Debate and Discussion

The Nature of the Beast: A Rant on Debate
Evil Emperor Nick at 12:11PM, Aug. 16, 2007
(offline)
posts: 395
joined: 1-16-2006
Look I don't want to get into another microcosm debate of what is raging all over the place so please bear with me when I use polical examples as I explain myself here if you will be so kind. If I am inserting my opinion unfairly or misinterperate I appalogize in advance. My point is not to any one discuss but rather the nature of discussion and the state it is in today. I admite to writing this for myself to crystalize my own thoughts if anyone finds this to be self indulgant they are correct but I truely hope it is also more then that and that you the reader will benefit from my essay written mostly to myself.

I was on a whim reading the debate thread about Victory in Iraq and people were getting quite worked about it and who was twisting who's word and everyone was throwing “facts” around. (Facts, true or misinformation, are almost always wed at the hip with interpritation of them and opinions which is only just and fair. After all if we can't express our interpritations and opinions we are not really talking, however often times we mix or present these opinions as fact which is a bad habit that is very popular these days.)

Anyway one side was arguing the popular arguement that some Americans actually want the US to loose the war for various reasons, while the other was pushing back and pressing the case the war was a mistake/mishandled etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. and so on and so forth.

You see it seemed to me there was a good deal of the argument spawning from people's failure to define themeselves to the other side in a definite and logical manner. Not to say they were not clear but in a debate on side seeks out ambiguities in the arguement and exploits them and the other side must then restate to further define itself. It is really the nature of beast the vast majority of the time. To me I was rather surprised no one asked “Wouldn't it be fair to say some people define Victory as getting the troops out of Iraq?” IE: Of course both sides want victory but it seemed to me they define victory worlds apart. After that it seems to be once you've clearly established both sides and no one in the arguement is really ready to concede you really are at the point to either agree to disagree to just chase each other around in circles of argument questioning the others sense & patriotism and this seems to happen all the time. At some point, usually on the first page, somewhere everything has been pretty much said outlining the arguement and then it is just both sides digging in and accussing the other of not seeing fact or twisting their words. Nothing seems to come out of it except bad feelings toward other members of the community which in my mind is exact opposite of how a good conversation should end.

I mean I love debate to the point of really enjoying simply taking up a side contrary to my view point and forcing myself to really examine it and construct and arguement in favor of it so I can debate someone with a view point to similar to my own to do anything but mindlessly agree. However despite all that I'm at to the point of apathy to most forms debate and arguement. I see it as tool of enlightenment and part of that is accepting when you & your opponents opinion has been formed from the facts really there is nothing further to be said on the subject particular on forums. People don't seem willing to accept that other even when present with all the facts may (no matter how ‘right’ or how ‘wrong’ they are) still may form opinions opposite to your own based on their life experiences. (Though of course some will mearly cling to half truth as is also human nature to support them but this is to say not all people cling to have truths and some form honest yet opposite opinions.)

As I've started to grow up I've found at some points in my life I had solid unchangeable (in all honestly even though in theory no opinion should be truely unchangeable to have an open mind which is key for honest conversation) opinions I had formed based truely and honestly off facts. Yet I had developed the opinions based off of my life experiences, and while facts can be shared experiences never really can. (Though sometimes we can give a partial glimps to other then need some common refernce to spring board off of which is the goal of most liturature.) As I had new life experiences my opinions changed even though the facts as I knew them had not. It seems we (we in the sense of the majority of people online) are very unwilling to accept that people's life experiences have shaped them differently and that perhaps they will simply have to experience more before or even if they will change (and the persuit of new constructive experiences because of the effect they have on us could be a whole topic unto itself). This seems to give rise to a lot or ire and cynism in people when it comes to approaching these discussions. So few approach wanting to learn and instead come to try and change your mind which often times is very heavy handed and somewhat arrogant to think of ourselves and able to over turn a life time of experience with a handful a words. Really all we can hope to do is bring to light facts people may or may not know and explain why we formed our opinions.

I'm almost to the point of agreeing with Socrates who belived that writing was a fundimentally flawed form of communication when it comes to such ideas. Socrates felt there was to much interpritation put on the reader in the written word and that spoken word was superion because one could more easily understand how one's message was being taken and clerify what one's messsage truly it as opposed to just the words that he or she is saying.

There is a quote which I belive has some wisdom in it that goes “The truth is not in what you say but in the impression you create in the minds of others.” though I would say it is better stated “Your message is not in what you say but the impression you create in the minds of others.”

In short I am troubled for I would love to have honest conversation but have no desire to throw myself into the current sea of seething arguement for the sake of arguement. I've tried to do so before and I've found the whole thing to be very counter productive and really harmful. I've found such angry debate to be highly polarizing, honestly I find it very hard to keep an open mind when some is attacking your opinion rather the examining it. My, and I belive most people's, first reaction is not to question one's opinion but to sink deeper into it and become emotionally attached to it when attacked and having my opinions over shadowed by emotion is not a good place to be since, often, we are blind to our emotions even though they maybe obvious to others. How often do we admite disapointment in a political figure inwardly but continue to defend them because we are emotionally attached to the fact we had picked them and don't want to question our own judgement and wisdom, further so often we become obsessed with the person rather then the specific policies which are what we really should strive to change rather then the figure themselves.

For example I admite to being very biter about John Edwards. When he first appeared as a running for the presidency I really pinned my hopes on him. I really though he was going be the candiate I had been hoping for in the 2004 election, yet as it dragged on the more of I saw of him the less I began to like him until the point I felt very betrayed when in my view threw away his better self to become the “perfect” Vice Presidential candiate for the Kerry Ticket. He was playing the game of course like we all do but I rather took that personally. I had like him and now I felt slighted by him. To this day I am aware that I am more critical of Edwards then I am of others largely do to this emotion sour spot which shouldn't keep me from honestly evaluating his policies. After all I did once find several of his policies to be very positive.

