He found a straightforward statisic (# of troops deaths in the 80’s vs recent) and his head exploded.

It was clear from the start he was not debating in good faith.

I still can’t believe Op let me undermine his position and credibility like that, without once trying to refute my arguments.

Course, he couldn’t, at least not without looking like a oath breaker given what he said before about the list. Insurgency tactics are very useful, when there is a need to avoid direct confrontation.

It was fine with Op so long as you fought in the terrain that Op wanted to fight in. Such as UN reports, statistical lies about higher crime in America than Europe, and scientific data. Such things are like a quagmire. A lot of effort for little result. Which is the point. So long as you are busy studying the reports and reading the stats, you are not busy doing what I did. Which was to analyze Op’s actual beliefs, philosophical and political, in order to judge their consistency or worth.

If you started getting out of hand and questioning Op’s basic fundamental premises, or characterizing his positions in a manner which spelled out your differences to him, Op will attack you instead of defending his own positions. On the basis that his position is not what you are talking about. Except for the fact that Op was never listening to what you were talking about in the first place, that might have counted for something.

I have stated before that an oganization or an ideology is only as good as the people in it. In this case, the person is only as good as his ideology allows him to be. It is truly a self-inflicted wound.

This is no way to engage in enlightening discussion.

People may have noticed, but Op has often stated that he is the one explaining and instructing you, the audience, on what the science and the facts are. If you disagree with him, he will come up with a reason why you are wrong or even why you weren’t paying attention so obviously you aren’t even talking about the subject. Refer to his response to Book’s peace time casualty statistics thread. Somehow it was Book that cherry picked the facts out of a bunch. It wasn’t Op when he claimed higher crime in the US than in the Netherlands. It wasn’t Op when he spoke about global warming. No, it was Book, she supported her arguments using the badfacts.

The only person being enlightened is those that Op speaks to. Never Op himself. Which is, again, a very self-limiting attitude.

It is natural to get angry when your basic philosophical assumptions are challenged, for such beliefs constitute almost all of your identity. Aside from job, family, blood, and pride of course. But you don’t often get angry all the time and have to rewrite sentences unless your views are constantly being challenged. So long as the discussion was about statistics and science, those views could be hidden and protected. Safe from challenge. But once they came out in the light… well.

As others may have noticed, I wasn’t just conducting guerrilla warfare all the time either. There was some important intel to gleam from Op’s arguments and beliefs. Which sided well with Chris White’s and Xan’s beliefs and claims over at Neo-Neocon.

In fact, it was arguing with Chris, the international law supporter extraordinaire, that reminded me how uniform members of the Left truly are. Such is not an expectation or even assumption, but simply the reality that must be dealt with. People that don’t even know each other, of both somewhat moderate temperaments, still hash over the same Leftist views as the other. To the point where I can predict what one thinks by listening to the other.

Now I’ll take down some of Op’s accussations, in case anyone might be interested.

First comes the lousy logic. I have seen way too many cases of dumb thinking here.

This coming from a person that thought it was a good argument to claim that China’s GDP was growing faster than the US’s because most modern bankers and economists only use percentage growth when they speak of GDP growth. Argumentum ad numerum, which is definitely not “excellent” logic. Only one example off the top of my head because I easily remember. It was after all, my pinpointing of Op’s extremely weak arguments that forced him to avoid anything else I said in the future. I do not have enough time to waste on scientific run arounds, after all. I prefer to go straight to the heart. Shocking, yes but very effective.

The easiest to discern is what I call black and white thinking

While people might think me extremely rude to claim so, but it is pretty much apparent to me that Danny and company knows more about what Op believes than Op has ever known about what folks like Danny and I believed. So why does Op think we think in black and white? Because Op doesn’t know what we are thinking. Leftist indoctrination prevents true empathy after awhile. It is just too risky to truly feel the pain of others when your very ideology requires you to sacrifice others to the UN or to the Syrians or to some other organization that promises to bring down human progress and the West. Lulu mentioned something about a lack of protestors concerning Saudi Arabia… well, how much empathy do you think a person can afford to have in order to not protest Saudi Arabia while protesting Israel? Not much, I can assure you of that. It is just too dangerous to have too much empathy. That way leads to the dark side, to violence, after all.

Either we nuke the Muslims or we surrender to them

Strawman. Petraeus COIN and psychological warfare is much more powerful than any Cold War nuka duke. But of course, Op doesn’t know anything about such things and even if he did, he wouldn’t choose to argue about them. Too dangerous.

(references to Kumbaya are the most common)

Given the fact that Op openly admitted in the Children thread that he prefers everyone cooperating and “winning” to one person winning and losing, I’m not exactly sure what Op’s point is. Op does advocate Kumbaya… because Op wants everyone to win… and so.. is not Kumbaya about everyone cooperating and winning and not trying to fight and kill and make each other lose? Ah forget it, too much logic for Op.

