Now reading - Page 173 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Discuss literary and artistic creations, or post your own poetry, essays etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Pants-of-dog
#14980995
Lately, I have been thinking about a specific phrase from Player Piano.

Near the end of the book, the protagonist is on trial for his crimes against society, and the prosecution asks him if his whole rebellion was based on his hatred of his father, an influential industrialist.

The protagonist then replies with the phrase that has been rolling around in my head:

“The most beautiful geraniums I ever saw were grown in almost pure cat shit”.

By this, he obviously meant that the motivations for certain acts are irrelevant when we look at the impact or success or truth of the act.

I think this has been on my mind because I see people on this fourm attacking the supposed motivations for arguing certain points, instead of addressing the actual points.
By Sivad
#14980999
Pants-of-dog wrote:attacking the supposed motivations for arguing certain points, instead of addressing the actual points.


When there is no actual point, nothing substantive to address, there's only obtuse denial and ludicrous prevarication, you do have to stop and ask what exactly is this person's deal? If someone isn't arguing in good faith then the only thing you can do is call bullshit.
By Pants-of-dog
#14981005
If you think I am BSing anyone, please show me how.

I think the whole thing of assuming someone has petty motivations for entering into a debate, and then attacking them over those imagined motivations, detracts from the debate and makes this forum less.

Finally, you do not know me. You should not pretend that you do. You seem like a smart guy. Stick to the actual argument, and you will be fine.
User avatar
By Drlee
#14981007
"M TRAIN" by Patti Smith.

Pretty book.
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14981061
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you think I am BSing anyone, please show me how.

I think the whole thing of assuming someone has petty motivations for entering into a debate, and then attacking them over those imagined motivations, detracts from the debate and makes this forum less.

Finally, you do not know me. You should not pretend that you do. You seem like a smart guy. Stick to the actual argument, and you will be fine.

This sounds like something that someone with only the basest motivations would say.

:excited:
By Sivad
#14981086
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think the whole thing of assuming someone has petty motivations for entering into a debate, and then attacking them over those imagined motivations, detracts from the debate and makes this forum less.

Finally, you do not know me. You should not pretend that you do. You seem like a smart guy. Stick to the actual argument, and you will be fine.


You question motives and integrity all the time. You've questions my motives at least half a dozen times on the forum and you're always claiming skeptics of orthodoxy are either paid shills for industry or independent opportunists. I have no problem with that in itself but you are being pretty hypocritical here.

It's also pretty funny when someone who has consistently demonstrated bad faith tries to delegitimize the questioning of motives. I get that it would be extremely convenient for bullshitters everywhere if the questioning of motives was considered out of bounds but that's why it's not a good idea to let the bullshitters set the norms of discourse. That's what has happened in mainstream media and academia and the consequences of that culture of civility and collegiality have been disastrous for the integrity of our institutions.
By Pants-of-dog
#14981108
Sivad wrote:You question motives and integrity all the time. You've questions my motives at least half a dozen times on the forum and you're always claiming skeptics of orthodoxy are either paid shills for industry or independent opportunists. I have no problem with that in itself but you are being pretty hypocritical here.


I think I try to avoid doing so. If you have any exam0les of me doing this, then please post a link.

But if you think I do this, and you think it is a bad thing when I do this, why would you also do it?

It's also pretty funny when someone who has consistently demonstrated bad faith tries to delegitimize the questioning of motives. I get that it would be extremely convenient for bullshitters everywhere if the questioning of motives was considered out of bounds but that's why it's not a good idea to let the bullshitters set the norms of discourse. That's what has happened in mainstream media and academia and the consequences of that culture of civility and collegiality have been disastrous for the integrity of our institutions.


Let me put it this way:

Even if I am this horrible person that you imagine me to be, I would still be just as right (or wrong).
By Sivad
#14981129
Pants-of-dog wrote:I think I try to avoid doing so. If you have any exam0les of me doing this, then please post a link.


You've dishonestly claimed on a number of occasions that I don't criticize the US foreign policy establishment and implied that I have some hidden agenda for not doing so. I'm not digging through posts to find it but you have definitely done it more than a few times.

But if you think I do this, and you think it is a bad thing when I do this, why would you also do it?


I don't think it's a bad thing if it's done honestly, but you don't even do that honestly.


Let me put it this way:

Even if I am this horrible person that you imagine me to be, I would still be just as right (or wrong).


