Sure, Doc., but she keeps wearing the same outfit day in day out. A pattern of behaviour is beginning to show. It's not exclusive to the executive branch either....

An outfit is still an outfit.  The analogy is apt.  I didn't like the Clinton administration very much but it had no impact on my opinion of America.

My opinion of my town being a fair and decent town is not affected by whoever is mayor. 

I don't agree with the policies of France AT ALL but I think France is a fair and decent country.

The policies of a country are a part of it's whole. If my town suddenly adopted some outrageous policies such as curfews or put up checkpoints throughout my city it's 'fair and decent' points would get a few knocked off.

I think a bit less of America because of some of the policies we've adopted.

I believe this 'Is America Fair and Decent' is becoming a new 'Support the Troops'. Some sort of blanket statement used to divide people in to two groups - those within and those without - absolutely ignoring the mixed bag of truth and disallowing citizens the ability to approach issues 'ala carte'.

Quibbling over definitions of ‘debate’ and whether this post is simply about a ‘poll’ are straw dog arguments. It is, as has already been observed quite simple. Based on a poll asking whether ‘America is a fair and decent country’ Draginol has then conflated that outcome with therefore meaning that democrats ‘hate or dislike’ America.

This is a syllogistic fallacy. He is drawing a conclusion from two distinct propositions as if one automatically equates with the other. What is the relation between ‘fair and decent’ and ‘hate and dislike’? It is an assumption not a fact. And yet Draginol has acted on it as if it were a fact. If the poll were instead ‘do you ‘hate or dislike’ america and the results were the same, that would be a fact and perhaps worthy of discussion.

I may not think America is a fair or decent place at this time but that does not mean I necessarily must dislike or hate it. Life cannot be reduced to such simplistic certainties. At least not for some. One wonders therefore the motivation behind such a post.

Is the point of this conversation to broaden discussion and to explore why people think and feel the way they do about politcal issues? Or is it really about labeling people and demonizing one side in order to make one’s own side feel superior? And is not JU’s point of difference that it does not simply follow other political sites in their own dichotomizing and intolerance to differing points of view?

Mr. Roberts - the point of a blog is for writers to express opinions. I can draw my own conclusions from a poll and you can disagree with those conclusions.

It hardly makes your point of view or your opinions more valid than mine.  If someone says to me that they don't think America is a fair and decent country, I interpret that to mean they don't like our country very much.  You don't agree. That's fine.

And while some people find endless amusement trying to inflate their intellectual qualifications by labeling the opinions of others as "simplistic" or "lacking nuance" (as liberals tend to do of conservatives) I'll happily accept that I tend to boil down data into quantifiable action items.  It doesn't, however, mean that I'm intellectually limited or lacking vision, it means that I choose to reach specific conclusions whereas liberals like to swim around in endless shades of gray, stymied into indecision.

That is why, in the real world, conservatives do tend to run things because at the end of the day, leaders do have to make decisions and those decisions are often quite "simplistic". They have to wade through a minutia of data and extract quantifiable action items.

 

"Mr. Roberts - the point of a blog is for writers to express opinions. I can draw my own conclusions from a poll and you can disagree with those conclusions.

It hardly makes your point of view or your opinions more valid than mine. If someone says to me that they don't think America is a fair and decent country, I interpret that to mean they don't like our country very much. You don't agree. That's fine." draginol.

as I have already stated, i have not, and do not deny you the right to express your own opinion draginol, nor your freedom to interpret information in whichever way you choose. what i have questioned is the validity of your conclusion based on the premise you have proposed.

rather than justifying your own position by presenting arguments that imply or state things that i have never said perhaps you would gain more credibility if you addressed the central issue upon which your own premise is fallaciously based. you have asserted as fact that the statement 'fair and decent country' is the same as 'disliking and hating' that country. not similar, not implies. but the same. i have simply refuted that assumption as being fact and questioned your agenda.

by generalizing reality to a political affiliation you then extrapolate that position to also mean therefore that ALL democrats 'hate or dislike' america. who are these labels you are so predisposed to trafficking in draginol? i do not see people as labels. i see people as people, subjects who may identify with a political position but certainly cannot be quantified in such absolute terms. we are far too complex and contrary a creature to be so simplistically reduced to a cypher.