Now truely this isn't really anything new. After all if such discussions were always Civil we wouldn't have Civil Wars would we? Countries would just agree to disagree and go their seperate ways. Yet we all know that isn't the case, in fact it wasn't so long ago that politician brought funs and knives into congresses and parlament in case a debate ever became too spirited. In fact it is fair to say this is normal and even aware of these facts I lament I often become one of the over zelous debaters I point out. I however have never been satisfied with normal. I submit this to you not as an indiment of anyone's political vigor and their enthusiasm. I would be the largest of hyprocrites to hold myself as even slightly better then anyone our debate forum and I am probably a good deal worse then some of our cooler head. Instead I offer this as simply food for thought and the reflections of one indvidual who really love the unattainable pure spirit of conversation.

PS: Please forgive my spelling I did this on my lunch break without benefit of a spell check program.

last edited on July 14, 2011 12:23PM
SpANG at 12:59PM, Aug. 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 3,105
joined: 1-1-2006
When you start a thread with a deviously UNbalanced title, I don't know what else one can expect.
“To a rational mind, nothing is inexplicable. Only unexplained.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:52PM
Evil Emperor Nick at 1:04PM, Aug. 16, 2007
(offline)
posts: 395
joined: 1-16-2006
What one expect, what one wants, what actually happens, and what the goal should be are all often totally different things.

last edited on July 14, 2011 12:23PM
StaceyMontgomery at 2:59PM, Aug. 16, 2007
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
I enjoy debate because I like to make sure that I'm always testing my assumptions. After all, in the course of my life, I've changed my mind from time to time. Since it could happen again, I like to make sure that I'm keeping track of what i do and don't think. A good debate is very helpful that way, i think.

Of course, on-line debates have their own odd patterns and paces. They can be interesting and they can be frustrating. They can quickly devolve into squabbles. I mean, that can happen with any debate, but on-line debates are, by their nature, “tone deaf.” That is, generally, everyone in an on-line debate is misreading the tone of all the other writers. At least, that's what I think. Of course, we all think that this applies to everyone but ourselves…

Of course, if you're into on-line debates because you think you can change other people's minds, you're probably in for a lot of dissapointment…

last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
Ronson at 6:40PM, Aug. 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
There are sites out there that do professional debates. That isn't what this part of the forum is for.

This is like sitting on the back porch with a few friends and talking about things … with the added benefit of source material and funny videos. It isn't something anyone gets scored on, and there is ultimately no winner.

But what they hey, it's a good way to blow off some steam.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
mapaghimagsik at 8:51PM, Aug. 16, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
There's debate, and there's pushing an agenda. I see more agenda pushing than debate – which is true for almost every medium these days. I can supply lots of anecdotal evidence where people in the corporate world have genuine pushed the idea that perception – the perception of what was true – was far more important that what was true. I'm not saying they were right or wrong, but the concept of settling on an answer when there wasn't one was unsettling to me.

It almost seemed like giving in.

Even the very “serious” thinkers talk about Framing, and how the Frame is more important than the debate. The idea is that people are very lazy thinkers – and not necessarily with all the negative connotation that goes into the term “lazy”. It has to do with efficiency.

Its why marketing works, and marketing is many times cheaper than the facts.

I don't see anything inherantly wrong with it, but it does mean we're not good at the boiling frog problem. Global Warming is a problem, but because its not immediately quantifyable, and there's a lot of money involved, we don't do anything at all, and merely battle out re-framing the argument.

You can see it on many news debates – the people stick to their talking points.

Anyway, I don't mean to derail. I think the whole framing debate thing is useless in terms of actually achieving consensus, but I also know I do it myself at times.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
TnTComic at 5:21AM, Aug. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
I was recently in a pretty heated debate at the PvP forums concerning the practice of public shaming. It went on for quite some time, but my point is that there is a basic formula for debate that should be followed, and usually isn't.

1. Make your opinion known.
2. Provide examples that back up your opinion.

Now, anything beyond that is fine, so long as those two conditions are met. That's just how I sees it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
mapaghimagsik at 10:43AM, Aug. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
TnTComic
I was recently in a pretty heated debate at the PvP forums concerning the practice of public shaming. It went on for quite some time, but my point is that there is a basic formula for debate that should be followed, and usually isn't.

1. Make your opinion known.
2. Provide examples that back up your opinion.

Now, anything beyond that is fine, so long as those two conditions are met. That's just how I sees it.

I agree that's a fine start. Though you do have certain quarters that love to cherry pick data. Its in the fine tradition of our administration so I guess its now what we expect out of civilized discourse.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Rori at 1:46PM, Aug. 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 471
joined: 12-3-2006
Honestly, I think one of the problems is that many people lose sight of the fact that this is a mixed forum, with lots of different levels of debate experience and expectations. Some people just want to give their opinion based on feelings, you can't really argue with that. Some people want a structured formal debate. Still some just want to mouth off or feel big (though that isn't nearly as bad here as other places), and all things inbetween those. Some people think a fallacy is a penis.

It can be frustrating when you're not getting what you want out of a debate, or think others are misunderstanding you. It's natural to lash out, but a bit of restraint is good in that situation. I guess I'm saying a little bit of overall understanding would go a long way. I try to be restrained, you know, for the kids.

last edited on July 14, 2011 3:11PM
mapaghimagsik at 2:16PM, Aug. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Agreed Rori, but I also think people forget how much power they really have – and that bleating out any old opinion can be detrimental. Mind you, it depends on the subject matter. I don't think all carry the same weight.

