Comments on: The futility of arguing with hardcore Leftists *UPDATED* http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/09/10/the-futility-of-arguing-with-hardcore-leftists/ Conservatives deal with facts and reach conclusions; liberals have conclusions and sell them as facts. Fri, 10 Feb 2012 13:48:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Ymarsakar http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/09/10/the-futility-of-arguing-with-hardcore-leftists/comment-page-2/#comment-29277 Ymarsakar Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:26:28 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=3683#comment-29277 And Btw, the problem is not that people talk about "Off topic" things. That is totally irrelevant. What we have are personalities designed to instigate arguments that force people to pay attention to them. This is done by constantly being argumentative and attempting to pick apart people's comments by starting a fight. Obviously, people can and should be able to defend their statements here. But the burden of proof is on the aggressor, not the defendant. If you want to talk about how "honest" Andrew Sullivan is, and you are going to use that appeal to authority to bulk up your claims, then you also can't claim that people are killing the messenger by destroying Sullivan's authority as "honest". You brought it up. You defend it if you want the benefits. The defendants do not have the burden of proof on this matter. By making it so, you create endless chains of arguments based upon wrong and false logical foundations. That will always produce pointless arguments in the end. And Btw, the problem is not that people talk about “Off topic” things. That is totally irrelevant.

What we have are personalities designed to instigate arguments that force people to pay attention to them. This is done by constantly being argumentative and attempting to pick apart people’s comments by starting a fight.

Obviously, people can and should be able to defend their statements here. But the burden of proof is on the aggressor, not the defendant. If you want to talk about how “honest” Andrew Sullivan is, and you are going to use that appeal to authority to bulk up your claims, then you also can’t claim that people are killing the messenger by destroying Sullivan’s authority as “honest”. You brought it up. You defend it if you want the benefits.

The defendants do not have the burden of proof on this matter. By making it so, you create endless chains of arguments based upon wrong and false logical foundations. That will always produce pointless arguments in the end.

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/09/10/the-futility-of-arguing-with-hardcore-leftists/comment-page-2/#comment-29274 Ymarsakar Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:17:47 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=3683#comment-29274 As I made a, belated, comment on the previous post right next to this one, people should not just accept Dg's illogical arguments and then make a huge debate about it, assuming those illlogical arguments are logical and true. Illogical arguments don't deserve attention or words on paper. Once the core or the base of an argument is rendered invalid, you no longer need to worry about any of the conclusions that line of reasoning will come up with. As I made a, belated, comment on the previous post right next to this one, people should not just accept Dg’s illogical arguments and then make a huge debate about it, assuming those illlogical arguments are logical and true. Illogical arguments don’t deserve attention or words on paper.

Once the core or the base of an argument is rendered invalid, you no longer need to worry about any of the conclusions that line of reasoning will come up with.

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/09/10/the-futility-of-arguing-with-hardcore-leftists/comment-page-2/#comment-29264 Ymarsakar Mon, 15 Sep 2008 18:59:12 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=3683#comment-29264 It's a matter of providing a zone of comfort in the comment section of each new post. A grace period of a day or so that you can't argue, which is different from commenting or reproducing information on other topics, with another person about subjects that you two are somehow particularly interested in to the point where you are going to keep arguing for more than one pass. The readers of this blog should not have to scroll through 5-25 comments that devolve around an argument between two or more people, that don't particularly argue anything in Book's thread. And they should not have to do this, constantly, every time they want to read one of Book's posts, for the first time, and then proceed to read the comment section under it. It’s a matter of providing a zone of comfort in the comment section of each new post. A grace period of a day or so that you can’t argue, which is different from commenting or reproducing information on other topics, with another person about subjects that you two are somehow particularly interested in to the point where you are going to keep arguing for more than one pass.

The readers of this blog should not have to scroll through 5-25 comments that devolve around an argument between two or more people, that don’t particularly argue anything in Book’s thread. And they should not have to do this, constantly, every time they want to read one of Book’s posts, for the first time, and then proceed to read the comment section under it.

]]> By: Bookworm http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/09/10/the-futility-of-arguing-with-hardcore-leftists/comment-page-2/#comment-29248 Bookworm Mon, 15 Sep 2008 03:04:00 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=3683#comment-29248 Mike, there are programs that you add to comments that allow comments to be left in threads, with sub issues tying into each other. Unfortunately, they don't work in WordPress! It's simply a matter of separating wheat from chaff on your own.... Mike, there are programs that you add to comments that allow comments to be left in threads, with sub issues tying into each other. Unfortunately, they don’t work in WordPress! It’s simply a matter of separating wheat from chaff on your own….

