Now reading - Page 174 - 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
#14981352
Sivad wrote: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.

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.

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.


Thank you for providing another example of how you use the meta-debate to ignore demands for evidence.

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.


Yes, you do indirect and direct name calling.

And if you think my baises are somehow relevant, explain how.
By Sivad
#14981358
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, you do indirect and direct name calling.


No I don't. Criticizing motives, conduct, or attitude isn't name calling and isn't irrelevant. If we were to prohibit that we'd cripple discourse and the babbitts and the bullshitters would run amok.

And if you think my baises are somehow relevant, explain how.


You tell me, you appeal to bias more than anyone else around here. Why do you constantly do it?
By Pants-of-dog
#14981360
Sivad wrote:No I don't. Criticizing motives, conduct, or attitude isn't name calling and isn't irrelevant. If we were to prohibit that we'd cripple discourse and the babbitts and the bullshitters would run amok.


If you are going around implying that anyone who disagrees with you is a “babbitt” and “bullshitter”, that is a good example of you indirectly calling people names.

You tell me, you appeal to bias more than anyone else around here. Why do you constantly do it?


Okay, so you cannot explain how it is relevant. Instead, you tried to switch the burden of proof and failed.

If that is the case, then your claim that bias is somehow relevant can be ignored.
By Sivad
#14981369
Pants-of-dog wrote:going around implying that anyone who disagrees with you is a “babbitt”


I don't imply that about everyone who disagrees with me, just those who are smugly condescending and dismissive of anything that isn't in rigid lockstep with the official consensus orthodoxy.


that is a good example of you indirectly calling people names.


No, it's identifying a common and pernicious mentality that has come to dominate the discourse. It's no different than the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist". I think "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are valid terms that pick out a real phenomenon and have a legitimate place in the discourse, "babbitt" and "babbittry" are just as valid in that that they pick out an equally irrational and extreme mentality on the opposite far end of the spectrum.

Okay, so you cannot explain how it is relevant. Instead, you tried to switch the burden of proof and failed.


I didn't say I couldn't explain it, I just wanted to know why you do it if it's so totally irrelevant.
By Pants-of-dog
#14981374
Sivad wrote:I don't imply that about everyone who disagrees with me, just those who are smugly condescending and dismissive of anything that isn't in rigid lockstep with the official consensus orthodoxy.


Yes, you word things carefully so you insult people while simultaneously leaving yourself some wiggle room to avoid responsibility and play the victim.

It does not change the fact that you end up implying that people who disagree with you on PoFo are “babbitts”, etc.

No, it's identifying a common and pernicious mentality that has come to dominate the discourse. It's no different than the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist". I think "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are valid terms that pick out a real phenomenon and have a legitimate place in the discourse, "babbitt" and "babbittry" are just as valid in that that they pick out an equally irrational and extreme mentality on the opposite far end of the spectrum.


And you now seem to be justifying your use of insults, and ignoring the fact that you call people “bullshitters”.

I didn't say I couldn't explain it, I just wanted to know why you do it if it's so totally irrelevant.


And you are still not explaining it, therefore it is still unsupported and therefore dismissible.
User avatar
By Heisenberg
#14981377
So, what are you currently reading, @Pants-of-dog? :)
By Pants-of-dog
#14981378
A not-too-crappy modern vampire novel that was highly rated by my public library ebook app.

It is good when I want to watch an action movie in my head.

Thank you for asking. And yourself?

Edit: it is called The Passage by Justin Cronin.
Last edited by Pants-of-dog on 19 Jan 2019 21:18, edited 1 time in total.
By Sivad
#14981381
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, you word things carefully so you insult people while simultaneously leaving yourself some wiggle room to avoid responsibility and play the victim.


I'm wording things carefully here to point out a valid distinction between gratuitous insults and legitimate criticisms.

It does not change the fact that you end up implying that people who disagree with you on PoFo are “babbitts”, etc.


If the shoe fits I guess. Pointing out bad faith or ideologically motivated reasoning isn't an insult, it might feel like that to whoever is engaging in that sort of conduct but really it's a necessary and vital practice for maintaining discursive hygiene. If we don't do it the quality of discourse will be degraded.

And you now seem to be justifying your use of insults, and ignoring the fact that you call people “bullshitters”.


Bullshit. ;)

And you are still not explaining it, therefore it is still unsupported and therefore dismissible.


Whatever.
By Pants-of-dog
#14981387
Sivad wrote:I'm wording things carefully here to point out a valid distinction between gratuitous insults and legitimate criticisms.


Calling someone a bullshitter or a babbitt or a liar or a gulagist is not legitimate criticism.

It is simply name calling.

If they are saying s9mething untrue, show how it is untrue.

If the shoe fits I guess. Pointing out bad faith or ideologically motivated reasoning isn't an insult, it might feel like that to whoever is engaging in that sort of conduct but really it's a necessary and vital practice for maintaining discursive hygiene. If we don't do it the quality of discourse will be degraded.


Well, you seem deep in the rationalistaion now.

