Reason, the war and this forum.

[Doubt]

The war and peoples emotions are not helping the quality of debate in this part of the forum.

Now even before the war I noticed that otherwise good skeptics don't appear to be skeptics about politics. Many people around here have a great deal of trouble trying to see things without the filter of their political bias. This is even more apparent since the war started.

Many here have pointed out that we should wait to post war related info until the news has been confirmed. Otherwise, we will waste our time discussing low quality information. Starting a thread with the word "allegedly" in the thread tittle does not improve the quality of the information.

We have posters from the political right describing people as enemies or traitors if they are opposed to the war. Sorry, but descent is an American value. If you don't like than that is too bad. If their arguments are bad, then attack the argument and not the person.

From the left, I have noticed a great deal of over generalizations. I am very tempted to point out specific examples, but flaming the posters in question is not the point of this thread.

I will point out some things that should be considered by both sides.

1.) Think twice about some words. Such as the following:

All, Every, Everybody, Anyone, Nobody, Believe. (Anyone have anything to add?) These are the tools of over generalization.

2.) Not considering evidence against your own position.

Try to consider that those who oppose you are probably not 100% wrong and that you are not 100% right.

3.) Calling someone names.

Even if your target is an idiot, saying so won't support your argument.

4.) Assuming that your political model of the world is correct.

Political models are weak representations of the world in which we live. The best of them are quite poor. The worst are nothing but fiction. I work under the assumption that the further away from the center you get, the probability of getting a good argument drops substantially. However, finding the center is hard because it is a moving target.

5.) Posting information that is not confirmed.

"The fist casualty of war is the truth". This is true for all sources, for or against the war. Your favorite source of news is being used for propaganda by both sides. Get used to doubting it even when it tells you what you want to hear.

If you are sure you are correct, you are not thinking hard enough.

[Wolverine]

Outstanding post, Doubt.

[Ladyhawk]

Solid and honorable rules to follow in any debate, regardless of the thread....

All in favor????? :D

[iain]

Nice post Doubt. Thank you.

[Mike B.]

Can we please also stop the sterotypes...

(i.e. - Trigger happy cowboys or French cheese eating surrender monkeys are two examples of this.)

Also,
Both sides say this or something like it. "I can't believe that you would post this on a site dedicated to skepticism."

I mean reasonable people can disagree within certain bounds.:)

Originally posted by Mike B.
Both sides say this or something like it. "I can't believe that you would post this on a site dedicated to skepticism."



I'm freaking... I quoted ol' Boogie there, saying that exact thing to me, and decided to delete it.

We've engaged in a good deal of rhetoric on this issue here, but I've learned an awful lot from the pro-war folks, enough to put me almost squarely in the middle. I think the number of good reasons for the war and the number of good reason against it are roughly equal.

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by Estimated Prophet


I'm freaking... I quoted ol' Boogie there, saying that exact thing to me, and decided to delete it.

:) Hey, I've no problem fessing up, or having any of my comments singled out.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Doubt
The war and peoples emotions are not helping the quality of debate in this part of the forum.

Now even before the war I noticed that otherwise good skeptics don't appear to be skeptics about politics. Many people around here have a great deal of trouble trying to see things without the filter of their political bias. This is even more apparent since the war started.

Many here have pointed out that we should wait to post war related info until the news has been confirmed. Otherwise, we will waste our time discussing low quality information. Starting a thread with the word "allegedly" in the thread tittle does not improve the quality of the information.

We have posters from the political right describing people as enemies or traitors if they are opposed to the war. Sorry, but descent is an American value. If you don't like than that is too bad. If their arguments are bad, then attack the argument and not the person.

From the left, I have noticed a great deal of over generalizations. I am very tempted to point out specific examples, but flaming the posters in question is not the point of this thread.

I will point out some things that should be considered by both sides.

1.) Think twice about some words. Such as the following:

All, Every, Everybody, Anyone, Nobody, Believe. (Anyone have anything to add?) These are the tools of over generalization.

2.) Not considering evidence against your own position.

Try to consider that those who oppose you are probably not 100% wrong and that you are not 100% right.

3.) Calling someone names.

Even if your target is an idiot, saying so won't support your argument.

4.) Assuming that your political model of the world is correct.

Political models are weak representations of the world in which we live. The best of them are quite poor. The worst are nothing but fiction. I work under the assumption that the further away from the center you get, the probability of getting a good argument drops substantially. However, finding the center is hard because it is a moving target.

5.) Posting information that is not confirmed.

"The fist casualty of war is the truth". This is true for all sources, for or against the war. Your favorite source of news is being used for propaganda by both sides. Get used to doubting it even when it tells you what you want to hear.

