|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 03/15/2007 : 01:07:42 [Permalink]
|
kil said:
quote:
And you have the right to challenge a claim of fact, or an opinion. Even though the rules regarding how one deals with those two things are not exactly the same. I see that you have, on no uncertain terms, come to the conclusion that a claim of fact was stated and needs to be defended. I also see that there is disagreement with that conclusion. I have read the thread many times now and here is something I think you should consider. Even though it first seemed as though a claim of fact was being made, beskeptigal did one of two things. She either stepped back from her claim of fact or she never meant her statement to come off as a claim of fact, which in subsequent posts of hers, she maintains as the truth.
Each time she does this, she follows it up with a challenge for me to prove her wrong. Which indicates that she isn't expressing an opinion, but stating a claim of fact. No one needs to defend their opinions with logical fallacy.
beskeptigal said:
quote:
I hate to fan these flames, and I was going to leave it as my observations,
Again, so what? No one ever said there wasn't some silly crap in the platform of the green party. You can make the exact same case against dems, republicans, or libertarians that you are making against the greens. All these parties have their share of people incapable of processing reality. They all support their own share of stupidity.
But what you are doing, making a derogatory claim against the whole group based on your limited personal exposure, is wrong. Wrong because your conclusion is based on faulty induction.
What is in dispute here, primarily, is your insistence that the majority of greens fit into that category. Your use of logical fallacy, attempting to shift the burden of proof, is my secondary objection.
To reiterate:
I don't care what your objections to the green party platform are. They are not relevant. There is nonsense in there, but there is nonsense in every political party platform I have ever read. Platforms are created by comittee, they are designed to be as inclusive as possible. Nonsense in a platform does not indicate that the majority of that party hold those views. (a point I tried to get accross to you when you were bashing libertarians too)
Your insistence on labeling the majority of greens "magical thinkers" is unsupportable. No one has ever claimed that the green party didn't have them, the same as every other group of non-skeptics in the world.
You refuse, despite many opportunities, to unambiguously clarify your statement as an opinion or to restate it in such a way that it isn't a broadly derogatory claim against an entire group.
You use logical fallacy (shifting the burden of proof) when asked for evidence.
quote:
You owe everyone apologies, Dude
No, I do not.
Kil said:
quote:
You are free to disagree with her opinion until the cows come home but frankly, you already "won" the claim of fact objection (if there really was anything to win) when she said, in so many words, that her claim is anecdotal in that it is her own personal observation. In other words, it's an opinion.
Did you miss the part where she concludes
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 09:13:50 [Permalink]
|
From Dude: quote:
Again, so what? No one ever said there wasn't some silly crap in the platform of the green party. You can make the exact same case against dems, republicans, or libertarians that you are making against the greens.
You still haven't clearly explained what qualifies one as a “magical thinker”. On page two you first made the claim that we could make the same case against Dems, and you said this: quote:
Should I start calling democrats idiots because some of you are stupid anough to think that guns are evil and should be entirely illegal?
The problem here is that gun control is an issue that can be argued from both points of view perfectly rationally. Nobody can perfectly predict the consequences are various models of gun control. It is all opinion and guessing, but zero magical thinking. But with homeopathy and “mother earth” there is magical thinking. I believe that is what beskeptigal meant by “woo woo”.
And incidentally, if you called the majority of Dems idiots for supporting gun control, I would file that away as opinion, not a claim of fact. I might debate you on the issue, but I would not demand that you produce evidence that the majority of Dems are actually idiots because – as I've said a million times and you have yet to dispute this claim – “idiots”, “woo woos” and “magical thinkers” are too vague as labels to have clear qualifiers. I can't even imagine what kind of evidence bgal would have to present for you to be satisfied because nobody has set the requirements for those terms. And seeing as you are the only one claiming this is a claim of fact, I think you should be the one to set those requirements. Please, Dude, tell us all the clearly identifiable requirements for being a magical thinker opposed to non-magical thinker, and then we can all go search for evidence to support or dispute bgal's claim.
quote:
I think you are giving her a free pass because you share the same opinion and belong to the same political club. Just my opinion... but there you have it.