I don't know that you're an all around horrible person but I do know that you have horrible politics and that intellectual honesty isn't exactly a priority for you when you're promoting or defending your horrible politics.
By Pants-of-dog
#14981134
Sivad wrote:You've dishonestly claimed on a number of occasions that I don't criticize the US foreign policy establishment and implied that I have some hidden agenda for not doing so. I'm not digging through posts to find it but you have definitely done it more than a few times.


No. I said that you seem to focus far more on supposedly progressive politicians and movements than you do on conservative politicians and movments who are equally as guilty about whtever issue you have with them.

For example, you criticise Clinton far more than Bush, you deny anthropogenic clinate change, and you oppose vaccination.

While you do have an ideological stance opposed to neoliberalism, you also are very opposed to movements in the developing world that opposes neoliberalism on any pragmatic level.

As far as I can tell, you have no hidden agenda. Your actions seem more that of a contrarian than anyone who would actually profit from any of this.

I don't think it's a bad thing if it's done honestly, but you don't even do that honestly.


Yes, you keep calling me a liar.

I don't know that you're an all around horrible person but I do know that you have horrible politics and that intellectual honesty isn't exactly a priority for you when you're promoting or defending your horrible politics.


Right. You think I am a liar and an oppressive authoritarian.

I do not care. This is just all an extended ad hominem, and a way of deflecting from the facts.

If you logically accept the fact that someone can be a shill or a lying authoritarian and still be correct, then all of this indirect name calling you do is irrelevant.
By Sivad
#14981178
Pants-of-dog wrote: you deny anthropogenic clinate change


No I don't.


you oppose vaccination


No I don't.
By Pants-of-dog
#14981197
Well, more correctly, you make a big deal about how funding supposedly skews climate science in a way that makes climate change seem worse than it is, while simultaneously ignoring how fossil fuel companies use funding to skew the science to kae it seem like less of a problem than it actually is.

And if you do not oppose vaccination, then you definitely criticise teh science supporting vaccines while ignoring the pseudo science opposing vaccines.
User avatar
By colliric
#14981200
I'm considering re-reading the Bible again.

I've got these translations at home:
Douay-Rheims Challoner Translation (my Catholic one, and a real Classic Study Bible version my favourite one!)
King James Version(several copies, love Shakespearean English, hence love the Protestant Douay Equilavent as well)
New King James Version (+ pretty much every other version published by the Gideons, including their new TEV edition... Solid hardcovers and free, I love getting copies from them, they always give you free a nice smile too)
Good News Edition(I love this version, the most accessible and easy to read Bible ever, plus the famous line illustrations are great... My favourite as a Child and still one of my favs).

I like the RSV and NRSV but just don't have a copy at the moment.

Been thinking of reading a Jewish Translation of the New Testament as the CJB and TLV are very interesting reading in sample. Returns much of the cultural affiliation to the text.

I delibrately don't have:
New International Version(I hate this version, terribly biased translation against Catholicism, still no Catholic Edition to be found).
Last edited by colliric on 19 Jan 2019 02:42, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By colliric
#14981207
Pants-of-dog wrote:I have been thinking about buying a hard copy of the Brick Testament for the kids.


Looks cool. Which translation did they base that on?

Love the NSVC Rating System Warnings!
By Pants-of-dog
#14981211
colliric wrote:Looks cool. Which translation did they base that on?


I assumed it was the KJV, but it turns out I was wrong:

    Which version of The Bible does The Brick Testament use to retell the stories?

    Since The Brick Testament aims to be a very accessible way to become more familiar with the Bible, it makes sense for it to use a modern readable English translation. But because modern English translations of the Bible are generally protected by copyright, to avoid legal issues, The Brick Testament website and The Brick Bible books use the author's own wording of Bible passages, based on a number of different public domain Bible translations and occasionally a translation from the original Hebrew or Greek suggested by colleagues.

    In any instances where a character's speech balloons portray them as saying or thinking words that are not direct quotes from the Bible, the text is displayed in gray instead of the standard black. This is most often done to help retell the story smoothly, such as if the Bible verse were to say "And King David was told about this." Since the direct quote of what David was told is not provided, the character informing King David of something might be illustrated with a speech balloon using gray text to convey the presumed gist of the message. In rare instances the gray text is used to inject humor into the story.

http://www.thebricktestament.com/faq/index.html

Love the NSVC Rating System Warnings!


The Old Testament seems particularly scandalous.
By Sivad
#14981292
Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, more correctly, you make a big deal about how funding supposedly skews climate science in a way that makes climate change seem worse than it is, while simultaneously ignoring how fossil fuel companies use funding to skew the science to kae it seem like less of a problem than it actually is.


I don't ignore anything, I've always maintained that it's an issue on both sides. You are the one who totally ignores the politics and funding issues on one side and makes a big deal about it for the other.

