"We won, you lost, get a life!"

[Moontanman]

I think one of the few true perversions is wanting to be a politician, I don't really trust the motives of either side but the Dem's seem less likely to round up people like me into camps and roast us than the Rep's but neither side is really the final truth. I never trust either side completely, anyone who is totally republican or totally democrat is a Christmas turkey.

[SH3RL0CK]

So then, he only needs to find 32 republicans who give to charity, give blood, are organ donors or have done some similar thing and he has proven his point as far as you are concerned? That sounds rather trivial to do.

 

How about a more general approach:

 

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

 

Republicans give a bigger share of their incomes to charity, says a prominent economist

 

Point proven?

[padren]

Which, in context, I read as an opinion. Which he is not obligated to support.

 

And in any event, he could name every Republican senator and representative because he could certainly find at least some evidence they care about people. Perhaps some of them have donated to charities. Maybe some of them have given blood. I'll bet some are organ donors too...

 

But again to my point to you: What evidence of the motivation of a politican is even possible? Or is it now acceptable to stereotype an entire class of people (Republicans)?

 

First, he said "I don't think that's a fair depiction of the entirety of the Republican Party."

 

Notice he was asserting the depiction presented was inaccurate. One or two going to a blood drive does not invalidate the identification of a trend in a group. I can have an opinion but when I make a point of invalidating an assertion I would have to provide something to back that up. In this case, he backed it up with the "there are a few..." portion of his comment, and he was then asked to substantiate that material - to name any one of that "few" he failed to do so. It's fair to ask this question because if he asserts that "a few who actually do care about serving the people and doing what is right, and making good decisions" it is worth asking so we can analyze whether his opinion of what denotes caring, doing what's right, and making good decisions is agreeable.

If I was to say "at least Obama is making good decisions" someone is free to ask me "what is a good decision he has made?" so I can qualify my statement. Otherwise my idea of one of his best "good decisions" could be in picking his pet dog... people should be allowed to ask me to clarify to understand the basis of my comment.

[Syntho-sis]

The point, gentlemen, is that he made a completely hollow and vacuous assertion which he was wholly unable to support. That is a fact which has been demonstrated by his subsequent replies.

 

For counter.. Refer to title please. I'm kidding.

[padren]

So then, he only needs to find 32 republicans who give to charity, give blood, are organ donors or have done some similar thing and he has proven his point as far as you are concerned? That sounds rather trivial to do.

 

How about a more general approach:

 

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

 

 

 

Point proven?

 

Wow that's an article full of holes.

 

Alan J. Abramson, director of the nonprofit-research program at the Aspen Institute, a Washington think tank, questions whether Mr. Brooks is putting too much stock in data on giving, which Mr. Abramson describes as "mushy." He notes that surveys on giving put the percentage of American households who give to charity at between 50 percent and 80 percent — an incredibly wide range.

 

"If somebody called you up and asked you how much you gave last year, God knows what number you would pull out of the air," he says.

 

Then you have some pretty extreme games of "connect the dots" that really makes you wonder like this passage:

 

In his book, Mr. Brooks examines giving among the poor. When looking at households with equivalent income, the working poor give three times as much as welfare recipients. Mr. Brooks writes that the very act of receiving welfare may make recipients more liberal — and hence less likely to give.

 

First, the conclusion in the evidence is "receiving welfare may make recipients less charitable" but he already equates "less giving = more liberal" so he draws the conclusion right in there - cyclically mind you.

On top of that, he ignores the very real rationale of when you are receiving money just to get by to forward that money on to third party charities would have to feel rather disingenuous. When someone is poor and not on welfare they may not make much but at least they are "making it" whereas when you are on welfare you're basically on life support.

 

That's like saying "Interestingly people in the hospital on an IV receiving blood transfusions are the least likely to give blood and makes them more Jehovah Witnessy."

[Syntho-sis]

I appreciate your attempt to shift the burden of proof to me, but I do not accept that onus.

 

Which, in context, I read as an opinion. Which he is not obligated to support.

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The point, gentlemen, is that he made a completely hollow and vacuous assertion which he was wholly unable to support. That is a fact which has been demonstrated by his subsequent replies.