The Op-Ed page of the New York Times cannot just blather on about killing because 1) Its completely irresponsible and 2) people actually value those opinions, and some moron might actually take that as a green light to go kill said group.



last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
TitanOne at 4:25PM, Aug. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 199
joined: 5-12-2007
It's the Internet–almost no one debates in a civil fashion. Instead it's always, to paraphrase Johnny Cash, “a kickin' and a gougin' in the mud, and the blood, and the beer.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:30PM
mapaghimagsik at 6:22PM, Aug. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
That is not always the case, in my experience.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Mak at 6:51PM, Aug. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 41
joined: 8-5-2007
mapaghimagsik
I agree that's a fine start. Though you do have certain quarters that love to cherry pick data. Its in the fine tradition of our administration so I guess its now what we expect out of civilized discourse.

Interesting that you pick out “our administration” as one that love to cherry pick data. As opposed to previous administrations that wanted to quibble about the definition of the word is. In my experience, almost everyone cherry picks the data that fits their own conclusions/ends. It is part of what makes me sick of the political world. No one ever tells to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, they only state what they need to state to get what they want.
I'm a ex-DAT, which means all ya'll are crunchies, and I swing a mean hammer.

Rule 37 should be made rule 1

The civilized would should be ashamed, what good is power if you do not stop things like Darfur??
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:50PM
ozoneocean at 7:04PM, Aug. 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,008
joined: 1-2-2004
Mak
As opposed to previous administrations that wanted to quibble about the definition of the word is.
Mak
No one ever tells to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”
But just what is truth? Who's truth? Is my “truth” even the same as yours? lol!

What I hate are people who're just out for a fight, they go in aggressive and make it personal! I hate it even more when I think I've done that myself. :(

I also hate fools who quote dictionary definitions as if that gives some guide to the nature of reality. Again though, I hate that even more when I do it myself :(

 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:27PM
Mak at 7:27PM, Aug. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 41
joined: 8-5-2007
ozoneocean
Mak
As opposed to previous administrations that wanted to quibble about the definition of the word is.
Mak
No one ever tells to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”
But just what is truth? Who's truth? Is my “truth” even the same as yours? lol!

What I hate are people who're just out for a fight, they go in aggressive and make it personal! I hate it even more when I think I've done that myself. :(

I also hate fools who quote dictionary definitions as if that gives some guide to the nature of reality. Again though, I hate that even more when I do it myself :(



Truth is like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder, although I'm not sure which eye, (I've always thought it was the third stalk from the left)
Seriously, I think that history has taught us that truth is whatever the winner of the fight says it is. Sad but that's usually how it is.
I'm a ex-DAT, which means all ya'll are crunchies, and I swing a mean hammer.

Rule 37 should be made rule 1

The civilized would should be ashamed, what good is power if you do not stop things like Darfur??
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:50PM
mapaghimagsik at 7:32PM, Aug. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Mak
mapaghimagsik
I agree that's a fine start. Though you do have certain quarters that love to cherry pick data. Its in the fine tradition of our administration so I guess its now what we expect out of civilized discourse.

Interesting that you pick out “our administration” as one that love to cherry pick data. As opposed to previous administrations that wanted to quibble about the definition of the word is. In my experience, almost everyone cherry picks the data that fits their own conclusions/ends. It is part of what makes me sick of the political world. No one ever tells to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, they only state what they need to state to get what they want.


To a large degree, I agree with you. Politicians love to frame things in the best/worst possible light.

there's that. And then there's out and out lying. “Our”, which might not be “your” administration, has taken this to new highs and lows, lying about everything from the runup to the war, to having government funded infomercials to push dubious medicare plans through. The deception has been taken to the Nth degree, to the point we've taken American citizens, stripped them of their rights, tortured them to the point of madness and then had kangroo court trials to make the whole process ‘valid’

This isn't about a white lie like, “No, that dress doesn't make you look fat.” This is more along the lie of “Yes, your husband is cheating on you, so you won't mind if I kill him.”

So to say, that “I was thinking of you, dear” is the same as “Yes, that spinach is safe, I had some myself” is a bit of a false equivalence.

Its also a technique. If you give up on the truth, and give up on the political process entirely, that's one *more* vote from a thinking voter – one who would be concerned about the truth – they don't have to worry about.


Wish I had better news.

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Mak at 7:41PM, Aug. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 41
joined: 8-5-2007
mapaghimagsik
Mak
mapaghimagsik
I agree that's a fine start. Though you do have certain quarters that love to cherry pick data. Its in the fine tradition of our administration so I guess its now what we expect out of civilized discourse.

Interesting that you pick out “our administration” as one that love to cherry pick data. As opposed to previous administrations that wanted to quibble about the definition of the word is. In my experience, almost everyone cherry picks the data that fits their own conclusions/ends. It is part of what makes me sick of the political world. No one ever tells to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, they only state what they need to state to get what they want.


To a large degree, I agree with you. Politicians love to frame things in the best/worst possible light.

there's that. And then there's out and out lying. “Our”, which might not be “your” administration, has taken this to new highs and lows, lying about everything from the runup to the war, to having government funded infomercials to push dubious medicare plans through. The deception has been taken to the Nth degree, to the point we've taken American citizens, stripped them of their rights, tortured them to the point of madness and then had kangroo court trials to make the whole process ‘valid’

This isn't about a white lie like, “No, that dress doesn't make you look fat.” This is more along the lie of “Yes, your husband is cheating on you, so you won't mind if I kill him.”