If you are sure you are correct, you are not thinking hard enough.


Very well presented and rational. The guidelines you present can be applied to this forum. I will endeavor to remember these guidelines.

I am human and I am fallible.

A great challenge! Thankyou.

Originally posted by Wolverine


:) Hey, I've no problem fessing up, or having any of my comments singled out.

:D I quoted ya, but then decided it wasn't really relevant to the opening post. Mike found a stronger connection...

What you wrote then bugged me, but it also made me wonder if what I'd written was properly skepticism or just cynicism. Great googly-moogly...

[DanishDynamite]

Anyone (1) can see that your post is 100% wrong (2), you middle-of-the-roadist (3). My political view is inherently right (4) and as inarguable as Saddam's death (5). ;)

[Doubt]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Anyone (1) can see that your post is 100% wrong (2), you middle-of-the-roadist (3). My political view is inherently right (4) and as inarguable as Saddam's death (5). ;)

Thanks DD and the others here.

Now that I have your support, I can rest assured that I am right…….what did I say about being sure again??……never mind.
:p

[Mel]

Originally posted by Estimated Prophet

...... I think the number of good reasons for the war and the number of good reason against it are roughly equal.

I surely agree with THAT and it makes me feel so torn sometimes my head starts to swim.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Doubt
1.) Think twice about some words. Such as the following:

All, Every, Everybody, Anyone, Nobody, Believe. (Anyone have anything to add?)

"Always" and "never" are ones I've always been on the lookout for. Also, the converse of the above: none, nowhere, etc.

For example, I have been very careful not to make the claim that "Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction," and instead, "I have seen no evidence that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction." Big difference there, although many people are quick to deduce that I claimed the former when I said the latter.

2.) Not considering evidence against your own position.

Try to consider that those who oppose you are probably not 100% wrong and that you are not 100% right.

One thing I have concluded from the debates on this forum is that reasonable people can take a pro- or anti- side in this. Another thing I've concluded is that there are unreasonable people on both the pro- and anti- sides.

But I just don't understand why there are so many emotions invested in this issue. I can certainly understand why those who have a friend or loved one over there fighting might be desperate to believe it's for a just cause, or on the other hand why they might be fearful of losing that person and railing against the war as a result. But why are so many people so emotionally involved in the politics of it?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Estimated Prophet
I think the number of good reasons for the war and the number of good reason against it are roughly equal.

Without going into some kind of pro vs. com balancing act, I do want to point out that this is where principles can come into play. My principles tell me that unless the good reasons for the war overwhelm the good reasons against it (which is certainly not the case here), then you shouldn't have a war.

Kind of like in a trial; where there's equal evidence for the plaintiff or the defendant, you decide in favor of the defendant.

[specious_reasons]

Bravo, Doubt.

Now even before the war I noticed that otherwise good skeptics don't appear to be skeptics about politics. Many people around here have a great deal of trouble trying to see things without the filter of their political bias. This is even more apparent since the war started.

I've noticed the same thing, too. I'll even admit that I have closely held opinions that I don't often hold up to skeptical scrutiny.

RE: war debate. I've actually been relatively silent about the war on this forum, mostly because I have closely held opinions and not a lot of facts.

Re: name calling. I've been harping on some people about name calling on this forum. It made me wonder if I was guilty of the same. Maybe I have been. Regardless, I made a commitment to myself to avoid being hypocritical on the subject.

After all, if I listen to my own harangues, name-calling doesn't promote critical thinking.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by shanek

"Always" and "never" are ones I've always been on the lookout for. Also, the converse of the above: none, nowhere, etc.

(Emphasis mine)

You might want to reconsider your statement there. :D

[shanek]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
You might want to reconsider your statement there. :D

What, are you saying I should never use the word always? :p

This is still the best and most rational place on the net to come for political debates about the war. If you think we get irrational and unskeptical on here, whew! You ain't seen nothin'.

But you are right, Doubt. Good opening post.

This war is one of the hardest things to look at objectively. I mean, people are dying! Right now! From our bombs!

And it is a long, long way from conclusion. I don't mean the war itself will last a long time. I mean the results won't be in for possibly decades. It is going to be a long time before we all discover we were all wrong. :D

[Ben Shniper]

Originally posted by Doubt
The war and peoples emotions are not helping the quality of debate in this part of the forum.

Now even before the war I noticed that otherwise good skeptics don't appear to be skeptics about politics. Many people around here have a great deal of trouble trying to see things without the filter of their political bias. This is even more apparent since the war started.


