One step closer to understanding the disease called Progressivism.

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The OP will never understand why this thread fails as a straw man fallacy, however.

 

[Pogo]

The OP will never understand why this thread fails as a straw man fallacy, however.

Not until he tries to explain WTF he's talking about.

 

[Pogo]

I discovered this important fact about those people who are in the throes of Progressivism when I was arguing a few minutes ago on FaceBook.

A certain scientist who happens to be an outspoken atheist, had said something about Christmas that irritated Christians.

I realized that progressives compensate for thier lack of knowledge, critical thinking skills, and common sense by idol worshipping people with degrees. Apparently they feel that by liking, sharing, and quoting the opinions and beliefs of people with a college education makes them appear smart.

Interesting. Perhaps by understanding the people suffering from progressivism, we get closer to a cure.

I was not aware Nosebook was around a hundred years ago.

There is a whole lot you aren't aware of. I imagine though, and I could be wrong because I'm trying to understand your progressive "mind", that you somehow think I implied that Facebook is the tool that Progressives use to communicate, and have for 100 years.

Work on your reading comprehension.

You did exactly that.

 

[Pogo]

What in the wide world of fuck are you talking about?

And there we go!

And used wrongly too.

The most effective way to defeat a Prog is to keep them on task. Don't allow them to smoke screen or deflect. If you dismiss their attempts at dragging the argument off point, they cannot win.

No they can't win if required to argue the concept instead of focusing on their opponent in the debate, but that has been almost impossible to achieve on a message board. On my "A New and Improved Constitution" thread, it has remained mostly cordial, but despite my best efforts to keep the discussion on point, the progressives simply can't help themselves. They simply HAVE to point to 'eeeeeeevul' Republicans or Tea Party extremism or greedy, hateful conservatism as the reason that everything is screwed up and if everybody just embraced progressivism, the world would be a much better place. They simply are unable to argue any concept offered at face value but will almost 100% consistently drag the ad hominem element into it.

Why? Because I believe they most often operate on pure emotionalism, judgmentalism, and delusions of righteousness and are incapable of arguing a rationale for a policy or point of view apart from that ad hominem mindset.

How does calling out a strawman become "ad hominem"?
Who said anything about "eeeeeeevul" or "Republicans"? Besides the OP who won't explain his terms?

How is it OK to post a thread referring to "the disease called progressivism", which is "called" but never "defined" ---- yet it somehow becomes "ad hominem" to refer to a strawman, which IS defined?

Hm?

 

[peach174]

What in the wide world of fuck are you talking about?

And there we go!

And used wrongly too.

The most effective way to defeat a Prog is to keep them on task. Don't allow them to smoke screen or deflect. If you dismiss their attempts at dragging the argument off point, they cannot win.

No they can't win if required to argue the concept instead of focusing on their opponent in the debate, but that has been almost impossible to achieve on a message board. On my "A New and Improved Constitution" thread, it has remained mostly cordial, but despite my best efforts to keep the discussion on point, the progressives simply can't help themselves. They simply HAVE to point to 'eeeeeeevul' Republicans or Tea Party extremism or greedy, hateful conservatism as the reason that everything is screwed up and if everybody just embraced progressivism, the world would be a much better place. They simply are unable to argue any concept offered at face value but will almost 100% consistently drag the ad hominem element into it.

Why? Because I believe they most often operate on pure emotionalism, judgmentalism, and delusions of righteousness and are incapable of arguing a rationale for a policy or point of view apart from that ad hominem mindset.

How does calling out a strawman become "ad hominem"?
Who said anything about "eeeeeeevul" or "Republicans"? Besides the OP who won't explain his terms?

How is it OK to post a thread referring to "the disease called progressivism", which is "called" but never "defined" ---- yet it somehow becomes "ad hominem" to refer to a strawman, which IS defined?

Hm?

Progressivism defined
The Progressives were reformers in the late 19th and early 20th century who believed that in order to address modern problems, America needed to abandon the old ideas of the Founding in favor of a new expansive conception of the role of government. Progressives paved the way for modern liberalism and politics, and their core ideas are still the mainstay of today’s liberalism.

 

[R.D.]

Dang people! Get some coffee, drink it and read again. You all are asleep today.

It's like a disease without any cure ...

 

[Foxfyre]

Yup. We see the usual 'progressive' tactics of accusing the OP, of accusing those discussing the topic, demanding links, going ad hominem, hollering 'straw man' or some other such phrase that they can't explain how it applies (and usually can't define), but absolutely unwilling to offer their own rationale for why the premise of the OP is wrong or why somebody's observation is incorrect or whatever.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives are also mind-altered. They've been trained to believe certain things and nothing can convince them otherwise. They believe the government IS the economy, that mankind is altering the climate and that redistribution will actually succeed as an economic theory -- this time, for sure!

 

[PredFan]

The OP will never understand why this thread fails as a straw man fallacy, however.

You say that about every thread by any conservative. I don't think it means what YOU think it means and anyway, no one cares.

 

[HenryBHough]

Seems like it's a philosophy rooted in the belief that the harder one works the more should be taken from you to "redistribute" to others unwilling to work.