"And while some people find endless amusement trying to inflate their intellectual qualifications by labeling the opinions of others as "simplistic" or "lacking nuance" (as liberals tend to do of conservatives) I'll happily accept that I tend to boil down data into quantifiable action items." draginol.

it is because your position is simplistic draginol. it is because it does not allow for real nuances of meaning that make up the complexity of who people are and the way they see the world. but most of all it because it is divisive. you do not wish to relate to me as a person. you wish to relate to me as a label; as a preconceived prejudice. and that, i would put to you, is a large part of why so many liberals have departed this forum and no longer engage in discussion anymore. perhaps you are not so unalike DU after all.

I think there is a great deal of evidence to indicate that Democrats do not like "America". Where that is defined not just by our foreign policies but our culture, our way of life, our basic core principles.

Sue earlier articulated the view that I suspect a significant percentage of Democrats share -- we are a greedy, selfish, short sighted nation that wrecks other cultures, neglects its poor, is full of racism, and takes things that are good and homogonizes it into an instant gratification package for mass production.

That's not exactly what she said but I suspect she would agree with what I just wrote.  There were other parts of the poll in the link in the article that back up my view further -- a large percentage of Democrats don't think other countries would be better off being more like the United States. I think that makes it pretty obvious that they're not thinking of specific foreign policy choices of a particular executive administration.

As for the rest of your...statement... some things are pretty simple. And I am aware that a lot of people, mostly on the left side of the political spectrum, are very uncomfortable making generalizations (unless it's about people they don't like). But at the same time, your comments are largely endless pontification without really adding anything substantial to the conversation.

Your endless paragraphs could be distilled into  "Wah, you're generalizing".  When I go to the polls in November, I don't have the luxury of having a candidate that is two teaspoons of candidate A and a dash of candidate B. I have to pick one or the other. It's the same decision millions of Americans have to make.  And I believe there is sufficient evidence to indicate that Democrats, far more so than Republicans, do not think America is a very good country as it is and they are not saying that just because of US foreign policy.  I think the poll results would largely be the same even if taken during the Clinton administration.

If you want to disagree with my opinion or conclusions, that's fine. Do so, put forth your own argument.  But please spare us another lengthy post complaining about how "simplistic" my argument is.  Because it's infinitely more complex than vapor which is all I see from Democrats in this thread.

 

Sure, Doc., but she keeps wearing the same outfit day in day out. A pattern of behaviour is beginning to show. It's not exclusive to the executive branch either.... Throw them all out!

Your love is shallow then. I do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sorry, even in the dark sex induced craze of the Clinton years (which as a parent I will never forgive him for), I never hated America! I just KNEW we could do better, and we did. Maybe not the best, but a damn site better than a blow job as the world falls.

I don't hate America, Doc., but we do need throw out those old clothes - meaning tossing out most of the incumbents.

I'm starting to believe it extremely important that we begin specifying what it is we like and don't like about America instead of straight yea! or nays! . It's pretty obvious using this question in this way doesn't serve anybody well.

What I like about America:

The Freedoms we Used To Have (credit to George Carlin for that one)

The best economy in the world

Our State and National Parks

The liberal culture of America

The stable and fruitful government

The majority of it's people

The majority of the race and religion of the people (I apologize to those who may find that offensive, I simply feel most comfortable with other W.A.S.P's though I appreciate some time with more diverse groups)

What I don't like about America:

The majority of it's leaders

The majority of our policies

The path of our economy (deficet spending and largest debtor nation)

The overly liberal culture of America

The pollution of our lands

The apathetic and lackadaisacal attitude of some of the 'citizens' in this country


So what do other JU users like and don't like about America?

We can pick and choose.