So to say, that “I was thinking of you, dear” is the same as “Yes, that spinach is safe, I had some myself” is a bit of a false equivalence.

Its also a technique. If you give up on the truth, and give up on the political process entirely, that's one *more* vote from a thinking voter – one who would be concerned about the truth – they don't have to worry about.


Wish I had better news.


We have the same administration. I would like to know exactly what lies during the run up to the war are you talking about. I admit the current administration lies, they all do it's the nature of the beast. The problem is that the people who crave power are the people who crave power. The people who do not crave power are the ones who should be in charge but they are not. It is always a money game. Always. That is why I hate our political system. No one really says what they mean, they just say what the sheep want to hear on occasion, but mostly they talk about how screwed up the other side is. They all lie. None of them can be trusted. At least in a dictatorship you know the deal and there is less bs.
I'm a ex-DAT, which means all ya'll are crunchies, and I swing a mean hammer.

Rule 37 should be made rule 1

The civilized would should be ashamed, what good is power if you do not stop things like Darfur??
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:50PM
mapaghimagsik at 9:06PM, Aug. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Mak
mapaghimagsik
Mak
mapaghimagsik
I agree that's a fine start. Though you do have certain quarters that love to cherry pick data. Its in the fine tradition of our administration so I guess its now what we expect out of civilized discourse.

Interesting that you pick out “our administration” as one that love to cherry pick data. As opposed to previous administrations that wanted to quibble about the definition of the word is. In my experience, almost everyone cherry picks the data that fits their own conclusions/ends. It is part of what makes me sick of the political world. No one ever tells to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, they only state what they need to state to get what they want.


To a large degree, I agree with you. Politicians love to frame things in the best/worst possible light.

there's that. And then there's out and out lying. “Our”, which might not be “your” administration, has taken this to new highs and lows, lying about everything from the runup to the war, to having government funded infomercials to push dubious medicare plans through. The deception has been taken to the Nth degree, to the point we've taken American citizens, stripped them of their rights, tortured them to the point of madness and then had kangroo court trials to make the whole process ‘valid’

This isn't about a white lie like, “No, that dress doesn't make you look fat.” This is more along the lie of “Yes, your husband is cheating on you, so you won't mind if I kill him.”

So to say, that “I was thinking of you, dear” is the same as “Yes, that spinach is safe, I had some myself” is a bit of a false equivalence.

Its also a technique. If you give up on the truth, and give up on the political process entirely, that's one *more* vote from a thinking voter – one who would be concerned about the truth – they don't have to worry about.


Wish I had better news.


We have the same administration. I would like to know exactly what lies during the run up to the war are you talking about. I admit the current administration lies, they all do it's the nature of the beast. The problem is that the people who crave power are the people who crave power. The people who do not crave power are the ones who should be in charge but they are not. It is always a money game. Always. That is why I hate our political system. No one really says what they mean, they just say what the sheep want to hear on occasion, but mostly they talk about how screwed up the other side is. They all lie. None of them can be trusted. At least in a dictatorship you know the deal and there is less bs.


I'm a little confused. First you ask me for specifics, which, no offense, but I roll my eyes at. Its a common debate technique to try and force burden of proof on the asserter even when the information is merely a google away. Since forcing someone to turn up sources which will be never read to force a discussion to end such a time honored technique in internet debate, its hard not to wonder if your question is genuine. But then you acknowledge they lie. So I hope you can see where I get a little lost, and appreciate the fact I'm setting aside my normal disdain to actually try and answer. Just as you feel every politician lies, I have this urge that every person who asks me for sources that are readily available is a fucknut of the highest order. Present company excluded, of course. So in the best spirit, and if you're willing to read along, lets play:

So I'll start with the sixteen words which were based on obvious forgeries from Niger. The administration repeated the lie from Italy to their own advantage. The didn't do due diligence, and happily parrot the lie.

I hope that makes sense. Its probably the most criminal lie that I can think of. As a matter of fact, its one of the best ways to lie. Get someone to tell you the lie, and then you “believe” it, even though anyone with at least some brains would have known the forgeries to be false. Now you're not a liar, you're just a dupe.

Then there's the “Iraq is going to take six weeks, tops” which came from Donald Rumsfeld. Even Dick Cheney in 1994 said that taking Bagdhad would be a “quagmire”. He won't explain what changed between then and now, especially since his analysis previously was correct, and his current assessment of the situation is dubious at best.

Then there's the idea that Medicare D would save everyone money. The administration broke a rule to run that infomercial, but it was a ruling without consequences or teeth.

Then there's the obvious, blatant, “We don't torture” When we're using techniques right out of the KGB playbook. We're torturing. The Russians now understand where we're coming from and getting back on to a cold war footing.

Then there's the endless cycles of “six more months”

These aren't little lies, and they are getting innocent Iraqis killed who probably should have never been killed at all. There's not doing civilian body counts and then citing a “reduction in voilence” because the numbers are lower. Then when people ask, they lowball the general concensus of deaths.

Then there's the lies about how we “found” weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when all we find are ancient shells without valid chemicals in them.

Then there's the mobile germ labs, which have never been found.

Then there's the lie of weapons coming from Iran. Its not that I don't think there are weapons coming from Iran but they want to say its the government supplying them, so we should start bombing immediately. We don't have proof yet, they just want to expand the war.

Lets talk about McCain, walking through a Baghdad market, talking about how safe it is when he's escorted by more than a hundred marines and a few helicopters. They talked about how safe the market was, when it was attacked by suicide bombers the day after McCain made his little press show.