 

You know what I find interesting? It seems that when something is in direct opposition to someone's values, ideas, opinions it is usually assumed to be wrong with or without evidence. Because if that person is wrong it hurts their pride. I on the other hand, have absolutely no self-esteem so I could care less if I'm right or wrong.

 

Let's go thru this together:

 

1) You assumed my opinion was a statement that MUST be supported with evidence.

 

Answer: It MUST not be anything more than what I choose for it to be. I could say "Wow, it's such a beautiful day." (Which is an opinion btw) If it was actually a beautiful day, then I think most people would agree with me. It wouldn't be necessary for them to use the scientific method to analyze my OPINION.

 

2) You then attacked my later attempts to clarify what I was trying to convey. Rather than agree, you continued to attack everything I said.

 

Answer: At this point you become nothing but a bully, and at this point I stop caring what you say.

 

So I could pull up articles all day long backing what I had said, and you know what? It wouldn't make a bit of difference. You're obviously more skilled at debate than me but I'm not debating so it's not relevant.

[Mr Skeptic]

In my opinion, Syntho-sis is not backing up his claims.

[A Tripolation]

In my opinion, Syntho-sis is not backing up his claims.

 

Really Mr Skeptic? He simply said that he feels there's an equal number of scumbags on both sides, and I tend to agree. Yeah, the republicans are being incredibly whiny and childish now, but so are the democrats whenever the republicans have control. I can't see how that can possibly be disputed.

 

Both sides are made of flawed human beings.

 

I appreciate your attempt to shift the burden of proof to me, but I do not accept that onus.

 

I don't think that that applies as he was simply trying to ask you the same question, to see if you had a better answer than he did...not to disprove your original argument.

And then you replied with the intelligent equivalent of "I asked you first."

What harm is there in answering the question, iNow?

[padren]

Answer: It MUST not be anything more than what I choose for it to be. I could say "Wow, it's such a beautiful day." (Which is an opinion btw) If it was actually a beautiful day, then I think most people would agree with me. It wouldn't be necessary for them to use the scientific method to analyze my OPINION.

 

When you state an opinion as support for an argument or a counter-argument you can expect people to request clarification so as to quantify it and therefore use it in the discussion. What pray tell, is the point of sharing an opinion that has no quantifiablity? If no one can understand the basis of your argument (because it's a opinion that does not need to be defended) then it has no relevance. If you aren't willing to share the basis of your argument then what are we doing here?

[D H]

but the Dem's seem less likely to round up people like me into camps

Executive order 9066 comes to mind.

[iNow]

Executive order 9066 comes to mind.

 

I'd suggest that the nature of the parties (as well as their ideologies, make-up, and competence) have changed quite drastically in the last 68 years.

[Syntho-sis]

In my opinion, Syntho-sis is not backing up his claims.

 

Do I need to get out the bloody dictionary and start looking up words for you people?

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

When you state an opinion as support for an argument or a counter-argument you can expect people to request clarification so as to quantify it and therefore use it in the discussion. What pray tell, is the point of sharing an opinion that has no quantifiablity? If no one can understand the basis of your argument (because it's a opinion that does not need to be defended) then it has no relevance. If you aren't willing to share the basis of your argument then what are we doing here?

 

Because it's unnecessary and impractical for me to find 32 'good' republician politicians in Washington. For one, no one is good. But not everyone is a scumbag. And yes I'm just going on an assumption.

 

Yes, that may be logically weak for me to assume, but for you all to bicker and complain about the logical arrangement of my opinion in this discussion shows how mature you really are. All I wanted was to discuss, I didn't want a bloody argument.

 

You all have a preexisting ideology. You don't want to learn, you just want to demonstrate your intellectual superiority. That's okay, just makes you look like fools anyway. The youngest of you is probably 10 years my senior anyway.

 

So when you are willing to learn and discuss politics, maybe we can have a halfway decent discussion.

 

I don't see that happening anytime soon though.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Syntho-sis
Consecutive posts merged.

[Sisyphus]

My opinion is that most of this thread is a silly argument.

[Syntho-sis]

My opinion is that most of this thread is a silly argument.

 

My opinion is that most of the threads on this forum are silly arguments. Just another chance for someone to show off their debate skills.