"If you want to disagree with my opinion or conclusions, that's fine. Do so, put forth your own argument. But please spare us another lengthy post complaining about how "simplistic" my argument is. Because it's infinitely more complex than vapor which is all I see from Democrats in this thread."

let's talk about that 'vapor' then draginol. i have addressed the central premise of your proposition in direct terms and shown it to be wanting. you, however, seem content to traffic in generalizations and straw arguments which i have shown to be based upon insubstantial supposition. is sue really to speak for all democrats? and how can she when you are putting words into her mouth?

perhaps if i simplify things it might help. you seem to prefer that.

exactly how is not 'fair and decent' the same - not similar, not comparable - but identical as 'hate and dislike'? and exactly how does that necessarily also mean, therefore, that all democrats 'hate and dislike' america?

perhaps draginol if you had the intellectual integrity to admit that your argument is based upon subjective simplistic supposition rather than the absolute certainty you somehow seem to think it represents you would not be blinded to nature of your own bigotry. now there's a thought.

a large percentage of Democrats don't think other countries would be better off being more like the United States. I think that makes it pretty obvious that they're not thinking of specific foreign policy choices of a particular executive administration.

That's actually a fairly non-political perspective. Most foreign countries wouldn't like to be like the US; they want to be like themselves. If Democrats can recognise that I would have thought it to be an advantage in their foreign policy (assuming of course they can ever regain control). Bush's elites made the mistake of assuming all thought the US was desirable when they moved into Iraq. Their patriotism hasn't really been proven as wise yet.

let's talk about that 'vapor' then draginol. i have addressed the central premise of your proposition in direct terms and shown it to be wanting. you, however, seem content to traffic in generalizations and straw arguments which i have shown to be based upon insubstantial supposition. is sue really to speak for all democrats? and how can she when you are putting words into her mouth? perhaps if i simplify things it might help. you seem to prefer that. exactly how is not 'fair and decent' the same - not similar, not comparable - but identical as 'hate and dislike'? and exactly how does that necessarily also mean, therefore, that all democrats 'hate and dislike' america? perhaps draginol if you had the intellectual integrity to admit that your argument is based upon subjective simplistic supposition rather than the absolute certainty you somehow seem to think it represents you would not be blinded to nature of your own bigotry. now there's a thought.

Blah blah blah.

Translation: I claimed that your argument was too general and that is all I need to say.

You've not argued anything. You just whined that I took a poll and made a broad generalization based on it that you don't agree with.

The best I can get from you is this:

exactly how is not 'fair and decent' the same - not similar, not comparable - but identical as 'hate and dislike'? and exactly how does that necessarily also mean, therefore, that all democrats 'hate and dislike' america?

I never claimed that fair and decent being identical to hate and dislike. That's a strawman.  I have already discussed how I *interpret* someone thinking the US isn't a fair and decent country as someone who probably also does not like the country.  Similarly, I never claimed "all" democrast "hate and dislike" America. 

You like to pontificate with endless strawman arguments but you're not really adding anything to the discussion other than complaints that you don't like my interpretation of the poll.

If you have nothing of substance to add, then you need to wander off somewhere else where you can proclaim your superior intelligence in earnest.  I'm sure there's a Usenet group you can get into a semantics discussion with someone.

hello draginol. this is mr roberts.
it is a curious thing but i find i am no longer able to access the comments box in order to respond to your last rebuttal, though i'm sure you would not wish to deny me the opportunity. fortunately, my partner con fuchsia has enabled me that access. so in response to your last post:

"I never claimed that fair and decent being identical to hate and dislike. That's a strawman. I have already discussed how I *interpret* someone thinking the US isn't a fair and decent country as someone who probably also does not like the country." draginol.

really draginol. now you are simply being disingenuous. you have put forward a proposition that 40% of democrats, who polled as thinking that america is not a 'fair and decent' place, therefore 'hate or dislike' america. that is the position from which you have consistently argued this entire thread from. whether you have explicitly used the term 'identical' specifically is irrelevant. you have argued as if those two propositions are identical - as if they are both the same.

"Similarly, I never claimed "all" democrast "hate and dislike" America." draginol.

no, you have not stated categorically that 'all' democrats 'hate or dislike' america. but in your consistent generalizing of democrats as if they were a homogeneous whole rather than the heterogeneous group they obviously are, you have perpetuated that position. people cannot be defined as labels draginol. that is what reinforces stereotypes and divisive positions in the first place.