If you really want to believe that ad hominems are actually logically sound, go ahead.

Bullshit. ;)

Whatever.


So you concede that the biases of the arguer are irrelevant to the truth of their claims?
By Sivad
#14981403
Pants-of-dog wrote:So you concede that the biases of the arguer are irrelevant to the truth of their claims?


It becomes relevant when your opponent refuses to acknowledge evidence or make reasonable concessions. It explains why they're being unreasonable. Just demonstrating bad faith on the part of your interlocutor is rarely sufficient, establishing motive makes the case more robust. Bad faith automatically legitimizes meta level discussion because there can't be any productive discourse until the bullshit is out of the way. You can't debate the facts with someone who isn't interested in the facts and you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't come to by reason.
By Pants-of-dog
#14981404
Sivad wrote:It becomes relevant when your opponent refuses to acknowledge evidence or make reasonable concessions.


No. At that point, you can just point out that they are refusing to acknowledge evidence.

And that has nothing to do with the fact that the biases of the arguer do not affect the truth of the arguer’s claims.

It explains why they're being unreasonable. Just demonstrating bad faith on the part of your interlocutor is rarely sufficient, establishing motive makes the case more robust. Bad faith automatically legitimizes meta level discussion because there can't be any productive discourse until the bullshit is out of the way. You can't debate the facts with someone who isn't interested in the facts and you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't come to by reason.


Now you seem to be rationalising taking the discussion off topic just to attack the arguer, even though the biases of the arguer have nothing to do with the truth of the claims.
By Sivad
#14981408
Pants-of-dog wrote:Calling someone a bullshitter or a babbitt or a liar or a gulagist is not legitimate criticism.


I really don't understand that? If someone actually is engaging in bullshitting or babbittry or advocating for totalitarian collectivism then how is correctly and accurately naming what they're doing illegitimate? Is calling a racist a racist illegitimate?
By Pants-of-dog
#14981409
Because it is irrelevant to the truth of their claims.

If someone is lying, then calling them a liar does not move the debate forward. Showing how their claim is unture does move the debate forward.

Nor does it matter if they really like some ideology you find distasteful. If a Nazi said 2+2=4, would you argue that they are wrong because they have a deplorable ideology?
By Sivad
#14981414
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. At that point, you can just point out that they are refusing to acknowledge evidence.


You could, but why would you? When people refuse to be honest and reasonable they initiate politics and in politics pointing out hidden agendas and unstated conflicts is perfectly legitimate. What you're really doing here is saying that you should be allowed to fight as dirty as you please with every bullshit tactic you can come up with but it should be off limits for anyone to ever call you on it or attribute any motive to your deplorable conduct. You get to play dirty pool while your opponent has to operate by strictest rules of logic. Bullshit on that.


And even if calling bullshit was illegitimate it can't be any more illegitimate than actual bullshitting. :lol: So the hypocrisy here is off the charts.
By Pants-of-dog
#14981417
Sivad wrote:You could, but why would you? When people refuse to be honest and reasonable they initiate politics and in politics pointing out hidden agendas and unstated conflicts is perfectly legitimate.


Because it moves the debate forward and addresses their actual arguments instead of whatever insults you are making up abot the other person.

Not to mention the fact that most of your judgements about others are incorrect and unverifiable.

What you're really doing here is saying that you should be allowed to fight as dirty as you please with every bullshit tactic you can come up with but it should be off limits for anyone to ever call you on it or attribute any motive to your deplorable conduct. You get to play dirty pool while your opponent has to operate by strictest rules of logic. Bullshit on that.


All of this here is you insulting me in order to deflect from the topic.

And even if calling bullshit was illegitimate it can't be any more illegitimate than actual bullshitting. :lol: So the hypocrisy here is off the charts.


And here you are calling me a liar again, and again not showing how I am supposedly lying, which again deflects from the actual topic.
By Sivad
#14981463
Pants-of-dog wrote: most of your judgements about others are incorrect


No, I'm right about you. Even here what you're doing is obvious. You want to promote gulagism and babbittry without anyone effectively criticizing it so you launch a little concern troll campaign to get those words banned. That's how all gulagists operate, they pump bullshit and propaganda into the discourse and ban all criticism. You'd turn pofo into revleft if you had your way.
By Pants-of-dog
#14981465
Once again, you choose insults instead of dealing with my actual point.

Thanks for providing yet another example.
By Sivad
#14981876
skinster wrote:Speaking of "gulagism" :D , has anyone read My Life by bae Fidel Castro?


No, but I've read The Autumn of the Patriarch, that probably does a better job of getting to the heart of the madness.
User avatar
By Drlee
#14981919
Speaking of "gulagism" :D , has anyone read My Life by bae Fidel Castro?


I have. It is a really interesting book. I highly recommend it.
  • 1
  • 172
  • 173
  • 174
  • 175
  • 176
  • 191

As someone that pays very close attention to Amer[…]

Will @skinster insist on her demand of watching […]

I (still) have a dream

...Kids don't need to drive anywhere to play with[…]

Jared Kushner is inspired by the real estate pote[…]