[Sisyphus]

Welcome to the internet?

[ydoaPs]

That's what she said!

[padren]

Because it's unnecessary and impractical for me to find 32 'good' republician politicians in Washington. For one, no one is good. But not everyone is a scumbag. And yes I'm just going on an assumption.

 

Yes, that may be logically weak for me to assume, but for you all to bicker and complain about the logical arrangement of my opinion in this discussion shows how mature you really are. All I wanted was to discuss, I didn't want a bloody argument.

First of all, I was not asking you to go look up 32 'good' republicans or trying to put any onerous weight on you to prove your point. Someone mentioned that if you did find 32 of them that would prove your point, but that's not the only way for you to do so.

I only asked why you felt compelled to make the statement you did, and I did not suggest you did so irrationally or without merit. You said what you said for a reason and I genuinely respected your argument - for you to lump me in with "attacks" on your arguments is unfair.

 

You considered the angles.

 

You drew the conclusion.

 

You posted for argument.

 

I was not interested in all the angles that prove your argument that would make others happy - just the ones you considered to draw the conclusion you stated. It wasn't personal, it wasn't an attack, and it wasn't implying your argument was baseless.

 

You said something that I was curious about and I wanted clarification as to how you came to that conclusion. We do this all the time in discussions. There is nothing disingenuous about it, and we ask that of just about everyone here.

 

You all have a preexisting ideology. You don't want to learn, you just want to demonstrate your intellectual superiority. That's okay, just makes you look like fools anyway. The youngest of you is probably 10 years my senior anyway.

 

So when you are willing to learn and discuss politics, maybe we can have a halfway decent discussion.

 

I don't see that happening anytime soon though.

 

While I could quite likely challenge that I don't want to go there - I do want to say that the issue I had with your comments had nothing to do with ideology or politics.

 

I took issue with your assertion of an opinion used as a counter-point, that you felt entitled to not clarify. Technically that is okay, as long as you clarify you wish to retract the opinion as support within the discussion (you still can use it personally) and I wholeheartedly understand sometimes someone just doesn't want to go into it that deeply - it may not be worth the time and energy.

 

Instead I felt you were grandstanding that others were wrong to ask you to clarify and were attacking your opinion. I can understand why you felt upset based on some of the comments people made and it would be fair to respond to those comments - but you took it out of proportion and got upset about the wrong thing.

You attacked the validity of a process of discussion, one that is vitally important to any discussion. No one can deny your opinions and you are right about that, but people are allowed and must at times request clarifications on how you back up an argument, even if that is formed from an opinion. Discussions fail otherwise.

[Syntho-sis]

alidity of a process of discussion, one that is vitally important to any discussion. No one can deny your opinions and you are right about that, but people are allowed and must at times request clarifications on how you back up an argument, even if that is formed from an opinion. Discussions fail otherwise.

 

I'm sorry for any unjustified remarks I made against your statements before.

 

What is the purpose of this argument anyway though? Are you asking me to back up my opinion that they're are a few good and bad politicians in Washington (in both parties)?

 

How am I going to do that? I can't. I don't know these men personally. I just don't think it's fair to make Republicans look moronic. Even if a few of them make mistakes at times that doesn't make the whole lot ignoramuses.

 

Maybe it just makes me feel better to know that these men are actually somewhat concerned about this nation. Maybe I'm just naive to think that.

 

Once again, how am I going to back that opinion up?

 

I'm confused.

[Mr Skeptic]

In my opinion, Syntho-sis is not backing up his claims.

Do I need to get out the bloody dictionary and start looking up words for you people?

 

This was a bit tongue in cheek. The point of it was not to attack you personally, but the sentiment expressed below.

 

1) You assumed my opinion was a statement that MUST be supported with evidence.

 

Answer: It MUST not be anything more than what I choose for it to be. I could say "Wow, it's such a beautiful day." (Which is an opinion btw) If it was actually a beautiful day, then I think most people would agree with me. It wouldn't be necessary for them to use the scientific method to analyze my OPINION.