I think you are refusing to deal with my and others objections to your line of reasoning here, and refusing to accept that beskeptigal already re-stated her claim as opinion, because you have some psychological block with admitting you are wrong after things have gotten this overblown. Just my opinion… but there you have it.
quote:
The root issue here is really one of bias.
I think you need to re-state that unabiguously as opinion. Or you can retract your conclusion that is based on faulty induction.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 09:37:13 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
You still haven't clearly explained what qualifies one as a “magical thinker”. On page two you first made the claim that we could make the same case against Dems, and you said this:
More nonsense from you, hardly suprising. Nothing but a red herring.
If you challenged the KKK on their stance towards non-white people, and they threw back at you a challenge to define what qualifies one as "inferior", what would you say?
So go ahead, defend a person making derogatory statements about an entire group of people all you want.
Just bring less magical thinking of your own to the table when you try it.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 13:29:02 [Permalink]
|
Oh fer Christ's sake! The challenge to define those terms was rhetorical. The point still remains that your criticism is misplaced. The comparison to KKK doesn't work because, again, false comparison. Magical thinking is a method of explaining problems and questions about reality. And being a Green is a choice of political party affiliation, opposed to one's race which is not chosen. The type of inferiority that white supremacists argue is genetic based - a question of biology. Apples and oranges.
Also, the KKK actually engage in real bigotry meaning that they advocate limiting the rights of non-whites. Beskeptigal has called for nothing of the kind against Greens, and as I've said before, she actually associates with Greens quite frequently because of their many similar political goals.
Your comparison also falls flat when you think about the intensity of it. There is a world of difference between accusing someone of magical thinking and accusing someone of being part of a genetically inferior race. By using such an inflammatory comparison, you are encouraging bias by encouraging emotions to run high.
It's almost as if you are using such an extreme example to upset people who are arguing with you so that they will say something stupid in the heat of their anger, and then you can latch onto that one poorly phrased thing they said and rub their nose in it for 6 pages of discussion, even after the person backs off of that wording and re-contextualizes what they said. Sound familiar?
Spare me your bullshit accusations of magical thinking on my part. Skepticism is not an exact science. Two skeptics which equal skeptical integrity can - *gasp* - come to opposite conclusions on many matters, especially politics. Bgal can think of most Greens as woo woos, and you can think of most Dems as idiots (I know you were only using it as an example, I'm merely using it as an example again), and I can think of most third party members as overlyidealistic, and we can all still be skeptics so long as we acknowledge that our assumptions may be wrong.
And I'm sorry, but if ones attends political event after political event, and watches and reads all sorts of news from political news sources, that is more powerful anecdotal evidence than basing one's opinion on a couple acquaintances. Bgal is extremely involved in Leftist politics. She has been around Greens and Dems a lot over a period of years. On top of that, she admits that her opinion is held tentatively and has said it is her opinion. You say she's biased by her own political conclusions, but how the fuck do you think she came to her conclusions in the first place?
You are obsessing with something so minute instead of continuing what could be a much more rich and enlightening conversation. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/15/2007 13:32:46 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 13:40:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Nothing but a red herring.
And I am so fucking sick and tired of you pretending you can read peoples' minds! Despite what you may think, when people argue with you on this forum, they actually believe in what they are saying. They don't have some personal vendetta against you (and how arrogant of you for assuming so) that causes them to abandon their genuine thoughts and principles. "Red herring" implies that I am deliberately distracting from the issue at hand. I am not. This is not the first time you have insulted the integrity of myself and others here by assuming that we know we are wrong. You also wrote this (my emphasis in bold): quote:
EVery one of you jumping my shit in this thread would be breaking your whole foot off in the ass of anyone who came onto these boards and behaved like beskeptigal is now, but towards democrats... You damn well know it too.