I dissent from your opinion, Doubt. I say we all want certain things, and the things aren't necessarily compatable. Some want us to win this war, some want us to lose it. Thus our arguments will be based on this bias, for example.

I've seen people claiming that we have to "democratize Iraq", and nuke Bagdad. I've seen people claiming we should always want peace, and thus should support suicide bombings against Israel and America! At first, these look like illogical arguments, but are they? Perhaps we need to see these arguments as what they are: Blatantly meant to cause the desired effect, and thus not bound to ordinary logic, thus there is little to be skeptical about.

Now if you want to argue WITHOUT wanting America to win or lose the war, then how could your arguments be interesting OR valid? Oh, gee, it looks like the Iraqis and Americans are killing each other. Not a big wow factor. Now to say: "Iraq is blowing up its own bridges to prevent civilians from fleeing cities, where it needs them for human shields." Or to say "America is intentionally targetting civilian markets to murder innocent Iraqis" now that has interest factor, to both those who care for one side or the other.

Now, if you want to make a logical argument, it can be used by BOTH SIDES to make their point. The logical point that "Iraq has 17 Security council resolutions around them, and America has been at war with Iraq before, this makes little sense for people with a stake in the attack.

-Ben

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper


I dissent from your opinion, Doubt. I say we all want certain things, and the things aren't necessarily compatable. Some want us to win this war, some want us to lose it. Thus our arguments will be based on this bias, for example.

I've seen people claiming that we have to "democratize Iraq", and nuke Bagdad. I've seen people claiming we should always want peace, and thus should support suicide bombings against Israel and America! At first, these look like illogical arguments, but are they? Perhaps we need to see these arguments as what they are: Blatantly meant to cause the desired effect, and thus not bound to ordinary logic, thus there is little to be skeptical about.

Now if you want to argue WITHOUT wanting America to win or lose the war, then how could your arguments be interesting OR valid? Oh, gee, it looks like the Iraqis and Americans are killing each other. Not a big wow factor. Now to say: "Iraq is blowing up its own bridges to prevent civilians from fleeing cities, where it needs them for human shields." Or to say "America is intentionally targetting civilian markets to murder innocent Iraqis" now that has interest factor, to both those who care for one side or the other.

Now, if you want to make a logical argument, it can be used by BOTH SIDES to make their point. The logical point that "Iraq has 17 Security council resolutions around them, and America has been at war with Iraq before, this makes little sense for people with a stake in the attack.

-Ben

Crikey Ben, you beat me to it. P**s of doubt, your amoral stance has lowered the tone of the forum. Kill all Yankee Imperialists.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Doubt
The war and peoples emotions are not helping the quality of debate in this part of the forum.

I was not going to reply to this post but after reading it again I have to address its inconsistencies. People are always emotional about war. Some people want America to win the war, some do not, and some do not care either way. All groups speak about what they believe and what they wish, and if they do then what they say can be examined for truth. For example, I want the US to win the war--that is a truth, a direct truth. Someone who does not want the US to win the war would obviously disagree with me, thus creating an environment for debate. That is what this forum is designed to do, debate. Everyone can be skeptical about information, but that has nothing to do with debating an issue. There are no perfect skeptics, and people can't learn to be skeptical about issues until they receive information about the subject requiring the possibility of skepticism.

Now even before the war I noticed that otherwise good skeptics don't appear to be skeptics about politics. Many people around here have a great deal of trouble trying to see things without the filter of their political bias. This is even more apparent since the war started.

But that is politics. Politics is the struggle over limited resources. Politics is war over resources. That is what politics is. You can't be "skeptical" about politics unless you are apolitical. Having read your posts on the forum, you are not apolitical. I can't recall anyone who is--perhaps Corplinx and some other disciplined posters are. But very few people are--too few to ever prescribe apolitical relationships to an open forum discussing politics. That is laughable. (in a funny sort of way)

Many here have pointed out that we should wait to post war related info until the news has been confirmed. Otherwise, we will waste our time discussing low quality information. Starting a thread with the word "allegedly" in the thread tittle does not improve the quality of the information.

That is Owellianism run amok. All media information is low quality information filled with bias. Discussing media information is being skeptical about it, examining bias and adding opinion. There will be facts mixed into the stew, but the truth eventually appears regardless of citizen regulation. You can't regulate information flows in the media. Most of the information from the war being passed on as "media" has been fairly correct with few exceptions. The one greatest exception was the announcement that US forces were "bogged down", when they weren't but achieving battlefield success all over Iraq. That was one incident in media where they were way off the mark. There are other examples, like Peter Arnett's declaration on Iraqi state-run television that the US was going "lose the war". But overall, the information quality has been about the same as the media dispenses in periods of non-war. There has been no major change in quality.