]]> By: Mike Devx http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/09/10/the-futility-of-arguing-with-hardcore-leftists/comment-page-2/#comment-29247 Mike Devx Mon, 15 Sep 2008 02:56:03 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=3683#comment-29247 Well, this thread was certainly hijacked! Not that the topics under discussion aren't interesting, but the comments aren't comments relating to Book's original post. Book, I wonder if there isn't a way for you to hide "off topic" comments so that by default they don't appear? Or all that can be seen is the header, for example: Mike Devx [Off Topic] on 14 Sep 2008 at 19:01:02 Of course then you'd have to administer the comments. Ugh. And even if you monitored only the most recent N comments each day, it would probably be too much of a pain. And you'd have to do it at least twice per day, or your threads would still get hijacked by the provocative comments designed to steer the discussion away from the expected topic. (Yes, I know I'm guilty of some of those alternative postings as well.) Well, this thread was certainly hijacked! Not that the topics under discussion aren’t interesting, but the comments aren’t comments relating to Book’s original post.

Book, I wonder if there isn’t a way for you to hide “off topic” comments so that by default they don’t appear? Or all that can be seen is the header, for example:
Mike Devx [Off Topic] on 14 Sep 2008 at 19:01:02

Of course then you’d have to administer the comments. Ugh. And even if you monitored only the most recent N comments each day, it would probably be too much of a pain. And you’d have to do it at least twice per day, or your threads would still get hijacked by the provocative comments designed to steer the discussion away from the expected topic.

(Yes, I know I’m guilty of some of those alternative postings as well.)

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/09/10/the-futility-of-arguing-with-hardcore-leftists/comment-page-2/#comment-29217 Ymarsakar Sat, 13 Sep 2008 18:26:40 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=3683#comment-29217 This is just one big circular logic, Oz is making. Christians are dangerous because Oz found out how a hidden council. Why Christians are more dangerous than Muslims is because Oz found out about a hidden Christian, not Muslim, council. Why has Oz found a Christian, but not a Muslim, hidden council? Wait for it... Because Christians are dangerous. You see how this works, Brian. What, exactly, are you arguing with Oz about then? This is just one big circular logic, Oz is making.

Christians are dangerous because Oz found out how a hidden council. Why Christians are more dangerous than Muslims is because Oz found out about a hidden Christian, not Muslim, council.

Why has Oz found a Christian, but not a Muslim, hidden council?

Wait for it…

Because Christians are dangerous.

You see how this works, Brian. What, exactly, are you arguing with Oz about then?

]]> By: Gringo http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/09/10/the-futility-of-arguing-with-hardcore-leftists/comment-page-2/#comment-29214 Gringo Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:45:32 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=3683#comment-29214 Ozzie:<i> But with Human Secularists being shut out of the Democratic National Convention due to the political danger of associating with agnostics or athiests</i> Perhaps the "Human Secularists" should form a new political party. The buzz term is "Secular Humanists," not "Human Secularists." I find it extremely hard to believe that Secular Humanists had been shut out of the DNC. Then why do about 2/3 of nonchurchgoers vote Democratic? As about 1/6 of the US do not attend church, then about 1/5 of the Democratic vote comes from nonchurchgoers( do the math" 2/3X 1/6= 2/18 ~ 10% and Demos get 1/2 of national vote.). You are going to inform me that their points of view are not respected within the Democratic Party? Such statements as the above italicized one lose you credibility. My experience as a nonchurchgoer all my life is that the US is very comfortable for those of my ilk, as long as I accept the fact that not everyone agrees with me. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-06-02-religion-gap_x.htm http://pewresearch.org/pubs/945/religion-alaska-palin 16% of Americans unaffiliated with churches, compared to 27% of Alaskans. Ozzie: But with Human Secularists being shut out of the Democratic National Convention due to the political danger of associating with agnostics or athiests
Perhaps the “Human Secularists” should form a new political party.

The buzz term is “Secular Humanists,” not “Human Secularists.”

I find it extremely hard to believe that Secular Humanists had been shut out of the DNC. Then why do about 2/3 of nonchurchgoers vote Democratic? As about 1/6 of the US do not attend church, then about 1/5 of the Democratic vote comes from nonchurchgoers( do the math” 2/3X 1/6= 2/18 ~ 10% and Demos get 1/2 of national vote.). You are going to inform me that their points of view are not respected within the Democratic Party?

Such statements as the above italicized one lose you credibility.

My experience as a nonchurchgoer all my life is that the US is very comfortable for those of my ilk, as long as I accept the fact that not everyone agrees with me.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-06-02-religion-gap_x.htm
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/945/religion-alaska-palin 16% of Americans unaffiliated with churches, compared to 27% of Alaskans.

]]> By: Ozzie http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/09/10/the-futility-of-arguing-with-hardcore-leftists/comment-page-2/#comment-29212 Ozzie Sat, 13 Sep 2008 17:15:05 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=3683#comment-29212 I’m sorry if I’ve offended you, sometimes my attempts to be clever lean toward the sarcastic.- Brian I didnt know if you were deliberately twisting my words or not, Brian, but I never equated the Council for National Policy with Muslims. You didnt offend me. You just made me question your intentions. I've said all I can say on the topic and think this particular horse has been beaten to death - and then some. I’m sorry if I’ve offended you, sometimes my attempts to be clever lean toward the sarcastic.- Brian

I didnt know if you were deliberately twisting my words or not, Brian, but I never equated the Council for National Policy with Muslims.

You didnt offend me. You just made me question your intentions.

I’ve said all I can say on the topic and think this particular horse has been beaten to death – and then some.