I actually responded to that disagreeing with your assumption and comparison, and explaining quite clearly why. You didn't respond. As you say, hardly surprising. You seem to be utterly incapable of realizing the others can interpret the same facts slightly differently and still have skeptical integrity. No, Dude cannot be the biased one here (just ignore the intense emotional lashing out at people - that indicates nothing), it is obviously everyone else who is biased. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/15/2007 13:42:27 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 20:19:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Each time she does this, she follows it up with a challenge for me to prove her wrong. Which indicates that she isn't expressing an opinion, but stating a claim of fact. No one needs to defend their opinions with logical fallacy.
First, let's discuss an opinion vs a fact. I drew a conclusion from observation. I recognize the observation is not sufficient to state the conclusion is a fact. And the observation is a fact but the conclusion isn't. The conclusion based on some but not overwhelming evidence is AN OPINION. At least quit taking words out of context and ranting about what I said.
I said I observed something. You disagree. I asked you for something that contradicted my observation. That is not as you describe, asking you to "prove" anything. I asked you for some evidence which contradicted my observation.
After resolving to leave it at that I found and read the platform. It is saturated with woo. It isn't just a crazy statement. It was so full of unsupported recommendations that it reinforced the conclusion I drew from my observations.
So let's just look at what you are saying now that the platform is in front of you:
quote:
What is in dispute here, primarily, is your insistence that the majority of greens fit into that category. Your use of logical fallacy, attempting to shift the burden of proof, is my secondary objection.
To reiterate:
I don't care what your objections to the green party platform are. They are not relevant. There is nonsense in there, but there is nonsense in every political party platform I have ever read. Platforms are created by comittee, they are designed to be as inclusive as possible. Nonsense in a platform does not indicate that the majority of that party hold those views. (a point I tried to get accross to you when you were bashing libertarians too)
Your insistence on labeling the majority of greens "magical thinkers" is unsupportable. No one has ever claimed that the green party didn't have them, the same as every other group of non-skeptics in the world.
You refuse, despite many opportunities, to unambiguously clarify your statement as an opinion or to restate it in such a way that it isn't a broadly derogatory claim against an entire group.
You use logical fallacy (shifting the burden of proof) when asked for evidence.
This is quite different from your earlier statement:
quote:
Here are 10 major values of the US Green Party:
quote:http://www.gp.org/tenkey.shtml
Just because there is a statement most of us find silly in their platform in no way makes "a lot of them idiots".
The link to the green 10 key values I posted was only an effort to get you to see past your bigotry. If the majority of the green party were crazies, then it seem as if those values and the platform would include more woo-woo crap.
IF THE MAJORITY OF GREENS ARE IRRATIONAL, EXPLAIN WHY THEIR OFFICIAL PLATFORM ISN'T SATURATED WITH IRRATIONAL .
Platforms, as you well know, are decided by comitee! A comitee made of of the most active and vocal elements of a party, in fact.
Speaks for itself. It isn't 'a' statement in the platform, it is large sections of the entire platform.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/15/2007 20:20:55 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 23:34:23 [Permalink]
|
I'm not going to get into the discussion about all Greens or what percentage of Greens are idiots or whatever, but I will say that since I value certain principles, I probably won't put my name to a group that has some of these things as part of their platform. I can't identify myself with that kind of thing, and it's probably why I never joined, although I don't really remember why.
These are things I just can't ignore, or allow anyone to think that I promote. But then, I'm not much of a joiner, either.
Having said all that, I probably could vote for a Green (and did vote for Nader when he ran for the Greens) if he did not openly promote this type of 'woo' thing as the things he did promote were more important than the things he didn't say anything about. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2007 : 02:10:59 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal said:
quote:
First, let's discuss an opinion vs a fact. I drew a conclusion from observation. I recognize the observation is not sufficient to state the conclusion is a fact. And the observation is a fact but the conclusion isn't. The conclusion based on some but not overwhelming evidence is AN OPINION. At least quit taking words out of context and ranting about what I said.
Opinions are for what color you'd prefer the bathroom tile to be, o for issues that don't have significant evidence to support proper conclusions.