We have posters from the political right describing people as enemies or traitors if they are opposed to the war. Sorry, but descent is an American value. If you don't like than that is too bad. If their arguments are bad, then attack the argument and not the person.

You mean "dissent", not "descent". Dissent is fine if it does not dismantle or seek to dismantle the government of the United States. Protesting against the war is dissent. Shutting down entire cities, advocating that US troops "shoot their officers", threatening the president's life on placards, etc, is not dissent. That is subversion. The United States was ruthlessly attacked by enemies of this country and has the legal and moral obligation to respond to those attacks. Why have we not seen protests against the very regimes that initiated these attacks by the left? Or are they too busy assisting them with the attempted dismantling of the United States? Dissent means to disagree and form a different opinion. I don't see where overthrowing the US government fits into that definition, but perhaps you could enlighten me.

Here, let me help you out with an example. Was Peter Arnett wrong for hopping on Iraq state television and telling the country of Iraq that the US was going to lose the war? You bet. Could his actions be interpreted as treason? You bet. No moral relativism can be applied to his actions, and moral relativism is really bad judgement anyway. There is always a right vs. wrong when dealing with declarations of war between nation-states. Always. Arnett was using his position to provide an enemy nation-state false information about the status of the war. He was wrong.

From the left, I have noticed a great deal of over generalizations. I am very tempted to point out specific examples, but flaming the posters in question is not the point of this thread.

Bring up examples. You were happy to do it with what your self-examination of the motives of the right are. Don't hold back. Tell it like you really feel.

I will point out some things that should be considered by both sides.

Your opinion is noted.

1.) Think twice about some words. Such as the following:

All, Every, Everybody, Anyone, Nobody, Believe. (Anyone have anything to add?) These are the tools of over generalization.

Oh, sort of like the vast, vast, super vast, endless, without end, right-wing conspiracy? You know, the one that no one knows who is in it but it is so huge that it is like the size of Jupiter? That type of over-generalization?

2.) Not considering evidence against your own position.

Try to consider that those who oppose you are probably not 100% wrong and that you are not 100% right.

I think you mean to "not consider alternate opinion". Evidence is fact. Absent evidence (absent facts), participants in debate then must form opinions and attempt to persuade others to their side. That is politics.

3.) Calling someone names.

Even if your target is an idiot, saying so won't support your argument.

Oh, so even if a person is an "idiot", it is OK to "think" they are but not to "say" they are. Again, political correctness run amok, but I try to avoid name-calling wherever possible lol.

4.) Assuming that your political model of the world is correct.

Political models are weak representations of the world in which we live. The best of them are quite poor. The worst are nothing but fiction. I work under the assumption that the further away from the center you get, the probability of getting a good argument drops substantially. However, finding the center is hard because it is a moving target.

Be more specific about what you mean by "political models". Are you talking about ideology, nation-state structure or advocacy? Sure some of those can be fluid, but they are an inseperable reality of politics and will never go away. Thus people will talk about them.

5.) Posting information that is not confirmed.

"The fist casualty of war is the truth". This is true for all sources, for or against the war. Your favorite source of news is being used for propaganda by both sides. Get used to doubting it even when it tells you what you want to hear.

Confirmed by who, you?

If you are sure you are correct, you are not thinking hard enough.

Now that is pretty laughable logic. When the US wins the war in Iraq and someone says: "Gosh, the US won the war." Is it OK for them to stop thinking about that fact? I think it is. Did they think hard enough to draw that conclusion?

What you are advocating is moral relativism, the nastiest form of political correctness ever seen. I don't need you or anyone else defining what I think and what I say. I call it like it is. The US is invading Iraq because Iraq is wrong and the US is right. Moral relativism does not equate into that example in no way, shape or form. (moral relativism can be annihilated in every example where it is applied to politics. There is always a correct and incorrect position in politics in every situation).


JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by iain
Nice post Doubt. Thank you.

You are thanking him for advocating bad logic?

The US is invading Iraq. The US is right, Iraq is wrong.

That simple statement disproves everything he just said. There is a "right side" and a "wrong side". The same applies to those who support and do not support the war.

Participants for the war are not required to give any respect to those that do not support it.

JK

[Ove]

But why are so many people so emotionally involved in the politics of it?

Because for the first time in history is the USA using the "Might is Right" principle and doesn't care a s*** about world opinion.

As JK said:

The US is invading Iraq. The US is right, Iraq is wrong.