Lets talk about the toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein, which was photgraphed to look like great jubilation and the Iraqi people pulling down the statue, when it was a bunch of flown in supporters.

Lets talk about the “Bin Laden Determined to Attack America” memo, which was *handed* to Rice, who then said, “No one could have guessed people were going to fly planes into the world trade center” when 1) The world trade center had been attacked before and 2) There was that memo handed to Bush by Harriet Meijers, who conveniently forgets it exists.

Lets talk about Rice talking about Iraq revitalizing its nuclear program when *all* evidence pulled out indicates the nuclear program was *dead*. Lets talk about proving that Iraq doesn't have WMD, when we have already lost 30% of the weapons we gave to the Iraqi security forces. If that's not a lie, I'm sure you can see the hypocracy that's present.

Lets talk about Bush who said explicitly he doesn't do Nation Building.

On the home front, there's Katrina. “No one could have expected the levies” to collapse, when a very simple search shows the condition of the levies was questionable. There's also the rampant misinformation about behavior of the people of the stadium in New Orleans. But that's part of the Big Lie {TM} which bring in our lovely traditional media. Then there was Bush saying Catherine Blanco didn't ask for help when she asked for it, when the documentation showed that to be bs as well.

I long for the days when presidents lie about blowjobs, okay? Please, lie to me about sex! This is getting a lot of people killed, and unless you're someone who can easily say “Well, its just Iraqis” then I would think that should disturb some portion of that thing that so many deists like to call a soul.

So I've been following this a long time. Yes, few say what they mean, and in the end, we've been duped for a very, very long time. But to say lying about an extra marital affair (point to note, some of the most virulent critics of Clinton's affair were either buying hookers or having affairs with their wives dying of cancer) is the same as this current administration is just… wrong. Its intellectually dishonest, and while I can share your disappointment at the fact the truth is a rubbery thing, what is going on now is beyond the pale.

Sorry for the typos.

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Rori at 9:15PM, Aug. 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 471
joined: 12-3-2006
mapaghimagsik
Agreed Rori, but I also think people forget how much power they really have – and that bleating out any old opinion can be detrimental. Mind you, it depends on the subject matter. I don't think all carry the same weight.

The Op-Ed page of the New York Times cannot just blather on about killing because 1) Its completely irresponsible and 2) people actually value those opinions, and some moron might actually take that as a green light to go kill said group.


I think I know what you're saying. It is irresponsible and immature to spread rumors and lies, whether intentional or not, but the DD forum isn't the NYT. People reading it have a responsibility to question what they read (they do with the msm, too, btw). If you believe everything you read on the forums, I have this bridge to sell…
Anyhow, I think it can still be pointed out politely that said person is full of the bull, beyond that, well, some people (like our hypothetical moron) are a lost cause, and even the most stringent standard won't get rid of that. Sad as that may be. I just try to ignore those people, kinda like you ignore it when someone farts in the art museum.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:11PM
mapaghimagsik at 9:23PM, Aug. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Rori
mapaghimagsik
Agreed Rori, but I also think people forget how much power they really have – and that bleating out any old opinion can be detrimental. Mind you, it depends on the subject matter. I don't think all carry the same weight.

The Op-Ed page of the New York Times cannot just blather on about killing because 1) Its completely irresponsible and 2) people actually value those opinions, and some moron might actually take that as a green light to go kill said group.


I think I know what you're saying. It is irresponsible and immature to spread rumors and lies, whether intentional or not, but the DD forum isn't the NYT. People reading it have a responsibility to question what they read

yeah well, maybe you should think about …

(they do with the msm, too, btw).

uh, nevermind, you got it.

If you believe everything you read on the forums, I have this bridge to sell…
Anyhow, I think it can still be pointed out politely that said person is full of the bull, beyond that, well, some people (like our hypothetical moron) are a lost cause, and even the most stringent standard won't get rid of that. Sad as that may be. I just try to ignore those people, kinda like you ignore it when someone farts in the art museum.

Well, I won't bore you *too* much with memes. I'm sure you already know about them. There's this idea that standing back and letting idiots be idiots, and justify sending people to a war they don't have the balls to fight themselves – well those people are doing damage.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Rori at 9:30PM, Aug. 17, 2007
(online)
posts: 471
joined: 12-3-2006
Um…did I miss something? I thought we were talking about people on the forums being childish and ill-informed and ways of dealing with that?

edit: also, are you being sarcastic/condescending to me, or am I reading this wrong?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:11PM
mapaghimagsik at 10:35PM, Aug. 17, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
Rori
Um…did I miss something? I thought we were talking about people on the forums being childish and ill-informed and ways of dealing with that?

edit: also, are you being sarcastic/condescending to me, or am I reading this wrong?

I didn't mean to be. Doesn't mean I couldn't have couched my language better.

I think I was trying to tackle this sub-issue that I felt was creeping in that somehow, our opinions don't have much impact, therefore we can say whatevah.

But it is a sub issue, so feel free to ignore moi :D

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Mak at 5:51AM, Aug. 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 41
joined: 8-5-2007
mapaghimagsik
Mak
mapaghimagsik
Mak
mapaghimagsik
I agree that's a fine start. Though you do have certain quarters that love to cherry pick data. Its in the fine tradition of our administration so I guess its now what we expect out of civilized discourse.

Interesting that you pick out “our administration” as one that love to cherry pick data. As opposed to previous administrations that wanted to quibble about the definition of the word is. In my experience, almost everyone cherry picks the data that fits their own conclusions/ends. It is part of what makes me sick of the political world. No one ever tells to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”, they only state what they need to state to get what they want.