You can’t address a problem reasonably if you insist on framing it in ridiculous terms.

I am not really sure which is more ridiculous. Kumbaya or Op’s stated position about winning and losing.

I have seen many cases of people jumping to some crazy conclusion from an unrelated statement.

This is the kind of reaction one gets when the reactee pays absolutely no attention to their opponent’s logic. The conclusion is crazy not because Op studied the logic behind it or even asked what it was. No, the conclusion was crazy because Op disagreed with it and could see no way it could connect with his own beliefs and statements. Well, isn’t that kind of obvious? If Leftists could penetrate their cognitive dissonance and double thinking, would they still be Leftists? Indeed, that is the question.

Then there’s the general level of ignorance.

People are ignint I tell ya. Ignint.

But I don’t shoot my mouth off about things that I am ignorant of.

Didn’t Op just shoot his mouth off about crime in Europe, America’s economic policy, Bush’s Terror Campaign on civilians, and Petraeus’ COIN strategy being irrelevant when compared to UN cooperation on the international theater?

Oh hold on, wait. It doesn’t count if Op uses “sources”, my bad.

But I have seen far too many cases of people making obviously incorrect statements.

I seriously doubt that Op knew enough data about all the subjects from which those “incorrect statements” concerned themselves with, to adequately judge their rightness or wrongness. Yet Op claims to not shooting his mouth off about things he is ignorant of. Yet he expects us to believe that he just coincidentally happens to know all about the subjects from which those “incorrect statements” were centered around.

Over and over I corrected them and explained the real science

A labor of love, people. A labor of love. International and cooperative love.

(such as the notion that Nazism was a left-wing movement)

Op doesn’t know anything about that subject either. Well, not anything accurate anyways. One must be accurate after all.

I make plenty of assertions, too, but I always back up anything that’s questionable with a link to a source, and when challenged on an assertion, I back it up with supporting evidence or provide a link.

I am still waiting for the link that backs up Op’s assertion that Mike is a liar. Waiting. Still waiting.

Oh well, there goes that.

Lastly, I chide you for the narrowness of your knowledge base.

Finally, the master from the mountain speaks. The omniscient and omnipotent seijin speaks with the voice of Japan’s greatest sword saint, Miyamoto Mushashi!

Hold on, different reality, my bad.

I see few indications of people checking their facts against sources uncongenial to their existing prejudices.

I’m confused here. Bookworm regulars help me out here. Does this mean that when Op rejected Book’s fatality numbers of military members in peace time, Op was rejecting a source congenial to his existing prejudices about Iraq and Bush?

If you spend all your time congratulating each other and agreeing just how stupid those liberals are, do you really think you can compete with them in the open marketplace of ideas?

Hey, didn’t Op just say that competition isn’t as good as group cooperation and social networking for the good of us all?

We’re just practicing the real social great society after all. Strength comes from community. Not from “competition” *snickers*.

Oh well, cognitive dissonance strikes again. I’m not even going to get into the logic that applies to why conservatives do what they do, since it would be useless. Far better things to do in the meantime.

I see a lot more diversity of opinion in the liberal blogs

Indeed, you got your fascists. Your communists. Your islamic JIhadists. Your paleo-cons. Your isolationists. Man, it is a great diversified whole. CAIR and ACLU partying together for the glory of human progress.

and I’m sure that they’re more aware of the arguments you make than you

What is this cognitive dissonance here, people? Does Op actually think that the Left is an organization that he is not a member of? Whoaal

You are making the worst mistake possible

Disagreeing with Op is always a mistake.

I am departing now because I want to leave before feelings harden.

Personally, I don’t think most conservatives care all that much about the people they are arguing with. It is always the personal insults that make conservatives go all feely. Conservatives, although not all of them, don’t have most of their identities intimately connected with their philosophical beliefs. Or if they do, in the case of the US Marines, they derive strength from such beliefs rather than weakness and division. Conservatives are toughened up to Leftist tactics by now. Which coincidentally, means that internal conservative fights just get nastier. Competitive anger has to go somewhere.

Weakness and division, things the Left claims they fight against. Yet Op has shown the reality behind Leftist claims. Faced with a strong community that has already proven its worth and warm welcome, he attempts to come in and create cracks and call it progress. Such is not human progress as I know of.

Then two things happened: Jimmy Carter demonstrated to me that high-intelligence and nitwittery could infect the same brain. My Democrat faith in an orderly, logical word was really shaken, I was disgusted, but my faith didn’t break.

Then, Reagan came along with his ridiculous “Shining City on a Hill” optimism. Ludicrous! Who could ever be so naive to believe in this amiable dunce and his simplistic world view. Sheesh!

But then, about half-way through The Gipper’s second term, when everything he said came to pass, I had to confront that fact that all these highly intelligent people, who up to just recently had predicted the superiority of the Soviet economic system, the failure of America’s economy, how Reagan’s rearmament would just make our enemies madder, how anti-missile programs would launch a new arms race and “breed more hatred of America among our allies (remember the European missile crisis?)” blah blah blah, had been so completely and fundamentally wrong while the “amiable dunce” was right.