I COULD say that "The US is right, North Korea is Wrong" or The US are right, Saudi Arabia is wrong" or The US are right, Iran is wrong", or.....

But i won't, the list would be too long. ;)

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

What you are advocating is moral relativism, the nastiest form of political correctness ever seen. I don't need you or anyone else defining what I think and what I say. I call it like it is. The US is invading Iraq because Iraq is wrong and the US is right. Moral relativism does not equate into that example in no way, shape or form. (moral relativism can be annihilated in every example where it is applied to politics. There is always a correct and incorrect position in politics in every situation).


Speaking of Moral Relativism. :rolleyes:

The USA is right.....? who says so????

You, me, Bush, Saddam, Blair.... who????

In politics, the "correct" position is determined in terms of its participants' supremacy not in terms of who is right.

[Mel]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

But that is politics. Politics is the struggle over limited resources. Politics is war over resources. That is what politics is. You can't be "skeptical" about politics unless you are apolitical. Having read your posts on the forum, you are not apolitical. I can't recall anyone who is--perhaps Corplinx and some other disciplined posters are. But very few people are--too few to ever prescribe apolitical relationships to an open forum discussing politics. That is laughable. (in a funny sort of way)

I disagree about that statement. The apolitical person is skeptical about ALL politics & doesn't want to get involved one way or the other. And politics is also about power..... and some people just don't see the sense in talking about power games.

Some people are merely skeptical about anything & everything that doesn't fall into their pre-conceived opinions. I think these people are more likely to whip out the offensive labels because they are not interested in true communication..... they believe they already know everything they need to know.

The people that are not afraid to discuss BOTH SIDES of things (in a civilized fashion) are the people we can learn from.



I also enjoyed Doubt's post.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Ben Shniper

Not a big wow factor. Now to say: "Iraq is blowing up its own bridges to prevent civilians from fleeing cities, where it needs them for human shields." Or to say "America is intentionally targetting civilian markets to murder innocent Iraqis" now that has interest factor, to both those who care for one side or the other.

Now, if you want to make a logical argument, it can be used by BOTH SIDES to make their point. The logical point that "Iraq has 17 Security council resolutions around them, and America has been at war with Iraq before, this makes little sense for people with a stake in the attack.

-Ben


When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler.

Al Gore Jr.


An argument based on fact can get you closer to the truth of a given situation. An argument based on rhetoric is a smoke screen. If you argue from rhetoric, you may convince the masses. If you argue from reason, you can convince reasonable people. I regard arguments from rhetoric as an insult to my intelligence. This alone is enough reason to reject political ideology.

I find it interesting that those who reject what I posted are those with the more extreme points of view. Could it be that these are the people with the biggest problem coming up with facts that support their case?


As for JK, A large chunk of your post does not address the text you commented on. Most notable was your comment on the truth. The press often gets the story wrong on the first pass. They eventually correct or confirm their own story.

Also, how is it bad logic to request that people argue from reason rather than emotion?

Other than that, thanks for the spelling correction.

[MRC_Hans]

Thank you Doubt for an excellent post.

Thank you Jedi Knight for an excellent demonstration of the justification of Doubt's post.

Hans

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Speaking of Moral Relativism. :rolleyes:

The USA is right.....? who says so????

You, me, Bush, Saddam, Blair.... who????

In politics, the "correct" position is determined in terms of its participants' supremacy not in terms of who is right.

Well Q, it is possible that some humans do not understand the difference between right and wrong as you demonstrate.

Is a brutal dictatorship like the Iraqi regime a better way of life than a free country like America?

Tell me, Marxist. Enlighten me.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Mel


I disagree about that statement. The apolitical person is skeptical about ALL politics & doesn't want to get involved one way or the other. And politics is also about power..... and some people just don't see the sense in talking about power games.

Some people are merely skeptical about anything & everything that doesn't fall into their pre-conceived opinions. I think these people are more likely to whip out the offensive labels because they are not interested in true communication..... they believe they already know everything they need to know.

The people that are not afraid to discuss BOTH SIDES of things (in a civilized fashion) are the people we can learn from.



I also enjoyed Doubt's post.

You don't understand the apolitical relationship and skepticism. To be skeptical you have to be neutral. In politics, you then would have to be apolitical. The instant you take a side, adhere to an agenda, you are not a skeptic.

Doubt is not a political skeptic. Not by a long shot.

Your agreement with him is agreeing with Marxist moral-relativism, where all political conditions have "credibility" to a "degree" and there is no defined right and wrong. That is laughable.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Thank you Doubt for an excellent post.