]]> By: BrianE http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/09/10/the-futility-of-arguing-with-hardcore-leftists/comment-page-2/#comment-29210 BrianE Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:59:14 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=3683#comment-29210 Ozzie, I'm sorry if I've offended you, sometimes my attempts to be clever lean toward the sarcastic. I'm aware of the debate inside Christianity about the extent of involvement in societal affairs. The Christian mandate is to reach the world with the Good News of Jesus Christ, not to turn society into a theocracy. In terms of religious involvement in society, even Obama understands this though: “secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square.” It's not my place to judge the sincerity of Obama's profession of faith. But the Bible does say you will know them by their fruit. Is the message of Obama's faith about personal redemption or societal redemption? And was the democrat attempt to woo disaffected Evangelicals sincere or manipulative? I'm not sure Evangelicals, however unhappy they have been at some of George Bush's initiatives (think immigration) would migrate to Obama, a candidate who represents the extreme of the abortion on demand party. The Great Awakening, and other spiritual revivals in this country have always began with personal repentance, which then manifests itself in a public call for piety. Chang happens from within. I think there was the beginning of a sincere spiritual awakening in this country following September 11, and whether or not we are seeing a manifestation of that is hard to judge, given the overwhelming bias against things spiritual by secularists. I don't need to discredit you, but I do believe the extent you give power to the Religious Right, whoever that my be, is exaggerated, despite your documentation. I'll try to lay out a case for that soon. The fact is, the majority of people in this country believe in a Supreme Being who is involved in the affairs of this world. Ozzie,
I’m sorry if I’ve offended you, sometimes my attempts to be clever lean toward the sarcastic.
I’m aware of the debate inside Christianity about the extent of involvement in societal affairs. The Christian mandate is to reach the world with the Good News of Jesus Christ, not to turn society into a theocracy.
In terms of religious involvement in society, even Obama understands this though: “secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square.”
It’s not my place to judge the sincerity of Obama’s profession of faith. But the Bible does say you will know them by their fruit. Is the message of Obama’s faith about personal redemption or societal redemption? And was the democrat attempt to woo disaffected Evangelicals sincere or manipulative?
I’m not sure Evangelicals, however unhappy they have been at some of George Bush’s initiatives (think immigration) would migrate to Obama, a candidate who represents the extreme of the abortion on demand party.
The Great Awakening, and other spiritual revivals in this country have always began with personal repentance, which then manifests itself in a public call for piety. Chang happens from within.
I think there was the beginning of a sincere spiritual awakening in this country following September 11, and whether or not we are seeing a manifestation of that is hard to judge, given the overwhelming bias against things spiritual by secularists.
I don’t need to discredit you, but I do believe the extent you give power to the Religious Right, whoever that my be, is exaggerated, despite your documentation.
I’ll try to lay out a case for that soon.
The fact is, the majority of people in this country believe in a Supreme Being who is involved in the affairs of this world.

]]> By: Ozzie http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/09/10/the-futility-of-arguing-with-hardcore-leftists/comment-page-2/#comment-29208 Ozzie Sat, 13 Sep 2008 16:19:18 +0000 http://www.bookwormroom.com/?p=3683#comment-29208 So this “ultra-secretive cabal that networks wealthy right-wing donors together with top conservative operatives to plan long-term movement strategy”, according to Max Blumenthal, is powerful indeed- Brain Once again, Brian, if you want to read more, there is plenty out there, and not just from Max Blumenthal. Conservative authors who are concerned about the wall between Church and State have addressed this issue too. If you're not keen on reading an Independent like Kevin Phillips, David Kuo, an Evangelical who worked in the Bush White House, wrote a book about this, from an Evangelical's point of view, while Republican Senators have aired their concerns.. You keep trying to disprove what I'm saying, by twisting everything, and acting as if I dont know what I'm talking about. I'm not sure what your motivation is...Perhaps you feel attacked and feel the need to discredit me and/or what I'm saying? I dont know if you're deliberately trying to distort what I'm saying, or if you are reacting to something in your own head, but I've done the best I can to explain my point of view I've stated my opinions and tried to back them up the best I can. So this “ultra-secretive cabal that networks wealthy right-wing donors together with top conservative operatives to plan long-term movement strategy”, according to Max Blumenthal, is powerful indeed- Brain

Once again, Brian, if you want to read more, there is plenty out there, and not just from Max Blumenthal.

Conservative authors who are concerned about the wall between Church and State have addressed this issue too.

If you’re not keen on reading an Independent like Kevin Phillips, David Kuo, an Evangelical who worked in the Bush White House, wrote a book about this, from an Evangelical’s point of view, while Republican Senators have aired their concerns..

You keep trying to disprove what I’m saying, by twisting everything, and acting as if I dont know what I’m talking about. I’m not sure what your motivation is…Perhaps you feel attacked and feel the need to discredit me and/or what I’m saying?

I dont know if you’re deliberately trying to distort what I’m saying, or if you are reacting to something in your own head, but I’ve done the best I can to explain my point of view

I’ve stated my opinions and tried to back them up the best I can.

]]>