quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros

I have to suspect all "free thinking" conservatives who simply reguritate Rush Limbaugh sophilisms - anytime you want to try and drop the limbaughtomized rhetoric and make a clear argument, backed by empirical evidence, by all means, feel free to do so, it would be so refreshing.

I know, I know, you "don't even listen to Rush Limbaugh" - you don't have to since all the neo-cons, so called conservatives, repeat him for you.

Rhetorically spewing hate and discontent, ad hominem and unsubtantiated allegations isn't "logic", it is what it is - propaganda.

Logic is making a clear case, and backing it up with  evidence and example - what you are offering are well defined propaganda techniques, glittering generalities combined with ad hominem.

It isn't worth the effort of trying to refute your argument, because there isn't any argument there: you're just luring a bunch of people into expending energy chasing their own tails.

OK, move on to the next canned strategy, I'm waiting...

quote:

Good lord, we see this type of posting/speaking from the left ad infinitum. Not neccesarily from you, but it is in abundance, like cowshit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros

quote:

Good lord, we see this type of posting/speaking from the left ad infinitum. Not neccesarily from you, but it is in abundance, like cowshit.

And there it is: attack the credibility of the critic.

Have an argument, or did you forget it in your other pants?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros

...and ideally, in what is called rational debate, it is the argument that is addressed, following the same pattern of premise, evidence and conclusion - attacking the debator instead of adressing the argument is called ad hominem, and would get you kicked right out of any high school or middle school debate.

quote:

Of course, in high school and collegiate debate, you are expected to be able to argue either side of an issue persuasively.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros

quote:

Good lord, we see this type of posting/speaking from the left ad infinitum. Not neccesarily from you, but it is in abundance, like cowshit.

And there it is: attack the credibility of the critic.

Have an argument, or did you forget it in your other pants?

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

julia,

All agreed but what is the Democrat position on Iraq?

Regards

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros

quote:

Of course, in high school and collegiate debate, you are expected to be able to argue either side of an issue persuasively.

 

but in a network war like this, the only way you can even hope to win is to systematically limit your opponents options by converting as many nodes as possible.

quote:

And here is your foundation for a case in favor of our actions in Iraq.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amaros

Yes, I did notice the qualifier, but you nevertheless managed to avoid adressing the argument, and simply make another unsubstantiated generality - in which, since I'm arguing iwth a conservative, and therefore must be a liberal, I am implicated by inference.

LOL. Well, I'm not a conservative, except when I am; I believe in protecting the environment, legalizing marijuana, gay marriage, and sex work, and in a universal health-care system, among other things (some leftist, centrist, and righty). Now, if you were referring to Merc or caitlyn, I'm fairly sure they'd not want the tag of conservative placed on them, either, but they certainly can speak for themselves.

Your statement is only true if you pick your sources, there are always plenty of crackpots to choose from. More difficult would be trying making an honest, empirical assessment of liberal policy.

Agreed. Crackpots abound, as do idealogues and apologists, which was my point, I suppose. They're everywhere, not just on the right.
 
I'm sorry, but by avoiding this, and subjegating policy to politics, the neo-cons have basically thrown aside pretty much everything that made them conservative, and formulated policy according to what must be considered a more definitively fascist/socialist position.

Yes, they are doing a fine job of not being conservative lol. Agreed. At least on fiscal policy.

This can be seen in every area from national security to copyright/patent law - in every case the attempt is made to raise barriers to competition (corporatism), and/or undermine constitutional rights while avoiding scrutiny - labelling ones critics treasonous is itself a bald attempt to supress open debate - the penalty for treason is summary execution, and every time this charge is levelled, the threat is implicit.

Again, I agree. Just because someone opposes the Patriot Act, or the war, does not make them an enemy, or unpatriotic.

Now I see this "argument" coming from the right on a regular basis, and not just in internet forums, but coming from high ranking administration officials and representitives.

They just can't get away with it unless they have a broad public consensus to support it, otherwise, they've managed to effectively abrogate or nullify any theoretical legal arguments that prevent it, including the very right to question why they're doing it, or furnish any proof that it's neccesary (habeus corpus) - in fact, this is the very thing the constitution was designed to prevent by protecting consensus formation - which GW has likened to toilet paper fer chrisakes.

Where and when did Bush call the constitution "toilet paper"? I've seen some mention of him saying it's "just goddamed paper", but only from sources that claim other "sources" and "aides", which is hardly the foundation for a logical argument.

So yes, it's cause or concern when people who claim to be concerned about education misrepresent inflamatory rhetoric as "logic", and objectify and dehumanize their political opposition instead of addressing the arguments.

And in spite of the rule about losing the argument by bringing up the NAZI's, supressing debate is the first crucial step in a definitive pattern, empirically and objectively speaking.

The fact is, the one thing the constitution is unequivocally designed to protect, is everybodies right to an opinion, and the freedom to express it without retaliation or being threatened into silence.

Yep.

Merc can bitch all he want's to about having to wear a helmet - it's recognition and enforcement of his constitutional rights that prevents an insurance adjustor, or a government representitive of an insurance company from popping a cap into that head for doing it, whether or not that's the way things are is is a matter of consensus recognition of those constitutional rights - if not enforced or recognized, they no longer effectively exist in praxis: constitutionally guaranteed, "god given", or pulled straight out of your ass, same diference for all the good it'll do you.

An extreme example perhaps, but you know how those slippery slopes are.

quote:

LOL. Well, I'm not a conservative, except when I am; I believe in protecting the environment, legalizing marijuana, gay marriage, and sex work, and in a universal health-care system, among other things (some leftist, centrist, and righty). Now, if you were referring to Merc or caitlyn, I'm fairly sure they'd not want the tag of conservative placed on them, either, but they certainly can speak for themselves.