Your derogatory claims about an entire group of people cannot be taken as an opinion. Or should we let the "opinion" of fundie christions, with regard to atheists, slide too? Because, afterall, its just their opinion....
quote:
After resolving to leave it at that I found and read the platform. It is saturated with woo. It isn't just a crazy statement. It was so full of unsupported recommendations that it reinforced the conclusion I drew from my observations.
Exageration and a demonstration confirmation bias.
There is more than one bit of nonsense in there (who said it was just one thing? no one.) But by no measure is the majority of the green platform "saturated with woo". Is there some in there? duh. But the large majority of their platform isn't "woo". And you will note how "free-from-woo" their 10 stated primary values are. The crazy shit is hidden in the fine print.
quote:
Speaks for itself. It isn't 'a' statement in the platform, it is large sections of the entire platform.
That is your confirmation bias speaking, again. You have already concluded that "a lot of them are idiots" and the majority are "magical thinkers". You are not being rational. Their 10 primary values are woo-free, as are the majority of their platform statemets.
mafknox said:
quote:
nothing worth responding to, again
You should also look out as you wouldn't want McQ threatening to report you to your ISP for being hostile and having a potty mouth!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 03/16/2007 02:17:33 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2007 : 02:31:05 [Permalink]
|
I'm going to drag this discussion back to where it started. And Dude, you can stew all you want, I think most people are done trying to carry on a discussion with your problem here.
The whole context of my comments about the Green party was that because of the members, platform, idealism, wooism, you name it, they are just not ever going to be an effective 3rd party. Their platform was so far to the left, it is even more reason to not waste time with supporting the lost cause of the Green Party. Neither the Libertarian nor the Green Party platforms are realistic. Regardless of the characteristics of the membership of either party, neither has a realistic chance of becoming a viable third party in the near future.
For a person like myself, who believes the Republican/Evangelical Party to be dangerous for the future of this country, and who believes the Democrats to be ineffective and too closely tied to the same corporate trough as the Republicans, that leaves the Progressive movement within the Democratic Party as the best option left. That was the context I made my comments about the Green Party membership, and after seeing the platform, I am even more convinced.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/16/2007 02:31:47 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2007 : 03:27:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
My memory isn't faulty, Dave. You are making the faulty assumption I am only talking about this forum.
I made no assumption that you were "only talking about this forum." I had very good evidence to not make such an assumption. You knew that I had good reason to not make that assumption, yet you chose to state that I made that assumption in spite of the evidence.quote:
And you posted the claim if I thought Mycroft was right wing when he said he was a Democrat I must indeed be far left.
Oh, right! There's my faulty memory at work. I apologize to you, beskeptigal, for claiming that your claim was incorrect.
As long as I'm posting reminders of what people have said in past posts, I take that last statement as sarcastic. If it wasn't, then this is just the reference, if it was sarcastic, then this is the reference Dave should explain.
Page 4, my left wing media sources:Dave W. said, quote:
"And "Democrat," encompassing such a wide array of positions, allows one to go pretty damn far left without being a socialist or a communist. The fact that she thinks a fellow Democrat (Mycroft again) is a right-winger is evidence of that all by itself. She's so far left she sees the moderates of her own party as radical Republicans."
The other statement about being aware of what was said in other forums, I don't get at all. In the JREF forum my post on the World Can't Wait anti-war rally was beaten to death.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/16/2007 03:30:41 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2007 : 09:35:15 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
mafknox said: quote:
nothing worth responding to, again
Then why did you respond with this empty garbage? If what I have written here is truly not wroth a damn, then I have dug my own grave and you need not kick me when I'm down. Instead, much of what I've said has been echoed by other respected and intelligent members here, and you have more than once responded with nothing more than personal insults.
I'm really done now (I promise, everyone) with responding to Dude in this thread, first because there really is nothing else to say, and second because the abuse is finally starting to hurt. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2007 : 10:03:38 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote: quote:
I'm not going to get into the discussion about all Greens or what percentage of Greens are idiots or whatever, but I will say that since I value certain principles, I probably won't put my name to a group that has some of these things as part of their platform. I can't identify myself with that kind of thing, and it's probably why I never joined, although I don't really remember why.