And if you do not oppose vaccination, then you definitely criticise teh science supporting vaccines while ignoring the pseudo science opposing vaccines.


You ignore the actual science and the opinions of well respected senior scientists and you are constantly trying to shift focus onto the straw man of pseudoscience.


[center-img]https://heritageaction.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/irony.jpg?w=300&h=150[/center-img]
By Pants-of-dog
#14981293
Sivad wrote:I don't ignore anything, I've always maintained that it's an issue on both sides. You are the one who totally ignores the politics and funding issues on one side and makes a big deal about it for the other.


Really?

I have never you seen dismiss a climate skeptic or denier because of their ties to fossil fuel funding. Can you provide an example of you doing so?

You ignore the actual science and the opinions of well respected senior scientists and you are constantly trying to shift focus onto the straw man of pseudoscience.


Please provde an example of this.

And this does not, in any way, excuse your weird focus with personally attacking me and ignoring my argument.
By Sivad
#14981316
Pants-of-dog wrote:Really?

I have never you seen dismiss a climate skeptic or denier because of their ties to fossil fuel funding. Can you provide an example of you doing so?


I've never dismissed an alarmist for their ties to the NSF. I always address the evidence they present. After their case been shown to be exaggerated and based on manipulated data then I'll go into why they would be doing that. It has do be addressed constantly with you because you are constantly denying that the alarmists have any incentive whatsoever to exaggerate their case and manipulate the data. Your go to fallacy is the horse laugh, your whole case is nothing but an appeal to ridicule, so I always have to explain why that's bullshit.


And this does not, in any way, excuse your weird focus with personally attacking me and ignoring my argument.


I don't attack you personally, I attack your bullshit and if you take that personally then that's your issue.
By Pants-of-dog
#14981329
Sivad wrote:I've never dismissed an alarmist for their ties to the NSF. I always address the evidence they present. After their case been shown to be exaggerated and based on manipulated data then I'll go into why they would be doing that. It has do be addressed constantly with you because you are constantly denying that the alarmists have any incentive whatsoever to exaggerate their case and manipulate the data. Your go to fallacy is the horse laugh, your whole case is nothing but an appeal to ridicule, so I always have to explain why that's bullshit.


This is another tactic you use to deflect from the actual argument: you make the debate about the debate. This meta-debate is often used to excuse yourself from the burden of proof.

Here you are making claims about how you made claims, and in so doing, you manage to ignore my request for an actual example of your claim.

I don't attack you personally, I attack your bullshit and if you take that personally then that's your issue.


You call me a liar.

You call me an authoritarian.

And here, you and @Victoribus Spolia go off an multi-post rigf about how I, as a Marxist, have some agenda to betray the working class or something.

And you use the word gulagist to insult anyone who opposes neoliberalism on any practical level.

Now, I am almost certain that you will ignore this again, since this is the actual point:

If you logically accept the fact that someone can be a shill or a lying authoritarian and still be correct, then all of this indirect name calling you do is irrelevant.
By Sivad
#14981346
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is another tactic you use to deflect from the actual argument: you make the debate about the debate.


That's pretty rich coming from you. You're the guy who routinely dismisses arguments outright on the basis of religious belief or financial interest, you've done it many times. You debate about the debate more than anyone, you just don't like being on the receiving end of it.

This meta-debate is often used to excuse yourself from the burden of proof.


I always meet the burden of proof, I don't make a case unless I know I got one. The reason we have to go to the meta level on every single issue is because you take it there.

Here you are making claims about how you made claims, and in so doing, you manage to ignore my request for an actual example of your claim.


I ignored your request for me to spend an hour going through old threads just to prove what we all already know. I'm just not that interested to bother with that.



If you logically accept the fact that someone can be a shill or a lying authoritarian and still be correct, then all of this indirect name calling you do is irrelevant.


I don't do indirect name calling, I address the reasons for the obtuse denial and the blatant dishonesty. And yeah, shills can be correct but that doesn't mean their conflicts and biases are irrelevant. There's a reason why conflicts and biases are required to be disclosed and sometimes warrant total recusal. There's a reason why transparency is vital to all public discourse.
  • 1
  • 171
  • 172
  • 173
  • 174
  • 175
  • 178
Trump, Oh my god !

Gee, I wonder what’s more expensive for the feder[…]

@Hindsite You know, you said you'd try to be pol[…]

Yep, and whatever they do, the Communists are more[…]

Trump and Russiagate

Deutsche Bank is Mr. Trump’s primary lender after […]