 

The thing to remember, is that your opinion means nothing at all if you are trying to use it to negate factual arguments. Expressing an opinion as a means to negate a factual argument will not only not work, but get people upset, as evidenced by a few recent posts. Now, the thing to do if you felt iNow or others made excessive claims is not to express an opposing opinion, but rather a fact-based counterargument, or that you find his argument lacking (and point out a flaw in it). In the first case, you will be expected to defend your opinion/counterargument, but in the second case your opponent must either show that the flaw you pointed out isn't really a flaw, or accept that it is and modify his argument.

 

Now, in the example you gave, no one would have much of a reason to disagree with your opinion, as you are ambiguously saying that you find the day beautiful and there really isn't any way someone could disagree with that (or they might take it at face value, that it universally is a beautiful day, in which case they might disagree saying either that they don't find the day beautiful, or more generally that most people wouldn't, or that there's a tornado somewhere and the people there won't agree with you, etc). Now, if you had used your opinion as the basis of an argument, "It's a beautiful day, so turn off your computer and go outside", you are very likely to be contradicted.

[Syntho-sis]

 

The thing to remember, is that your opinion means nothing at all if you are trying to use it to negate factual arguments. Expressing an opinion as a means to negate a factual argument will not only not work, but get people upset, as evidenced by a few recent posts. Now, the thing to do if you felt iNow or others made excessive claims is not to express an opposing opinion, but rather a fact-based counterargument, or that you find his argument lacking (and point out a flaw in it). In the first case, you will be expected to defend your opinion/counterargument, but in the second case your opponent must either show that the flaw you pointed out isn't really a flaw, or accept that it is and modify his argument.

 

Now, in the example you gave, no one would have much of a reason to disagree with your opinion, as you are ambiguously saying that you find the day beautiful and there really isn't any way someone could disagree with that (or they might take it at face value, that it universally is a beautiful day, in which case they might disagree saying either that they don't find the day beautiful, or more generally that most people wouldn't, or that there's a tornado somewhere and the people there won't agree with you, etc). Now, if you had used your opinion as the basis of an argument, "It's a beautiful day, so turn off your computer and go outside", you are very likely to be contradicted.

 

What factual argument was I negating? Refresh me..

[iNow]

My god, people... Syntho-sis - You said in reference to Republicans, "I mean they're <sic> a few who actually do care about serving the people and doing what is right, and making good decisions." I asked if you could name any. You responded (basically), "NO!"

 

It doesn't matter. I don't care. Shit, I could name some republicans who meet your criteria above, I just wanted to learn more about how you think about the process and what criteria is important to you. I'm comfortable stating now that your thinking on this subject is no longer of interest to me. Let's move on.

[Syntho-sis]

My god, people... Syntho-sis - You said in reference to Republicans, "I mean they're <sic> a few who actually do care about serving the people and doing what is right, and making good decisions." I asked if you could name any. You responded (basically), "NO!"

 

It doesn't matter. I don't care. Shit, I could name some republicans who meet your criteria above, I just wanted to learn more about how you think about the process and what criteria is important to you. I'm comfortable stating now that your thinking on this subject is no longer of interest to me. Let's move on.

 

Wha?

 

You've got to be kidding me. What is this a high school debate class?

 

If you don't care then why did you proceed to bully me?

[iNow]

If you don't care then why did you proceed to bully me?

 

Sigh... I'd really rather not let this digression continue, but I simply must ask...

 

How in the hell do you see me asking you to name some Republicans who meet the standards of your assertion to be "bullying" you? Seriously. I just don't get it, and if you're that over-sensitive to offense, then I might suggest you consider no longer participating in the Politics section.

[doG]

My opinion is that most of this thread is a silly argument.

 

I think I concur with that. Now I hope someone doesn't ask me for a citation to support that opinion

[Syntho-sis]

Sigh... I'd really rather not let this digression continue, but I simply must ask...

 

How in the hell do you see me asking you to name some Republicans who meet the standards of your assertion to be "bullying" you? Seriously. I just don't get it, and if you're that over-sensitive to offense, then I might suggest you consider no longer participating in the Politics section.

 

 

“The best thing for an argument is not words and ideas, but to stop arguing”

 

I don't know who said that, but I think it fits the bill.

 

I never meant for my offhand comment to bring so much attack. Let's just leave it at that.