Thank you Jedi Knight for an excellent demonstration of the justification of Doubt's post.

Hans

eh? That was a rebuttal of Doubt's post, a clear, electrifying rebuttal. Reading comprehension problem, Hans?

JK

[Doubt]

quote:Originally posted by Q-Source


Speaking of Moral Relativism.

The USA is right.....? who says so????

You, me, Bush, Saddam, Blair.... who????

In politics, the "correct" position is determined in terms of its participants' supremacy not in terms of who is right.


From JK:

Well Q, it is possible that some humans do not understand the difference between right and wrong as you demonstrate.

Is a brutal dictatorship like the Iraqi regime a better way of life than a free country like America?

Tell me, Marxist. Enlighten me.

JK


You are both heading off topic. But this could be fun to watch. Anyone want to keep score?
______________

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Doubt




An argument based on fact can get you closer to the truth of a given situation. An argument based on rhetoric is a smoke screen. If you argue from rhetoric, you may convince the masses. If you argue from reason, you can convince reasonable people. I regard arguments from rhetoric as an insult to my intelligence. This alone is enough reason to reject political ideology.

I find it interesting that those who reject what I posted are those with the more extreme points of view. Could it be that these are the people with the biggest problem coming up with facts that support their case?


As for JK, A large chunk of your post does not address the text you commented on. Most notable was your comment on the truth. The press often gets the story wrong on the first pass. They eventually correct or confirm their own story.

Also, how is it bad logic to request that people argue from reason rather than emotion?

Other than that, thanks for the spelling correction.

Well, if you are now advocating rejecting political ideology ( a distinct change from your initial post), then you are advocating anarchy, which is the rejection of the political order, a Marxist tool.

Doubt, nothing you say is going to justify what you tried to do in your post. You saw the posts linked to the media as being anti-left, as being proof of shooting down all the leftist rhetoric over the last month, and it ate you up. You couldn't take it. That is why you came and made that post. You were asking for people not to discuss the very news they encounter in their daily lives because the "news" made you feel very unncomfortable as a leftist. Some of your leftist pals may drop into the thread and pat you on the back like Hans, and that may make you think you are cool, but does nothing for the information provided. This isn't a disco, it is a political forum where politics are debated.

If debating news stories hurts your eyes, buy some eye-drops because it isn't going to stop.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Doubt
quote:Originally posted by Q-Source



From JK:


You are both heading off topic. But this could be fun to watch. Anyone want to keep score?
______________

There is no "score" to keep. Your post was wrong. It was a -1 at the get-go. Keep that score.

If the news information that has been provided in the media supported leftist anti-war causes or pseudo-leftist positions (like Arnett's lol), you would and your leftist pals would be spamming that information on the thread right now.

But since it isn't, now you say there is no right and wrong and people shouldn't "critique" lol. That is pretty funny and is cool comedy. Maybe it will make Comedy Central.

Arnett was a traitor to the United States when he spoke on Iraqi state television. He was a "useful idiot" as Stalin defined, describing idiot leftists who didn't live in Communist Russia but propagandized for communism and the support of the Stalinist regime internationally.

The United States was right to invade Iraq. We were so right. Iraq is wrong and they are paying the price. That is why we invaded Iraq. We are right.

President Bush is the greatest president the United States has seen since Abraham Lincoln.

JK

[Doubt]

Leftist? Explain how you reached that conclusion.

If my post was “wrong” in general terms, then you think that:

a.) overgeneralizations are a good idea
b.) calling someone names strengthens your argument
c.) There really is an accurate political model for the world
d.) Rumors are as good as any other news.

I am also no more of a Marxist than I am a Nazi. You are calling me names instead of dealing with substance. If you want an example of moral relativism here is a very good example:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=16850



No, I didn't mean to say that giving the coordinates was a good thing, but part of Geraldo's nature. Geraldo has been around long enough for every segment of government to know where he was coming from. Just by letting Geraldo roll with them they should have expected that.


Those are your words JK. If it had been Peter Arnett, you would have called him a traitor. The fact is the Geraldo took a course of action that placed US troops in danger but you are defending him. In fact, applying different standards for these two reporters is beyond relativism. Blatant hypocrisy comes to mind.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Well Q, it is possible that some humans do not understand the difference between right and wrong as you demonstrate.

Is a brutal dictatorship like the Iraqi regime a better way of life than a free country like America?

Tell me, Marxist. Enlighten me.


You know what right-wing veteran?

I am not going to waste my time to explain what Politics is. You should know by now that in some areas what is wrong for you is right for your opponent and vice versa.

This is a War about political power and oil sources not about human rights and democracy. The strongest force will defeat the weakest force.