To a large degree, I agree with you. Politicians love to frame things in the best/worst possible light.

there's that. And then there's out and out lying. “Our”, which might not be “your” administration, has taken this to new highs and lows, lying about everything from the runup to the war, to having government funded infomercials to push dubious medicare plans through. The deception has been taken to the Nth degree, to the point we've taken American citizens, stripped them of their rights, tortured them to the point of madness and then had kangroo court trials to make the whole process ‘valid’

This isn't about a white lie like, “No, that dress doesn't make you look fat.” This is more along the lie of “Yes, your husband is cheating on you, so you won't mind if I kill him.”

So to say, that “I was thinking of you, dear” is the same as “Yes, that spinach is safe, I had some myself” is a bit of a false equivalence.

Its also a technique. If you give up on the truth, and give up on the political process entirely, that's one *more* vote from a thinking voter – one who would be concerned about the truth – they don't have to worry about.


Wish I had better news.


We have the same administration. I would like to know exactly what lies during the run up to the war are you talking about. I admit the current administration lies, they all do it's the nature of the beast. The problem is that the people who crave power are the people who crave power. The people who do not crave power are the ones who should be in charge but they are not. It is always a money game. Always. That is why I hate our political system. No one really says what they mean, they just say what the sheep want to hear on occasion, but mostly they talk about how screwed up the other side is. They all lie. None of them can be trusted. At least in a dictatorship you know the deal and there is less bs.


I'm a little confused. First you ask me for specifics, which, no offense, but I roll my eyes at. Its a common debate technique to try and force burden of proof on the asserter even when the information is merely a google away. Since forcing someone to turn up sources which will be never read to force a discussion to end such a time honored technique in internet debate, its hard not to wonder if your question is genuine. But then you acknowledge they lie. So I hope you can see where I get a little lost, and appreciate the fact I'm setting aside my normal disdain to actually try and answer. Just as you feel every politician lies, I have this urge that every person who asks me for sources that are readily available is a fucknut of the highest order. Present company excluded, of course. So in the best spirit, and if you're willing to read along, lets play:

So I'll start with the sixteen words which were based on obvious forgeries from Niger. The administration repeated the lie from Italy to their own advantage. The didn't do due diligence, and happily parrot the lie.

I hope that makes sense. Its probably the most criminal lie that I can think of. As a matter of fact, its one of the best ways to lie. Get someone to tell you the lie, and then you “believe” it, even though anyone with at least some brains would have known the forgeries to be false. Now you're not a liar, you're just a dupe.

Then there's the “Iraq is going to take six weeks, tops” which came from Donald Rumsfeld. Even Dick Cheney in 1994 said that taking Bagdhad would be a “quagmire”. He won't explain what changed between then and now, especially since his analysis previously was correct, and his current assessment of the situation is dubious at best.

Then there's the idea that Medicare D would save everyone money. The administration broke a rule to run that infomercial, but it was a ruling without consequences or teeth.

Then there's the obvious, blatant, “We don't torture” When we're using techniques right out of the KGB playbook. We're torturing. The Russians now understand where we're coming from and getting back on to a cold war footing.

Then there's the endless cycles of “six more months”

These aren't little lies, and they are getting innocent Iraqis killed who probably should have never been killed at all. There's not doing civilian body counts and then citing a “reduction in voilence” because the numbers are lower. Then when people ask, they lowball the general concensus of deaths.

Then there's the lies about how we “found” weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when all we find are ancient shells without valid chemicals in them.

Then there's the mobile germ labs, which have never been found.

Then there's the lie of weapons coming from Iran. Its not that I don't think there are weapons coming from Iran but they want to say its the government supplying them, so we should start bombing immediately. We don't have proof yet, they just want to expand the war.

Lets talk about McCain, walking through a Baghdad market, talking about how safe it is when he's escorted by more than a hundred marines and a few helicopters. They talked about how safe the market was, when it was attacked by suicide bombers the day after McCain made his little press show.

Lets talk about the toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein, which was photgraphed to look like great jubilation and the Iraqi people pulling down the statue, when it was a bunch of flown in supporters.

Lets talk about the “Bin Laden Determined to Attack America” memo, which was *handed* to Rice, who then said, “No one could have guessed people were going to fly planes into the world trade center” when 1) The world trade center had been attacked before and 2) There was that memo handed to Bush by Harriet Meijers, who conveniently forgets it exists.

Lets talk about Rice talking about Iraq revitalizing its nuclear program when *all* evidence pulled out indicates the nuclear program was *dead*. Lets talk about proving that Iraq doesn't have WMD, when we have already lost 30% of the weapons we gave to the Iraqi security forces. If that's not a lie, I'm sure you can see the hypocracy that's present.

Lets talk about Bush who said explicitly he doesn't do Nation Building.

On the home front, there's Katrina. “No one could have expected the levies” to collapse, when a very simple search shows the condition of the levies was questionable. There's also the rampant misinformation about behavior of the people of the stadium in New Orleans. But that's part of the Big Lie {TM} which bring in our lovely traditional media. Then there was Bush saying Catherine Blanco didn't ask for help when she asked for it, when the documentation showed that to be bs as well.

I long for the days when presidents lie about blowjobs, okay? Please, lie to me about sex! This is getting a lot of people killed, and unless you're someone who can easily say “Well, its just Iraqis” then I would think that should disturb some portion of that thing that so many deists like to call a soul.

