all stripes, but no one, and I mean no one, can hang with Yasser Arafat and company when it comes to totally blowing off any uncomfortable questions that are asked. For example…

    Moderator: So Mr. Arafat, are you willing to disarm Hamas & Islamic Jihad?
    Arafat: The Israelis want to kill me! They are causing all the problems! We want peace, but the Israelis don’t!
    Moderator: That’s fine Mr. Arafat, but are you willing to disarm Hamas & Islamic Jihad?
    Arafat: Why don’t you ask the Israelis if they will stop their terrorism against our people? Why don’t you ask them that?
    Moderator: Mr. Arafat you seem to be ignoring my question.
    Arafat: Are you questioning me? Do you know who I am? I am general Arafat! This interview is over!
    When they duck the question, it’s a pretty good indication that they don’t have an answer anyone wants to hear.


    7) Motives Matter, Results Don’t: Oftentimes when people on the left are losing an argument or can’t explain why they seem to be so inconsistent on certain issues, they start questioning the motives of their opponents. For example, if you favored going to war with Serbia based on nothing more than humanitarian grounds, then logically you should also be in favor of invading Iraq for exactly the same reason. But of course, that’s not how it works for a lot of people.
    So to get around that, they just claim that there are impure motives afoot. The Bush administration may have claimed to care about stopping terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, humanitarian causes, or UN Resolutions, but it was really all about stealing oil, getting payoffs for business buddies, getting revenge for an attack on “daddy”, because Bush needed Iraqi sand for his garden, Bush was jealous of Saddam’s rugged good looks, etc, etc, who cares — they’re all equally ridiculous. When the real issues are too tough to deal with, it’s all too easy to just pretend something else is what you’re really upset about.


    8) That Context Is On A Need To Know Basis: Stripping away the context of a situation is a favored technique of people who hate the United States. They talk about something the United States has done without discussing the reasoning behind it, the actions that provoked it, or other things that the United States might have also done that would place us in a more favorable light. It’s very easy to make someone look like a bad guy if you simply don’t include every detail that doesn’t support your case. For example,
    Lawyer: Your honor, I intend to prove that my client is innocent of all charges and that the police shot him maliciously, recklessly, and without cause as he was minding his own business at the park.
    Judge: He was minding his own business? According to the police report I have in front of me, your client had shot 3 drug dealers who were standing in “his spot” and was firing off rounds from an Uzi at a passing school bus, two nuns on a nearby park bench, and at the officers as they arrived. That doesn’t sound like he was “minding his own business” to me.
    Lawyer: It does if his business is being a drug dealing thug — ha, ha, ha! Hey, that’s just a little joke. It was getting a little tense in here….you’re not laughing. OK, just checking — is that plea bargain still available?

    9) That’s Mean, Mean, Mean! When it comes to certain subjects, ordinarily rational people turn into complete bubbleheads. For example, you could probably put together a bill that called for nuclear waste to be dumped in every Walmart in America and as long as you called it the, “Feed The Children For A New Tomorrow Bill” about a 1/3rd of the American population would support it. So naturally, some people take advantage of this and claim that certain policy proposals are “mean”. Once you say that, results, logic, how expensive the project is, etc, etc, goes out the window and the argument becomes over whether someone is “mean” or not.

  17. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: 8 Things Liberals Do to Avoid Having an Honest Debate

    That is entertaining, JJ. Looks like a list of things that the left regularly engages in as well.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  18. #17
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    8 Things Liberals Do to Avoid Having an Honest Debate

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    That is entertaining, JJ. Looks like a list of things that the left regularly engages in as well.
    Yes, I did mention an overlap; thanks for agreeing to my point. As far as entertainment, it's yours that is comical and not very well explained.
    Last edited by JimJones8934; January 3rd, 2014 at 03:54 PM.

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. A few honest questions
    By ShadowKnight in forum Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 13th, 2008, 05:46 PM
  2. If Politicians Were Honest..??
    By Scarlett44 in forum Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 8th, 2008, 12:21 PM
  3. Replies: 85
    Last Post: September 2nd, 2007, 03:27 PM
  4. In the interest of new things to debate
    By GoldPhoenix in forum Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 22nd, 2006, 05:08 PM
  5. 125 things to debate...
    By Slipnish in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 1st, 2005, 07:09 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •