[Lerkfish]

Overused conservative fallacious misdirections of a topic:

1. The source is biased, therefore everything it says is invalid
2. y'all are bush haters, therefore no points you make are valid
3. If you criticize Bush, Ashcroft, or Rumsfeld, etc. therefore you're a saddam sympathizer
4. If you are against this war, you must be inconsistent because you werent against every war every waged and therefore this war is valid.
5. If you support a person's right to protest, you're a leftist pinko commie and therefore nothing you say is valid.
6. If you support a person's right to dissent, the blood of the Iraqi people is on your hands.
7. If you criticize Bush policy, you're attacking me personally, and deserve to suffer all the retribution insults I sling at you.
8. If you think both sides are at fault in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you're against Israel.
9. By strict legal definition, there is no injustice as long as its done by the Bush administration. If you disagree, I'll bore you to tears for eight pages of combative irrelevant legalistic nomenclature and semantics until you finally give up.
10. I'll arbitrarily assign a "smackdown" for no apparent reason and declare myself the winner in the argument, therefore you lost.
11. I'll demand you back up your opinion with countless links, but refuse to accept any of them (see #1)
12. I'll refuse to back up my opinion with any links and demand you do my research. If you won't do it, therefore I'm right.

feel free to add your own, or if you have liberal examples....

[MacGorilla]

Print up a t-shirt with these!

[Joshua]

13. "Prong Two. "

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Overused conservative fallacious misdirections of a topic:

1. The source is biased, therefore everything it says is invalid
2. y'all are bush haters, therefore no points you make are valid
3. If you criticize Bush, Ashcroft, or Rumsfeld, etc. therefore you're a saddam sympathizer
4. If you are against this war, you must be inconsistent because you werent against every war every waged and therefore this war is valid.
5. If you support a person's right to protest, you're a leftist pinko commie and therefore nothing you say is valid.
6. If you support a person's right to dissent, the blood of the Iraqi people is on your hands.
7. If you criticize Bush policy, you're attacking me personally, and deserve to suffer all the retribution insults I sling at you.
8. If you think both sides are at fault in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you're against Israel.
9. By strict legal definition, there is no injustice as long as its done by the Bush administration. If you disagree, I'll bore you to tears for eight pages of combative irrelevant legalistic nomenclature and semantics until you finally give up.
10. I'll arbitrarily assign a "smackdown" for no apparent reason and declare myself the winner in the argument, therefore you lost.
11. I'll demand you back up your opinion with countless links, but refuse to accept any of them (see #1)
12. I'll refuse to back up my opinion with any links and demand you do my research. If you won't do it, therefore I'm right.

feel free to add your own, or if you have liberal examples....

The rules of the debate, per lerkfish:

1. Everything the left posts is presumptively unbiased and accurate. You may not challenge this.

2. You are all Bush apologists. Nothing you say is valid.

3. If you support the Administration, you are brainwashed sheep.

4. If you support this war, it is because you are a bloodthirsty brainwashed sheep.

5. If you disagree with protesters, you are in favor of a Nazi totalitarian state.

6. I reserve the right to call the point of view you espouse all kinds of horrible names, but don't take that personally.

7. No critic of Israel could possibly be anti-Semitic, even the ones who have nothing bad to say about terrorists, ever.

8. Everything is the fault of the Bush Administration. I demand the right to make unsupported assertions to that effect. You do not have the right to disagree.

9. Prong, something or other.

10. I define the parameters of the conversation. Shut up and stop having opinions. (see number 1).

11. I am a neutral detatched observer, even when I am blatantly partisan.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Joshua:
13. "Prong Two. "

[pooka]

If it weren't illegal, I'd swear the two of you were married.

The partisan cheerleaders are getting old as well. I'd like to see the discussions limited to those that have something meaningful to say and those who are impartial agitators.

[einmakom]

So #1 means that all sources, no matter where they originate, must be of equal value?

That's wonderful news for the World Weekly Globe, National Enquirer, and IndyMedia- they now have all the cachet and reputability of the NY Times, if we go by that standard.

No, when a news source prints conspiracy theories as truth, or misquotes people with great regularity, it should be considered invalid.

When a source operates from a wildly biased stance, it should be called into question.

Additionally, commentary sites are not news sites, and people should stop trying to pass one off as the other. It makes for a poor-to-invalid argument.

Course the solution is easy- people who use invalid sources to make their arguments run the risk of not being taken seriously.

[Krusty]

Great response, Simey !!

... of course, I'm opposed to the war but I think you made a valid characterization of the dogmas we on the liberal side carry. I got into a mildly heated political debate with my pops when I went home for Turkey day ... both of us just spewing and neither of us seeming to "learn". After the debate, we discussed a little about how similar our principles were, but why there real world application seemed to vary so much. So, here's my list of why I take a liberal slant: (list coming in a subsequent post ... I have to change locations)

edit: fuggit. I'm tired and don't really wanna waste keystrokes on this. Its all been said before

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
*absolute classic*

Too damned funny!

[Spliffdaddy]

I thought it would take a long time before it happened again.

I was wrong.

The author got *smacked* in his own thread.

ouch. ya know that's gotta hurt.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by pooka:
If it weren't illegal, I'd swear the two of you were married.

Truly. It's The Odd Couple-The Second Coming.

We have two of our most logical, clear-thinking posters arguing about nothing. Have we achieved the improbable here? Is this a pure ad hominem thread? Maybe, you say, but doesn't that happen in nearly every thread involving Zimphire? Almost, I retort, but even those threads start off arguing about something.

Maybe it's the occasional mental take-out-the-trash day. A thread of pure over-generalizations, unsubstantiated 'facts', and good ole name-calling. It's good to let go once in awhile. "Serenity Now. Serenity Now."

Maybe after this we can get back to debating real issues and events. Like Bush's secret, drop-in visit to North Korea. Sneaking up behind Kim Jong-Il to deliver that surprise wedgie and then dropping in on the DMZ to help serve a pre-Hanukkah meal of matzo to the troops. Then it was off to Tora Bora and Osama's cave to short-sheet his cot. Personally, I appreciate these gestures but think it was a little too risky. He should've stopped this PR stuff at Baghdad.

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The rules of the debate, per lerkfish

<accurate and possibly amusing list

See - this would have been much more clever, and less bitchy, if it had simply omitted the attack on lerk and listed these as "13 to 24", which lerk specifically requested in his opening post (although, again, the 'prong' thing was another personal attack).

Lerk managed to ruffle feathers without an explicit attack, but Simey had to personalise it therefore (narrowly) losing the 'cleverness' award.

A shame, because it had the makings of an objective (as opposed to a Spliff-declared) smackdown otherwise.

[voodoo]

Nice observations christ but:

The thread starter *has* a sense of humor whereas the rightwing bitches (I name no names) seem to be completely devoid of anything resembling humor -- let alone creativity.

"9. By strict legal definition, there is no injustice as long as its done by the Bush administration. If you disagree, I'll bore you to tears for eight pages of combative irrelevant legalistic nomenclature and semantics until you finally give up."

this is true!

"10. I'll arbitrarily assign a "smackdown" for no apparent reason and declare myself the winner in the argument, therefore you lost."

I'm sorry brainwashed bloodthirsty sheep but there ain't no room for you in nature. No canines see. (no sense of humor either )

[MacGorilla]

9. By strict legal definition, there is no injustice as long as its done by the Bush administration. If you disagree, I'll bore you to tears for eight pages of combative irrelevant legalistic nomenclature and semantics until you finally give up.

So true. There have been times I've read a post in a thread that were so complicated, meandering and outright mental spewage that my eyes glazed over and I went and played Snood instead of trying to navigate the morass of ignorance that it is.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The rules of the debate, per lerkfish:

1. Everything the left posts is presumptively unbiased and accurate. You may not challenge this.

2. You are all Bush apologists. Nothing you say is valid.

3. If you support the Administration, you are brainwashed sheep.

4. If you support this war, it is because you are a bloodthirsty brainwashed sheep.

5. If you disagree with protesters, you are in favor of a Nazi totalitarian state.

6. I reserve the right to call the point of view you espouse all kinds of horrible names, but don't take that personally.

7. No critic of Israel could possibly be anti-Semitic, even the ones who have nothing bad to say about terrorists, ever.

8. Everything is the fault of the Bush Administration. I demand the right to make unsupported assertions to that effect. You do not have the right to disagree.

9. Prong, something or other.

10. I define the parameters of the conversation. Shut up and stop having opinions. (see number 1).

11. I am a neutral detatched observer, even when I am blatantly partisan.

LOL! that's the spirit!

I would however, point out that my list is accurate, and pertains to a group of various people. your list is targeted directly at me and is therefore inaccurate on several points. The main one being that I never claim to be neutral on all issues. I admit my partisanship.

other than that, thanks for playing! that's what I wanted...

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by einmakom:
So #1 means that all sources, no matter where they originate, must be of equal value?

That's wonderful news for the World Weekly Globe, National Enquirer, and IndyMedia- they now have all the cachet and reputability of the NY Times, if we go by that standard.

No, when a news source prints conspiracy theories as truth, or misquotes people with great regularity, it should be considered invalid.

When a source operates from a wildly biased stance, it should be called into question.

Additionally, commentary sites are not news sites, and people should stop trying to pass one off as the other. It makes for a poor-to-invalid argument.

Course the solution is easy- people who use invalid sources to make their arguments run the risk of not being taken seriously.

simey responded in the correct spirit. read his post and see what you come up with.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Joshua:
13. "Prong Two. "

nice try...however, mentioning a theory that I have which MATCHES the events discussed in the thread is not a fallacious misdirection of a topic.

[Spliffdaddy]

*smackdown* nullified.

Lerk has a sense of humor, after all.




I never thought I'd live to see that.

[einmakom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
simey responded in the correct spirit. read his post and see what you come up with.

14. Telling a poster whose response you disagree with that they "aren't responding in the spirit of the thread," and their post and/or beliefs are therefore invalid.

Yep, that's misdirection alright.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by einmakom:
14. Telling a poster whose response you disagree with that they "aren't responding in the spirit of the thread," and their post and/or beliefs are therefore invalid.

Yep, that's misdirection alright.

vmarks didn't have a sense of humour either.

[eklipse]

15. 'It's all Clinton's fault'

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The rules of the debate, per lerkfish:

1. Everything the left posts is presumptively unbiased and accurate. You may not challenge this.

2. You are all Bush apologists. Nothing you say is valid.

3. If you support the Administration, you are brainwashed sheep.

4. If you support this war, it is because you are a bloodthirsty brainwashed sheep.

5. If you disagree with protesters, you are in favor of a Nazi totalitarian state.

6. I reserve the right to call the point of view you espouse all kinds of horrible names, but don't take that personally.

7. No critic of Israel could possibly be anti-Semitic, even the ones who have nothing bad to say about terrorists, ever.

8. Everything is the fault of the Bush Administration. I demand the right to make unsupported assertions to that effect. You do not have the right to disagree.

9. Prong, something or other.

10. I define the parameters of the conversation. Shut up and stop having opinions. (see number 1).

11. I am a neutral detatched observer, even when I am blatantly partisan.

AAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
vmarks didn't have a sense of humour either.

Yeah he should have laughed when he was called a brainwashed Jew.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yeah he should have laughed when he was called a brainwashed Jew.

funny Zimphire!

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The rules of the debate, per lerkfish:

Out of all the infidel scum I know, you're the coolest. Rock on.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
Out of all the infidel scum I know, you're the coolest. Rock on.

maybe you guys can go on a date

[einmakom]

16. When all else fails, post the same post in multiple different threads, because every good lefty knows that repeating something makes it true.

This seems to apply, whether it's calling a President a liar, claiming "it's all about oil," or the identity of a person's username.

17. Whenever possible, blame the victim. This works for terrorism against the US as well as against Israel- remember, all you have to do is ask "yes, but why do they do it?" and never provide any answers. Anyone questions you on it, respond with, "it's just logic!" even if it bears no resemblance to logic.

[eklipse]

18. When your current line of argument fails or is otherwise shot down in flames, switch tactics tirelessly, change your justifications for an action like the wind, because every good righty knows that one badly flawed argument is sure to eventually stick or bore the other side into submission.

This seems to apply, whether it's rationalizing the invasion of Iraq, excusing Israeli barbarianism or ignoring the sad state of the economy.

19. At all costs, become the victim. This works for terrorism against the US as well as against Israel- remember, all you have to do is ignore why people do things and never provide any answers. Anyone questions you on it, respond with, "we are fighting for our survival!" even if this statement bears no resemblance to reality.

[einmakom]

Note: Number 19 only works if you ignore the fact that they ARE fighting for their survival.

In fact, their enemies blatantly state their goal is to wipe them from the face of the earth.

From the Palestinian Authority's official site:
http://www.minfo.gov.ps/demography/english/General.htm

The whole area of Palestine is approximately 27,000 sq.km. Israel exists on 78% of its area. The West Bank territories are 5,970 sq.km. 327sq.km. (the Dead Sea) and is made of 4 topographic areas:

The Jordan Valley

The Eastern Slopes

The Inner Middle Mountains

The shore area (coastal plain)

Gaza�s area is 365 sq.km. on the southern shores of Palestine.
Palestine is located in South-West Asia and is in the heart of the Middle East, on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. To its north are Syria and Lebanon, to its south the Gulf of Aqaba and the Sinai Peninsula, and on its east is Jordan.

Which shows that the Palestinian Authority believes Israel sits on 78% of land they believe meant for a Palestinian country, and intends to take that 78% back, pushing Israel into the sea.

So yes, 19. only works if you keep your blinders firmly in place. But good try!

[christ]

To employ tactic 16, in a different thread I wrote (as yet unanswered) in response to an Alan Dershowitz article posted by einmakom

"I'm not one to quibble with one as eminent as Mr Dershowitz, but to look at this bit:

In 1947, the United Nations partitioned Palestine into two states. The Jewish state of Israel was allocated about half the usable land, an area in which Jews were a substantial majority. The remainder of Palestine - other than the approximately 80% that already had been allocated to Arabs, primarily Palestinians, for the Jordanian state - was to become a new Palestinian State. Although the new Israel consisted of noncontiguous areas and did not include Jerusalem, where nearly 100,000 Jews made their home, Israel accepted this UN-mandated resolution.

What would the US do if "the United Nations [were powerful enough, and] partitioned the US into two states. The state of <pick a minority - maybe 'Native American'> was allocated about half the usable land, an area in which <the chosen minority were well represented> . The remainder of the USA was to become a new American State. Although the new <minority state> consisted of noncontiguous areas and did not include Washington DC, where <some number of the minority> made their home, <the minority> accepted this UN-mandated resolution."

Would the displaced, majority, Americans "accept this UN-mandated resolution", or would they more likely "join together to invade the fledgling <minority> state, declaring a genocidal war."?

My guess is that they would not go meekly into the night, but that they would fight for all their worth, for as long as it took, to overturn the arrogance of the "UN-mandate""

Under these circumstances, what would the displaced Americans do? My guess, again, is that they would (to bowdlerise your post)

"Which shows that the <American State> believes <the minority state> sits on 78% of land they believe meant for a <n American> country, and intends to take that 78% back, pushing <the minority> into the sea."

Israel was created by UN Mandate, and was only possible because the UN was (supported by countries that together were) stronger than Palestine. The UN, as the US has noted, is to be ignored whenever they threaten to become inconvenient. Why does this ability to ignore the UN only apply to the US, and not to Palestine?

[lil'babykitten]

20. When all your arguments are completely smacked down, from all sides, switch usernames and try again.

[christ]

Originally posted by einmakom:
16. When all else fails, post the same post in multiple different threads, because every good lefty knows that repeating something makes it true.

This seems to apply, whether it's ... the identity of a person's username.

Apart from the unnecessary, and unworthy, jab at 'lefties' (I recall 'righties' doing exactly the same in earlier identity discussions), I heartily agree with this sentiment.

If someone wishes to post under multiple usernames, they are probably doing it for a reason. If someone wishes to disassociate themselves from a past username, or to concurrently post with multiple identities, then why not?

We should always treat someone posting with a separate username as a discrete entity, rather than trying to dig out who it may be in disguise.

(Unless, like cash, they are still the same person, and sign themselves so, but are forced by circumstance to change username.)

[Joshua]

21. When you disagree with someone politically, try to "out" them wherever possible. This can be accomplished by linking them to past user names, finding their personal website, or digging through their image server for embarrassing photographs. Make sure to post whatever you find in every single thread.

a. Bonus points if you hide behind your own completely anonymous username while doing this.

[eklipse]

22. When someone criticizes your assessment of a situation, resort to 'bizarre', 'unrealistic', 'outlandish' and 'self-detrimental' arguments to back yourself up. For instance, claiming that a couple of poorly armed, impoverished people with little to no outside support for their methodologies, stands any chance in hell of pushing a well armed, well backed, nuclear power 'into the sea'.

[thunderous_funker]

23. We don't have to argue, we have the guns.

[eklipse]

24. If a source threatens to undermine your argument, discredit the source AT ALL COSTS - throwing out an entire article because of a stray comma is perfectly acceptable.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by eklipse:
24. If a source threatens to undermine your argument, discredit the source AT ALL COSTS - throwing out an entire article because of a stray comma is perfectly acceptable.

Is this why nobody on the left will read any article published in the Telegraph?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by eklipse:
24. If a source threatens to undermine your argument, discredit the source AT ALL COSTS - throwing out an entire article because of a stray comma is perfectly acceptable.

actually, the comma was NOT stray, but was conforming to AP style...so it was definitely a fallacious misdirection since it wasn't wrong in the first place!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
actually, the comma was NOT stray, but was conforming to AP style...so it was definitely a fallacious misdirection since it wasn't wrong in the first place!

The quote, however, was still useless and the analogies strained (in one article to Vietnam, in the other Israel). Typical New York Times agenda-laden crap.

[christ]

And he was only a Lt Col anyway, who cares what he says, comma or no comma. (unless what he says agrees with Simey's world view, in which case he becomes 'a high-ranking military source')

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by christ:
in which case he becomes 'a high-ranking military source')

LTCs are always middle ranking. It's the last field grade rank before the big colonel cut off (only a small percentage of LTCs get selected, most retire at that rank).

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by eklipse:
24. If a source threatens to undermine your argument, discredit the source AT ALL COSTS - throwing out an entire article because of a stray comma is perfectly acceptable.

25. If you're bored and prone to paranoid, conspiracy-minded delusions, drag up an old topic for us to gag at its rotten stench.

[Sven G]

26. Consider any idealistic or unusual argument as "utopian" and an a a priori "impossibility"...

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Is this why nobody on the left will read any article published in the Telegraph?

Iraq faces ethnic conflict on new front after crisis talks fail


I'll willing to read it (although I eschew polarising designations like "leftist"), but it looks like they punctuate quotes the same way.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
but it looks like they punctuate quotes the same way.

OK, I was wrong about that. I'm not a journalist. My training is in another field that isn't so sloppy about direct quotes and which doesn't use "said alice" commentary interweaved with other people's words.

My particular suspicion comes from the fact that if I can't tell how a quote is used, what it was in full, and what the context is, then I can't tell when I'm being manipulated. The New York Times has a particulalry bad reputation for this, hence my instinct to distrust them. That goes double when they go on one of their "it's just like Vietnam/Israel" rants.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
OK, I was wrong about that. I'm not a journalist. My training is in another field that isn't so sloppy about direct quotes and which doesn't use "said alice" commentary interweaved with other people's words.

My particular suspicion comes from the fact that if I can't tell how a quote is used, what it was in full, and what the context is, then I can't tell when I'm being manipulated. The New York Times has a particulalry bad reputation for this, hence my instinct to distrust them. That goes double when they go on one of their "it's just like Vietnam/Israel" rants.

Fair enough, but how can you ever tell what things were in full or what the context was when dealing with media? It seems to me you'll have to interview people yourself to get what you are after. Every single media source and outlet has editors. Who do you trust in the media? I asked this once before, and in all seriousness.

[christ]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Who do you trust in the media?

People that he agrees with.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Fair enough, but how can you ever tell what things were in full or what the context was when dealing with media? It seems to me you'll have to interview people yourself to get what you are after. Every single media source and outlet has editors. Who do you trust in the media? I asked this once before, and in all seriousness.

Who do I trust in the media? Pretty much nobody. To be honest, I have a very low opinion of journalists in general. They amost all strike me as underinformed and shallow, not to mention sloppy and sometimes downright manipulative. Partly I'm sure it is because of the nature of the business and its deadlines. My opinion largely comes from studying primary sources and historian's accounts in college, and then comparing them to journalistic accounts at the time. The two are often very different.

One of the things in recent years that I think has greatly improved things is the internet and other sources that allow people (or at least, those with the time) to access primary sources. That lets you bypass journalists and conventional media altogether. For example, instead of trusting a news media summary of a speech or document, you can go online and read it in its entirety. It's amazing how wrong the journalists often are. The problem is this takes a lot of time that none of us always have. But the other, other problem is that journalists don't seem to have much time either, so it is often the blind leading the blind.

I'll surprise you (since I am a conservative) and tell you that among the people I trust more are government officials. Most of the ones I have come to know are democrats or military, but they have mostly struck me as well informed and dedicated. Far more so than most journalists I have met. Not that there aren't some idiots in government, and stars in journalism.

The above is a personal opinion. However, Lerk will soon decend on me and beat me up for it. He always does whenever I express any opinion about his profession. He'll probably also throw a bomb at lawyers, perhaps assuming (wrongly) that I think that lawyers have the best professional ethics.

[Ayelbourne]

I find these opinions to be quite reasonable, but I wonder where you can find impartial historians. They are editors by nature, as well. And as the saying goes, history is written by the victors. Even eyewitnesses can remember the same event quite differently.

Everyone is a walking screen of perception. I consider reality to be a local phenomenon that occurs when two people get together and agree on something. I guess that's why I find Philip K. Dick's work so fascinating.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
I find these opinions to be quite reasonable, but I wonder where you can find impartial historians.

You can't find impartial historians. It's just that the nature of academic writing forces them to disclose their sources more (i.e. in footnotes, endnotes, and bibliographies). Plus, the works are usually peer-reviewed.

This doesn't help us in our daily lives with breaking news because the process takes too long. But when those sources are available, that's where I'd rather look. In the mean time, I'll look for primary sources wherever possible, and read any journalist's account with a healthy dose of skepticism -- especially if the source already has a reputation for dodgyness (e.g, but not exclusively, anything by Robert Fisk or the New York Times, or for that matter, the Washington Times).