"You like to pontificate with endless strawman arguments but you're not really adding anything to the discussion other than complaints that you don't like my interpretation of the poll." draginol.

if a straw man fallacy is committed when one person ignores another person's actual argument and substitutes a lesser or misrepresented version of that argument, then exactly how is my asking you to explain the relationship between 'fair & decent' and 'hate & dislike' as being one and the same - the basis of your premise - a straw argument draginol?

"You like to pontificate with endless strawman arguments but you're not really adding anything to the discussion other than complaints that you don't like my interpretation of the poll." draginol.

on the contrary draginol. perhaps if there is nothing more to add it is because i have been addressing your own attempts at obfuscation whilst waiting on you to provide substance to support your own claim. something which you have consistently failed to do. not through want of trying, one suspects, but because you can't.

translation: i wish to persist in stereotyping people so that i can make specious judgements about them.

"If you have nothing of substance to add, then you need to wander off somewhere else where you can proclaim your superior intelligence in earnest. I'm sure there's a Usenet group you can get into a semantics discussion with someone." draginol.

is that an invitation or an order draginol? i'm sure you would not wish to censor my freedom of speech simply because i do not see the world the way that you do. perhaps my future presence or absence at joeuser will be an indicator of the reality of that.

if the health of any group can be defined not only by its ability to tolerate difference, but HOW it tolerates difference then how would you define JU draginol? perhaps you prefer preaching to the choir. going by previous posts some, however, may feel otherwise. which is cause for optimism, non?

mr roberts.

it is a curious thing but i find i am no longer able to access the comments box in order to respond to your last rebuttal, though i'm sure you would not wish to deny me the opportunity. fortunately, my partner con fuchsia has enabled me that access. so in response to your last post:

I decided to not allow anonymous people participate since they were adding nothing to the conversation other than trollings. I find it no surprise that you and con fuchsia are together as it helps fill in the picture.

really draginol. now you are simply being disingenuous. you have put forward a proposition that 40% of democrats, who polled as thinking that america is not a 'fair and decent' place, therefore 'hate or dislike' america. that is the position from which you have consistently argued this entire thread from. whether you have explicitly used the term 'identical' specifically is irrelevant. you have argued as if those two propositions are identical - as if they are both the same.

The title of the thrad is "DO Democrats hate America?" As in a question.  The position is, how should such a poll be interpreted. I interpret it as meaning that a significant chunk of Democrats don't like America because I interpret someone who says something or someone is "not fair or decent" as not liking it.  You don't agree with my interpretation but the problem is that your arrogance leads you to think that YOUR interpretation is "truth" or "fact".  I have stated my interpretation. You have not made a case for other interpretations, you have just complained about generalizations.

"Similarly, I never claimed "all" democrast "hate and dislike" America." draginol. no, you have not stated categorically that 'all' democrats 'hate or dislike' america. but in your consistent generalizing of democrats as if they were a homogeneous whole rather than the heterogeneous group they obviously are, you have perpetuated that position. people cannot be defined as labels draginol. that is what reinforces stereotypes and divisive positions in the first place.

I don't even know where to start with this part.  First, yes, people, places, things, all can be labeled.  You have used plenty of labels here. 

But your statement really outlines the meat of your entire exchange: You state your opinions as unequivical facts. "people cannot be defined as labels." Sure they can.  You may not like people using labels to describe people but that doesn't mean it can't be done.  I've repeatedly pointed out that pepole, usually on the left-side of the spectrum, really hate generalizations.  And that's fine.  But I find generalizations to be useful.   However, a generalization is not the same as "all". 

You used the term "all" and put it in quotes as if I literally used the term "all".  Since 46% of Democrats said that they felt the United States is a fair and decent country, clearly one can't think all Democrats hate the United States.  The question really boils down to why the 40% of Democrats felt "America" is not a fair and decent country. 