That’s when my eyes opened, my Dream Castles dissolved and I grew up. I was forced to relearn everything that I thought I knew and I turned my back on what the Democrat party had become. I know that I will never perceive that neat, logical and orderly make-believe world again. What a relief! I feel cleaner for it.

All that being said, Ophi, you fought a good fight with your ideas and comments. I think that you are blind to your own contradictions and a prisoner of your own assumptions, but I wish you very well on your own journey of discovery.

What you said about soldiers looking at the political wrangling in the U.S. and being OK with it speaks volumes about how generous THEY are! I am not sure I would have that generousity in my heart after witnessing what many over there have seen.

Deana

In fact, if you took that last post of his and shook it out, turned it inside out and put it on backwards, then you’d arrive at what really happened here. It was pretty accurate as long as you exactly invert everything he said.

And in fact, the primary reason for leaving is the absence of enlightening discussion. I enjoy nothing more than a good sharp discussion where people bring up points that make me pause and think. At first, it looked like this was that kind of place, and I was so pleased to find people who could provide solid criticisms of my thinking.

But that is no longer the case. Maybe it’s just that I brought out all the nasties, and the good people are being drowned out by the noise. I don’t think so. There are still a few people making good points here, but they are a diminishing minority.

I shall now offer some general criticisms in a rhetorical style that singles out nobody while still giving each of you something to ponder.

First comes the lousy logic. I have seen way too many cases of dumb thinking here. The easiest to discern is what I call black and white thinking, although some people call it “False Dichotomy”. Here’s a really blatant example: Either we nuke the Muslims or we surrender to them. No, that’s not the choice we face. But over and over I have read people offering false dichotomies (references to Kumbaya are the most common). You can’t address a problem reasonably if you insist on framing it in ridiculous terms.

Then there are the non-sequiturs. I have seen many cases of people jumping to some crazy conclusion from an unrelated statement. I don’t demand that you fill in every step in the reasoning (A, B, C, D…) , but when you jump from A directly to T, I’m not impressed.

Then there’s the general level of ignorance. I don’t mind ignorance by itself — lord knows, I’m ignorant of zillions of things. But I don’t shoot my mouth off about things that I am ignorant of. If I don’t know, I look it up or keep my mouth shut. If I’m not sure, I look it up or state my belief and ask if anybody has any better information. But I have seen far too many cases of people making obviously incorrect statements. The global warming imbroglio was an excellent example. Over and over people repeated falsehoods that they picked up lord knows where (listening to Rush Limbaugh, perhaps?) Over and over I corrected them and explained the real science, and yet the cavalcade of falsehoods just kept coming. I begged people to read the IPCC reports, I gave the links to them, and yet nobody ever indicated that they had even skimmed the executive summary. One guy proudly declared that he didn’t need to read the IPCC report — perhaps somebody simply injected knowledge into his head a la Matrix And some of the ignorance of history (such as the notion that Nazism was a left-wing movement) is breathtaking. How can I learn from people who don’t even know the basics, and then argue the basics that are readily available to anybody?

Next comes the refusal to back up wild claims with any evidence. Over and over we see statements made with absolutely nothing in the way of substantiation. This is argument by assertion. I make plenty of assertions, too, but I always back up anything that’s questionable with a link to a source, and when challenged on an assertion, I back it up with supporting evidence or provide a link. I see very little of that kind of discipline here.

Lastly, I chide you for the narrowness of your knowledge base. It is apparent to me that many of you get most of your information from the same sources, all of which are comfortably right-wing. I see few indications of people checking their facts against sources uncongenial to their existing prejudices. How do you expect to learn anything if you practice such intellectual inbreeding? If you spend all your time congratulating each other and agreeing just how stupid those liberals are, do you really think you can compete with them in the open marketplace of ideas? I see a lot more diversity of opinion in the liberal blogs, and as a result, the liberals are able to assemble stronger cases than you can. They’re going to have more success swaying the middle of the road voters, because they pay more attention to the facts, they check their evidence, and I’m sure that they’re more aware of the arguments you make than you are of the arguments they make. You guys are all drifting along in the cozy belief that liberals all think of international diplomacy in terms of ‘Kumbaya’. You are making the worst mistake possible — you are underestimating your opponent. Your self-reassurance only serves to guarantee that you lose to him.

So I must continue my Diogenes-like search for a place for honest, informed discussion. I depart with no ill will. I am departing now because I want to leave before feelings harden. I wish you all well, and I hope that you will consider my advice.

Vaya con dios, my friends.

I just thought I would share something with you from a letter from a soldier I received. Not the actual words, but the sentiment. Our political wrangling back home is actually one of the things they feel is worth fighting for. It’s democracy, and they love it.

Bookworm, great blog, and great discussions! Thank you.