These are things I just can't ignore, or allow anyone to think that I promote. But then, I'm not much of a joiner, either.
I feel ya there. I'm only a registered Dem because I voted in the last primary. I might become a registered Republican this time around, depending on which primary I prefer to vote in. That said, even though I've preferred to think of myself as an independent, the Democratic party might be sucking me in. For now. I'm young, and political parties tend to change a lot over short periods of time.
quote:
Having said all that, I probably could vote for a Green (and did vote for Nader when he ran for the Greens) if he did not openly promote this type of 'woo' thing as the things he did promote were more important than the things he didn't say anything about.
I voted for Nader in that election because I was in Ohio and the polls right before election showed that the state was going to Bush, regardless of the Nader voters. (If Ohio had remained a true swing state until the end, I would have voted Gore). I didn't regret it for a while, but now I do because I find that my vote was cast almost purely in the spirit of idealism, and today I'm convinced that while idealism may be nice, it is a luxury in today's political environment, and it rarely gets things done.
bgal wrote: quote:
For a person like myself, who believes the Republican/Evangelical Party to be dangerous for the future of this country, and who believes the Democrats to be ineffective and too closely tied to the same corporate trough as the Republicans, that leaves the Progressive movement within the Democratic Party as the best option left.
That's pretty much where I'm ending up too, although I don't see Evangelicals as the biggest concern with Republicans. If anything, they are marginalizing themselves more and more by association with Evangelicals. Few weeks ago The Economist argued that American Republicans are becoming a regional party, and not staying with the times.
What more concerns me about Republicans is this overly simplistic and almost religious belief in small government, less taxes. Sometimes that approach works, but by itself it is dysfunctional as an all-encompassing economic policy. And how bizarre is it for Republican politicians to denounce government itself as a bad thing? I can't trust someone who, in essence, argues that government is corrupt, so vote for me. Then if they fuck up, the party can say “See, government is corrupt and needs to be shrunk down even more, so vote for us”, but if they do great things, the party can say, “See, our methods are superior, vote for us”.
Hey, in your political explorations have you (or anyone else here) heard the term “neo-liberal”? My Humanist group had a professor of poly sci and self-proclaimed Marxist speak at a meeting a few months ago, and she used that term. What she said was that, despite what conservatives say, academia is not saturated by communist thought, but rather, neo-liberal thoug |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2007 : 12:39:45 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal said:
quote:
I'm going to drag this discussion back to where it started. And Dude, you can stew all you want, I think most people are done trying to carry on a discussion with your problem here.
Whatever.
You are obviously incapable of seeing beyond your political bais and recognizing your error. So please, feel free to continue practicing your Coulteresque political bigotry.
marfknox said:
quote:
I'm really done now (I promise, everyone) with responding to Dude in this thread, first because there really is nothing else to say, and second because the abuse is finally starting to hurt
HAHA! Poor you. It was you, afterall, who started out with insults and sarcasm in this thread. Don't expect any sypmathy, hypocrit.
Right here, psycho, is where this thread devolved into insults, courtesy of YOU:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7681&whichpage=5#114714
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2007 : 16:26:48 [Permalink]
|
I'm an ex-Ohioan too.
So-called Conservatives do not believe in smaller government (except for maybe people like Ron Paul), they believe in large government which helps the wealthy get wealthier and the poor get poorer. They believe in making government which actually attempts to work for its citizens smaller. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/16/2007 : 17:41:50 [Permalink]
|
Did I miss where you replied to this, Dude?quote:
Just because there is a statement most of us find silly in their platform in no way makes "a lot of them idiots".
IF THE MAJORITY OF GREENS ARE IRRATIONAL, EXPLAIN WHY THEIR OFFICIAL PLATFORM ISN'T SATURATED WITH IRRATIONAL .
Platforms, as you well know, are decided by comitee! A comitee made of of the most active and vocal elements of a party, in fact
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/16/2007 17:43:07 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Party, Party, Party!