"You like to pontificate with endless strawman arguments but you're not really adding anything to the discussion other than complaints that you don't like my interpretation of the poll." draginol. if a straw man fallacy is committed when one person ignores another person's actual argument and substitutes a lesser or misrepresented version of that argument, then exactly how is my asking you to explain the relationship between 'fair & decent' and 'hate & dislike' as being one and the same - the basis of your premise - a straw argument draginol?

Here is the definition of a strawman argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

For example: You stated: "how is not 'fair and decent' the same - not similar, not comparable - but identical as 'hate and dislike'".  You misrepresented my position as me saying that fair and decent is identical as hate and dislike. That is a text book strawman.

Similarly, misrepresenting what I wrote as to mean that I think "all" Democrats hate or dislike America is a strawman.

"You like to pontificate with endless strawman arguments but you're not really adding anything to the discussion other than complaints that you don't like my interpretation of the poll." draginol. on the contrary draginol. perhaps if there is nothing more to add it is because i have been addressing your own attempts at obfuscation whilst waiting on you to provide substance to support your own claim. something which you have consistently failed to do. not through want of trying, one suspects, but because you can't.

You have added nothing to the discussion other than to endless question why I interpret less than half of Democrats thinking America is a fair and decent country to indicate that that many Democrats don't like (or even hate) America.  That is my interpretation of the poll. I don't have to provide "evidence" to support an interpretation.  If I look at a thermostat and it says 70 degrees and I say "It's warm outside" I don't have to justify my interpretation of 70 degrees. There is nothing to "prove" in an interpretation.  An interpretation can be agreed with or disagreed with.

I have stated, several times, that I think someone who doesn't think a person, place, or thing is fair and decent probably doesn't like that person place or thing.  That's all there is to it.  I could go off and provide endless documentation on left-wing behavior that also indicates that Democrats don't like America very much when compared to Republicans but it has nothing to do with the topic -- the poll.  I also referred you, on several occasions, to Sue's post who describes her position.

"If you have nothing of substance to add, then you need to wander off somewhere else where you can proclaim your superior intelligence in earnest. I'm sure there's a Usenet group you can get into a semantics discussion with someone." draginol. is that an invitation or an order draginol? i'm sure you would not wish to censor my freedom of speech simply because i do not see the world the way that you do. perhaps my future presence or absence at joeuser will be an indicator of the reality of that. if the health of any group can be defined not only by its ability to tolerate difference, but HOW it tolerates difference then how would you define JU draginol? perhaps you prefer preaching to the choir. going by previous posts some, however, may feel otherwise. which is cause for optimism, non?

You have no freedom of speech on my blog. You may want to read the constitution -- freedom of speech only applies to the government. I can choose who does and doesn't participate on my personal blog as well as on JoeUser in general. 

There are plenty of people who don't agree with a given topic I post.  However, I do expect people who participate to add something to the argument other than thinly veiled personal attacks on my intelligence and arrogant pontification that doesn't even put forth additional points of view but rather merely extrapolates endlessly on a blog entry that basically puts forth a question regarding the interpretation of a specific poll.

Moreover, between you and your friend or alias, Confusia we've seen that your "contributions" to JoeUser have largely been just nasty behavior on my other threads. So I don't see the reason to allow you to participate since so far, you've actually added nothing in either of your alter-egos (one can look at this thread http://draginol.joeuser.com/articleComments.asp?AID=128433 and see the "contributions" of confusia there).

In addition, as you apparently don't realize this, we can see every post you've made anonymous or not because our system links them together via IP.  So under the guise "Is Bush an idiot", Quicktime Report,  and other aliases you repeatedly spammed anti-Bush you-tube propaganda.

In other words, for someone whose JoeUser career has consisted purely of personal attacks, hubris, and spamming, I don't see why you should be allowed here at all. So consider this your last chance to act like..well a fair and decent human being.

I'd argue on here...but I really don't care.   

~Zoo

(Citizen)DeferenceAugust 29, 2006 16:46:20

Throw them all out!

I will drink to that. {soda} All of them buncha bums the right the left the center bums all.

con fuschia or whoever you are, it's time for you to go be pendantic somewhere else. 

Some bloggers are more equal than others, such as ones who can participate in a discussion as opposed to providing smug yet empty pontification.