Go to read the basics... :rolleyes:

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Doubt
Leftist? Explain how you reached that conclusion.

If my post was “wrong” in general terms, then you think that:

a.) overgeneralizations are a good idea
b.) calling someone names strengthens your argument
c.) There really is an accurate political model for the world
d.) Rumors are as good as any other news.

I am also no more of a Marxist than I am a Nazi. You are calling me names instead of dealing with substance. If you want an example of moral relativism here is a very good example:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=16850



Those are your words JK. If it had been Peter Arnett, you would have called him a traitor. The fact is the Geraldo took a course of action that placed US troops in danger but you are defending him. In fact, applying different standards for these two reporters is beyond relativism. Blatant hypocrisy comes to mind.

What you advocate is leftist pandering to stifle critique of leftist opposition to the war.

You didn't want Arnett called names even though he conducted treasonous activity in Iraq. You say that media information is incorrect and unfactual at times, even though it always has been or at a minimum filled with bias to the left--but lately it hasn't and that is why you want it censored on the forum.

You find talk of the war troubling because it is spreading the idea of America. It must hurt leftist ears everywhere lol.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Q-Source


You know what right-wing veteran?

I am not going to waste my time to explain what Politics is. You should know by now that in some areas what is wrong for you is right for your opponent and vice versa.

This is a War about political power and oil sources not about human rights and democracy. The strongest force will defeat the weakest force.

Go to read the basics... :rolleyes:

That is leftist propaganda Q. You should know better than to try and pass that sophomoric nonsense here on the forum.

JK

[Q-Source]

Nobody takes you seriously, Jedi.

You're right wing decadence....

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


What you advocate is leftist pandering to stifle critique of leftist opposition to the war.

You didn't want Arnett called names even though he conducted treasonous activity in Iraq. You say that media information is incorrect and unfactual at times, even though it always has been or at a minimum filled with bias to the left--but lately it hasn't and that is why you want it censored on the forum.

You find talk of the war troubling because it is spreading the idea of America. It must hurt leftist ears everywhere lol.

JK

Show me where I advocated pandering to either side.

Show me where I made any statement about Arnett outside of this thread. Use the search function. Search using my user name and “Arnett”. All you will find is this thread.

Show me where I called for censorship. I only ask that we wait until we know that something is true before blathering on about it. Or do we need to bring up that chemical weapons plant that was “found” again? In fact, I think you should read this thread I started about how the first reports are always wrong:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16440

You are fooling yourself again.

You are lashing out even though I called for reason on both sides. Did this thread hit to close to the mark? You and AUP have more in common than you realize. Back up your claims.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Nobody takes you seriously, Jedi.

You're right wing decadence....

Gosh, a Marxist says that "nobody" takes me seriously. Talk about an over-generalization.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Doubt


Show me where I advocated pandering to either side.

Show me where I made any statement about Arnett outside of this thread. Use the search function. Search using my user name and “Arnett”. All you will find is this thread.

Show me where I called for censorship. I only ask that we wait until we know that something is true before blathering on about it. Or do we need to bring up that chemical weapons plant that was “found” again? In fact, I think you should read this thread I started about how the first reports are always wrong:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16440

You are fooling yourself again.

You are lashing out even though I called for reason on both sides. Did this thread hit to close to the mark? You and AUP have more in common than you realize. Back up your claims.

The answer to all your questions is in your post here:

Posted by Doubt:

The war and peoples emotions are not helping the quality of debate in this part of the forum.

Now even before the war I noticed that otherwise good skeptics don't appear to be skeptics about politics. Many people around here have a great deal of trouble trying to see things without the filter of their political bias. This is even more apparent since the war started.

Many here have pointed out that we should wait to post war related info until the news has been confirmed. Otherwise, we will waste our time discussing low quality information. Starting a thread with the word "allegedly" in the thread tittle does not improve the quality of the information.

We have posters from the political right describing people as enemies or traitors if they are opposed to the war. Sorry, but descent is an American value. If you don't like than that is too bad. If their arguments are bad, then attack the argument and not the person.

From the left, I have noticed a great deal of over generalizations. I am very tempted to point out specific examples, but flaming the posters in question is not the point of this thread.

I will point out some things that should be considered by both sides.

1.) Think twice about some words. Such as the following:

All, Every, Everybody, Anyone, Nobody, Believe. (Anyone have anything to add?) These are the tools of over generalization.

2.) Not considering evidence against your own position.

Try to consider that those who oppose you are probably not 100% wrong and that you are not 100% right.

3.) Calling someone names.