So I've been following this a long time. Yes, few say what they mean, and in the end, we've been duped for a very, very long time. But to say lying about an extra marital affair (point to note, some of the most virulent critics of Clinton's affair were either buying hookers or having affairs with their wives dying of cancer) is the same as this current administration is just… wrong. Its intellectually dishonest, and while I can share your disappointment at the fact the truth is a rubbery thing, what is going on now is beyond the pale.

Sorry for the typos.



I would concede almost all of those to you. Except the WMD/Chemical Weapon thing. We know Iraq had chemical weapons, they used them on their own people. And anyone who thinks that Saddam would have “forgotten” how to make them is delusional. I also don't care about the use of torture on terrorists. There really is no way for me to describe how much I do not care.

Now about Katrina, did the Bush administration build the levees? Because if they did then I could see how they were to blame for their failing. But since they didn't I think it is a little bit juvenile to blame them.

The Russians are getting back on cold war footing because Putin has seen the writing on the wall, and does not want to be the leader of an insignificant eastern European country. The only way he can bring Russia back into “power” is by selling his soul to the Chinese.

Anyone who thought Iraq would just take six months is stupid. And I can guarantee you that no one in the armed forces believed that. Just like we did not believe President Clinton when he told us we would only be in Bosnia for a year. That was more than ten years ago.

I agree with you that the Bush Administration lied about going to war in Iraq. But why did they lie? (truthfully they lied because it was the easiest way to get what they wanted but please let me have my fantasy) They lied because this country would never accept the fact that we were going to war to do two things, First and foremost, to secure a supply of middle eastern oil by having an “ally” (you can call a puppet an ally right?) nation in control of it. Secondly we had to clean up our mess. We supported Saddam in the 70's/80's because he was fighting Iran. We also abandoned the Kurds after telling them we would support them if they rose against Saddam. We stood by and watched Saddam slaughter them. All that aside, I don't care why we went to war. We are attempting to give the nation of Iraq freedom and the ability to determine where they want to go for themselves. I believe that it is our responsibility as a free nation to do the same for every country we can.

I would like to apologize for hijacking this thread, and I will shut up now.
I'm a ex-DAT, which means all ya'll are crunchies, and I swing a mean hammer.

Rule 37 should be made rule 1

The civilized would should be ashamed, what good is power if you do not stop things like Darfur??
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:50PM
TnTComic at 8:03AM, Aug. 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Mak
I would concede almost all of those to you. Except the WMD/Chemical Weapon thing. We know Iraq had chemical weapons, they used them on their own people. And anyone who thinks that Saddam would have “forgotten” how to make them is delusional. I also don't care about the use of torture on terrorists. There really is no way for me to describe how much I do not care.

He didn't make ‘em, he bought ’em. Our name is on top of the receipt. That's how we knew he HAD them. Which is different from the bill of goods we were sold, which is that he HAD them. Past tense, present tense. I've had chicken pox, but I don't have chicken pox. The fellows in charge told us that he had them, and they knew where they were. Well both were false. To date, none have been found.

Now, if I told you that my neighbor had a hundred machine guns and was dangerous, and the authorities went in there and didn't fine ONE… what would you call me?

The thing that bugs me about the whole Saddam thing is he was very useful to use. He had a secular nation, we had dealt with him in the past with regard to supporting him in the effort to put pressure on his less-than-stable neighbors. He was a bad guy to his own people, but we never really gave a damn about that. He didn't support terrorists, in fact he hated ‘em, because they were something his people might support more than Saddam. He was a solid guy for us. Yeah, he did the Kuwait thing, which we wacked him with a rolled-up paper for, but then it was back to business as usual. Saddam and Iraq were very dependable to the United States.

And then 9-11 happens. If we had caught Bin Laden in Afghanistan, that may have been enough for us. But we didn’t catch him. So now what? The administration can't look weak on terror! (really, isn't that about the dumbest line you've ever heard?) So they have to do something else. But what? What can they do, so that it looks like they're doing something? Easy. Set up a patsy. But who to pick? Run through the middle east, its leaders, its people, et cetera. The choice was obvious. So from there it was trump trump trump. This is why I never bought the “oil” argument at all. And its also why i'm so angry about the war. The war in Iraq was sold to us as being in the best interests of our safety, but has done nothing but make us less safe. It has always been this way, which is why I was bitching about it back when people like Anne Coulter were calling people like me “traitors”.

Sorry Anne, i'm actually interested in preventing terrorism, and I don't think you do that by increasing the behavior that created the terrorism in the first place.

I'm getting off on a tangent here… but my point is America was better off with Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq. The Iraqis weren't, that's for damn sure! But since when has America cared about the people in the Middle East?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Kohdok at 10:42AM, Aug. 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 776
joined: 5-18-2007
TnTComic
I'm getting off on a tangent here… but my point is America was better off with Saddam Hussein in charge of Iraq. The Iraqis weren't, that's for damn sure! But since when has America cared about the people in the Middle East?

I feel that way, too. Hussein would have squashed a terrorist uprising. Granted, it wouldn't have been pretty, but it would have gotten the message across. There weren't really any terrorist problems in Iraq, before, at least not that we knew of.

As for the whole “freedom to Iraq” argument, that's nothing more than an excuse we're using to justify the war. Sure, we've ‘freed’ them from Hussein, but all that's resulted is anarchy. The last time I heard about anything positive happening in Iraqi politics was in early 2005. Sure, we may be trying to get them freedom, but we're doing a horrible job.

I think we should pull the troops out slowly in several waves over the course of a year or two at several unchangeable intervals to force the Iraqi government to start taking itself seriously as our protection wanes.


AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY ON TOPIC:

I frankly enjoy the debates on the forums here. Unlike many of the forums I go to, this one has a huge demographic with people having all sorts of different beliefs and morals. I'd say it certainly makes the discussions here more lively rather than having everybody say “I agree with everything he just said”. It gives it spice, and spice is what forums should be about.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:20PM
Mak at 12:04PM, Aug. 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 41
joined: 8-5-2007
TnTComic
Mak
I would concede almost all of those to you. Except the WMD/Chemical Weapon thing. We know Iraq had chemical weapons, they used them on their own people. And anyone who thinks that Saddam would have “forgotten” how to make them is delusional. I also don't care about the use of torture on terrorists. There really is no way for me to describe how much I do not care.

He didn't make ‘em, he bought ’em. Our name is on top of the receipt. That's how we knew he HAD them. Which is different from the bill of goods we were sold, which is that he HAD them. Past tense, present tense. I've had chicken pox, but I don't have chicken pox. The fellows in charge told us that he had them, and they knew where they were. Well both were false. To date, none have been found.

Now, if I told you that my neighbor had a hundred machine guns and was dangerous, and the authorities went in there and didn't fine ONE… what would you call me?



Right, cause the Iraqis certainly are not smart enough to synthesize a chemical once they have a sample of it. Besides, the Government did not sell him chemical weapons, what proof is there of that? And as for the question of your neighbors machine guns, how big is your neighbors yard? If it is 432 thousand square kilometers, I would concede that he might still have those guns hidden somewhere on his land. Especially if we waited TWELVE years to inspect, which gave him a little time to hide them. Don't you think that if the police contacted a drug dealer and told him that they were going to come and inspect his house tomorrow that he would get rid of the evidence. Or are you implying that Saddam was too stupid for that. I agree, Iraq was not a notion that would host islamic terrorists. But I would not put it past him to fund Islamic Terror Organizations, if only to be a thorn in our side.

By the way, the chemicals were sold to Iraq by a Dutch Business man.
I'm a ex-DAT, which means all ya'll are crunchies, and I swing a mean hammer.

Rule 37 should be made rule 1

The civilized would should be ashamed, what good is power if you do not stop things like Darfur??
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:50PM
TnTComic at 12:13PM, Aug. 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
We were told they knew EXACTLY where the weapons were, and if you don't think we had those sites under constant satellite surveillance, pardon me for saying that's naive. They didn't have ‘em when we said they did.

You’re probably right about us selling them chemical weapons, though. I did kinda' jump the gun on that. My bad.

Either way, I think the weapons were more useful as far as making us think he had them instead of actually having them. I mean, if he had them, you'd think he would use them after it became clear we were coming to take him away. To me, they were a bluff.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Mak at 12:14PM, Aug. 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 41
joined: 8-5-2007
Kohdok
As for the whole “freedom to Iraq” argument, that's nothing more than an excuse we're using to justify the war. Sure, we've ‘freed’ them from Hussein, but all that's resulted is anarchy. The last time I heard about anything positive happening in Iraqi politics was in early 2005. Sure, we may be trying to get them freedom, but we're doing a horrible job.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I realize that Mr. Jefferson was speaking about the American people here, but I believe that the spirit of the document and of our founding requires us to bring the same rights to everyone on the planet. Period. You can disagree, and that is fine. I am just stating my point. The people of Iraq are a million times better off than they were before.
I'm a ex-DAT, which means all ya'll are crunchies, and I swing a mean hammer.

Rule 37 should be made rule 1

The civilized would should be ashamed, what good is power if you do not stop things like Darfur??
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:50PM
Mak at 12:19PM, Aug. 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 41
joined: 8-5-2007
TnTComic
We were told they knew EXACTLY where the weapons were, and if you don't think we had those sites under constant satellite surveillance, pardon me for saying that's naive. They didn't have ‘em when we said they did.

You’re probably right about us selling them chemical weapons, though. I did kinda' jump the gun on that. My bad.

Either way, I think the weapons were more useful as far as making us think he had them instead of actually having them. I mean, if he had them, you'd think he would use them after it became clear we were coming to take him away. To me, they were a bluff.

Iraq is a big place, it would be almost impossible to keep surveillance satellites over the whole country all the time. I don't remember that we were told we knew exactly where they were, only that we knew they had them. It is possible that I missed that though. And the reason I think he did not use them is so that he could plead his case to the rest of the world more easily. “See world, I did not have the weapons, and mean old America attacked me anyway.” Unfortunately its hard to plead when you are hanging from the end of a rope. I honestly believe he thought the rest of the world would put enough pressure on us that we would stop before he was caught. Then he would come out of hiding and regain his seat of power, having gained a lot of “face” with the rest of the Arab nations for defeating us.
I'm a ex-DAT, which means all ya'll are crunchies, and I swing a mean hammer.

Rule 37 should be made rule 1

The civilized would should be ashamed, what good is power if you do not stop things like Darfur??
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:50PM
TnTComic at 12:21PM, Aug. 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Mak
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I realize that Mr. Jefferson was speaking about the American people here, but I believe that the spirit of the document and of our founding requires us to bring the same rights to everyone on the planet. Period. You can disagree, and that is fine. I am just stating my point. The people of Iraq are a million times better off than they were before.


I don't recall forcing a way of life on a sovereign nation as having anything to do with freedom.

I wonder how you'd like it if the situations were reversed, and our liberators draped our women in burkhas as they told us how much better off we were.


Mak
Iraq is a big place, it would be almost impossible to keep surveillance satellites over the whole country all the time. I don't remember that we were told we knew exactly where they were, only that we knew they had them. It is possible that I missed that though.

You don't remember the big ol' meeting with Colin Powell pointing at the map?
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved