| 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.