Even if your target is an idiot, saying so won't support your argument.

4.) Assuming that your political model of the world is correct.

Political models are weak representations of the world in which we live. The best of them are quite poor. The worst are nothing but fiction. I work under the assumption that the further away from the center you get, the probability of getting a good argument drops substantially. However, finding the center is hard because it is a moving target.

5.) Posting information that is not confirmed.

"The fist casualty of war is the truth". This is true for all sources, for or against the war. Your favorite source of news is being used for propaganda by both sides. Get used to doubting it even when it tells you what you want to hear.

If you are sure you are correct, you are not thinking hard enough.

JK

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The answer to all your questions is in your post here:



JK

In other words, you have nothing but an opinion with nothing to back it up. You failed to show anything and have once again demonstrated an inability to hold up your end of an argument. If you could, you would point out specifics.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Doubt


In other words, you have nothing but an opinion with nothing to back it up. You failed to show anything and have once again demonstrated an inability to hold up your end of an argument. If you could, you would point out specifics.

Don't put you head in the sand and ignore what you wrote in the first post of this thread. Do I need to requote your post? I thought I just did.

JK

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Don't put you head in the sand and ignore what you wrote in the first post of this thread. Do I need to requote your post? I thought I just did.

JK

Show me a specific statement where I advocated censorship.
Show me a specific statement where I defended Arnett
Show me a specific statement where I advocated pandering to either side.

I think you have nothing to say. You have not been able to point to a single statement that backs up your claim. You are dissembling.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Doubt


Show me a specific statement where I advocated censorship.
Show me a specific statement where I defended Arnett
Show me a specific statement where I advocated pandering to either side.

I think you have nothing to say. You have not been able to point to a single statement that backs up your claim. You are dissembling.

Posted by Doubt:

The war and peoples emotions are not helping the quality of debate in this part of the forum.

Now even before the war I noticed that otherwise good skeptics don't appear to be skeptics about politics. Many people around here have a great deal of trouble trying to see things without the filter of their political bias. This is even more apparent since the war started.

Many here have pointed out that we should wait to post war related info until the news has been confirmed. Otherwise, we will waste our time discussing low quality information. Starting a thread with the word "allegedly" in the thread tittle does not improve the quality of the information.

We have posters from the political right describing people as enemies or traitors if they are opposed to the war. Sorry, but descent is an American value. If you don't like than that is too bad. If their arguments are bad, then attack the argument and not the person.

From the left, I have noticed a great deal of over generalizations. I am very tempted to point out specific examples, but flaming the posters in question is not the point of this thread.

I will point out some things that should be considered by both sides.

1.) Think twice about some words. Such as the following:

All, Every, Everybody, Anyone, Nobody, Believe. (Anyone have anything to add?) These are the tools of over generalization.

2.) Not considering evidence against your own position.

Try to consider that those who oppose you are probably not 100% wrong and that you are not 100% right.

3.) Calling someone names.

Even if your target is an idiot, saying so won't support your argument.

4.) Assuming that your political model of the world is correct.

Political models are weak representations of the world in which we live. The best of them are quite poor. The worst are nothing but fiction. I work under the assumption that the further away from the center you get, the probability of getting a good argument drops substantially. However, finding the center is hard because it is a moving target.

5.) Posting information that is not confirmed.

"The fist casualty of war is the truth". This is true for all sources, for or against the war. Your favorite source of news is being used for propaganda by both sides. Get used to doubting it even when it tells you what you want to hear.

If you are sure you are correct, you are not thinking hard enough.



JK

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


JK

Again you have not pointed to a specific statement. Instead you are spamming.

Show me the specifics. You have made claims and not backed them up.

I will make it easy for you. Show me one sentence that is a defense for Peter Arnett.

[jj]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


You don't understand the apolitical relationship and skepticism. To be skeptical you have to be neutral. In politics, you then would have to be apolitical. The instant you take a side, adhere to an agenda, you are not a skeptic.

Doubt is not a political skeptic. Not by a long shot.

JK

No, you want to put in your own straw-man version of what a skeptic is.

A skeptic is neutral when there is no evidence. When someone tells a skeptic "under earth-normal conditions, on the surface of the earth, standing on solid ground, rocks fall up", a skeptic does not need to be neutral. Pure neutrality even in the presence of evidence is actually something more like deconstructionism.

Likewise, you claim that neutral in politics is "apolotical", which is obviously just another way of furthering your lunatic idea that moderates are incapable of caring...

I'm sure you'd like me to believe that, after all, as a right-leaning moderate, I don't exactly help your effort to Saddamnize the USA>