Progressively producing more who won't bestir themselves.

Now back to my well deserved nap. And, Oh, thank you for working so as to make that possible.

 

[PredFan]

The OP will never understand why this thread fails as a straw man fallacy, however.

Not until he tries to explain WTF he's talking about.

It's pretty obvious to most anyone. You however, won't understand it. Just move on.

 

[PredFan]

I discovered this important fact about those people who are in the throes of Progressivism when I was arguing a few minutes ago on FaceBook.

A certain scientist who happens to be an outspoken atheist, had said something about Christmas that irritated Christians.

I realized that progressives compensate for thier lack of knowledge, critical thinking skills, and common sense by idol worshipping people with degrees. Apparently they feel that by liking, sharing, and quoting the opinions and beliefs of people with a college education makes them appear smart.

Interesting. Perhaps by understanding the people suffering from progressivism, we get closer to a cure.

I was not aware Nosebook was around a hundred years ago.

There is a whole lot you aren't aware of. I imagine though, and I could be wrong because I'm trying to understand your progressive "mind", that you somehow think I implied that Facebook is the tool that Progressives use to communicate, and have for 100 years.

Work on your reading comprehension.

You did exactly that.

 

[PredFan]

What in the wide world of fuck are you talking about?

And there we go!

And used wrongly too.

The most effective way to defeat a Prog is to keep them on task. Don't allow them to smoke screen or deflect. If you dismiss their attempts at dragging the argument off point, they cannot win.

No they can't win if required to argue the concept instead of focusing on their opponent in the debate, but that has been almost impossible to achieve on a message board. On my "A New and Improved Constitution" thread, it has remained mostly cordial, but despite my best efforts to keep the discussion on point, the progressives simply can't help themselves. They simply HAVE to point to 'eeeeeeevul' Republicans or Tea Party extremism or greedy, hateful conservatism as the reason that everything is screwed up and if everybody just embraced progressivism, the world would be a much better place. They simply are unable to argue any concept offered at face value but will almost 100% consistently drag the ad hominem element into it.

Why? Because I believe they most often operate on pure emotionalism, judgmentalism, and delusions of righteousness and are incapable of arguing a rationale for a policy or point of view apart from that ad hominem mindset.

How does calling out a strawman become "ad hominem"?
Who said anything about "eeeeeeevul" or "Republicans"? Besides the OP who won't explain his terms?

How is it OK to post a thread referring to "the disease called progressivism", which is "called" but never "defined" ---- yet it somehow becomes "ad hominem" to refer to a strawman, which IS defined?

Hm?

Progressivism defined
The Progressives were reformers in the late 19th and early 20th century who believed that in order to address modern problems, America needed to abandon the old ideas of the Founding in favor of a new expansive conception of the role of government. Progressives paved the way for modern liberalism and politics, and their core ideas are still the mainstay of today’s liberalism.

Nice cut and paste job.

The fact of the matter is that like every other political affiliation, progressivism has changed since it's beginning. My thread is not about the ideas of progressivism, but the ignorance of its followers.

 

[Foxfyre]

Progressives are also mind-altered. They've been trained to believe certain things and nothing can convince them otherwise. They believe the government IS the economy, that mankind is altering the climate and that redistribution will actually succeed as an economic theory -- this time, for sure!

While I agree that is generally the doctrine most progressives preach, I don't know if I would use the term 'mind-altered' though you could be right.

I once thought progressives were just narrow minded, self righteous, self serving bullies who dare not, with impunity, allow anybody off the plantation they have forged out of their own wierd way of looking at the world. I no longer see most progressives that way because I know a number of them--both here at USMB and elsewhere on line and in real life too--who are loving, caring, capable people. And I don't believe their point of view to be a character flaw so much as some kind of dysfunction that makes them incapable of seeing the unintended negative consequences wrought by the policies and practices they embrace.

How do they get that way? And why do so many of us exposed to the same stuff reject progressivism purely because we can see and understand the negative consequences it produces? Why didn't we succumb to that 'religion' too?

I honestly don't know.

 

[R.D.]

What in the wide world of fuck are you talking about?

And there we go!

And used wrongly too.

The most effective way to defeat a Prog is to keep them on task. Don't allow them to smoke screen or deflect. If you dismiss their attempts at dragging the argument off point, they cannot win.

No they can't win if required to argue the concept instead of focusing on their opponent in the debate, but that has been almost impossible to achieve on a message board. On my "A New and Improved Constitution" thread, it has remained mostly cordial, but despite my best efforts to keep the discussion on point, the progressives simply can't help themselves. They simply HAVE to point to 'eeeeeeevul' Republicans or Tea Party extremism or greedy, hateful conservatism as the reason that everything is screwed up and if everybody just embraced progressivism, the world would be a much better place. They simply are unable to argue any concept offered at face value but will almost 100% consistently drag the ad hominem element into it.

Why? Because I believe they most often operate on pure emotionalism, judgmentalism, and delusions of righteousness and are incapable of arguing a rationale for a policy or point of view apart from that ad hominem mindset.

How does calling out a strawman become "ad hominem"?
Who said anything about "eeeeeeevul" or "Republicans"? Besides the OP who won't explain his terms?

How is it OK to post a thread referring to "the disease called progressivism", which is "called" but never "defined" ---- yet it somehow becomes "ad hominem" to refer to a strawman, which IS defined?

Hm?

Progressivism defined
The Progressives were reformers in the late 19th and early 20th century who believed that in order to address modern problems, America needed to abandon the old ideas of the Founding in favor of a new expansive conception of the role of government. Progressives paved the way for modern liberalism and politics, and their core ideas are still the mainstay of today’s liberalism.

Nice cut and paste job.

The fact of the matter is that like every other political affiliation, progressivism has changed since it's beginning. My thread is not about the ideas of progressivism, but the ignorance of its followers.

Or (my favorite quote from 2014) the stupidity of the American voters. He so clearly was addressing the progs and their followers

 

[gipper]

Progressives are also mind-altered. They've been trained to believe certain things and nothing can convince them otherwise. They believe the government IS the economy, that mankind is altering the climate and that redistribution will actually succeed as an economic theory -- this time, for sure!

They also believe a big unlimited government run by a small group of elites, is a good thing. Thus proving they have learned absolutely nothing from history.

 

[R.D.]

Progressives are also mind-altered. They've been trained to believe certain things and nothing can convince them otherwise. They believe the government IS the economy, that mankind is altering the climate and that redistribution will actually succeed as an economic theory -- this time, for sure!

While I agree that is generally the doctrine most progressives preach, I don't know if I would use the term 'mind-altered' though you could be right.

I once thought progressives were just narrow minded, self righteous, self serving bullies who dare not, with impunity, allow anybody off the plantation they have forged out of their own wierd way of looking at the world. I no longer see most progressives that way because I know a number of them--both here at USMB and elsewhere on line and in real life too--who are loving, caring, capable people. And I don't believe their point of view to be a character flaw so much as some kind of dysfunction that makes them incapable of seeing the unintended negative consequences wrought by the policies and practices they embrace.

How do they get that way? And why do so many of us exposed to the same stuff reject progressivism purely because we can see and understand the negative consequences it produces? Why didn't we succumb to that 'religion' too?

I honestly don't know.

One trait those with that character flaw mostly all have is a lack of self awareness. It's very frustrating

 

[Foxfyre]

What in the wide world of fuck are you talking about?

And there we go!

And used wrongly too.

The most effective way to defeat a Prog is to keep them on task. Don't allow them to smoke screen or deflect. If you dismiss their attempts at dragging the argument off point, they cannot win.

No they can't win if required to argue the concept instead of focusing on their opponent in the debate, but that has been almost impossible to achieve on a message board. On my "A New and Improved Constitution" thread, it has remained mostly cordial, but despite my best efforts to keep the discussion on point, the progressives simply can't help themselves. They simply HAVE to point to 'eeeeeeevul' Republicans or Tea Party extremism or greedy, hateful conservatism as the reason that everything is screwed up and if everybody just embraced progressivism, the world would be a much better place. They simply are unable to argue any concept offered at face value but will almost 100% consistently drag the ad hominem element into it.

Why? Because I believe they most often operate on pure emotionalism, judgmentalism, and delusions of righteousness and are incapable of arguing a rationale for a policy or point of view apart from that ad hominem mindset.

How does calling out a strawman become "ad hominem"?
Who said anything about "eeeeeeevul" or "Republicans"? Besides the OP who won't explain his terms?

How is it OK to post a thread referring to "the disease called progressivism", which is "called" but never "defined" ---- yet it somehow becomes "ad hominem" to refer to a strawman, which IS defined?

Hm?

Progressivism defined
The Progressives were reformers in the late 19th and early 20th century who believed that in order to address modern problems, America needed to abandon the old ideas of the Founding in favor of a new expansive conception of the role of government. Progressives paved the way for modern liberalism and politics, and their core ideas are still the mainstay of today’s liberalism.

Nice cut and paste job.

The fact of the matter is that like every other political affiliation, progressivism has changed since it's beginning. My thread is not about the ideas of progressivism, but the ignorance of its followers.

Okay I need to defend Peach a bit here. Her definition of progressivism posted far more supports your thesis than I think you're giving it credit for.

Is it not ignorance or at least flawed and unsupportable thinking that the Founders' ideas were unsustainable? Is it not ignorance or at least faulty thinking to think that broad expansion of government is of greater benefit than liberty? Is it not those 'progressive' ideas of the late 19th and early 20th centuries that produced the flawed ideology that we call 'liberalism' or 'progressivism' in modern day American?

 

[Foxfyre]

Progressives are also mind-altered. They've been trained to believe certain things and nothing can convince them otherwise. They believe the government IS the economy, that mankind is altering the climate and that redistribution will actually succeed as an economic theory -- this time, for sure!

While I agree that is generally the doctrine most progressives preach, I don't know if I would use the term 'mind-altered' though you could be right.

I once thought progressives were just narrow minded, self righteous, self serving bullies who dare not, with impunity, allow anybody off the plantation they have forged out of their own wierd way of looking at the world. I no longer see most progressives that way because I know a number of them--both here at USMB and elsewhere on line and in real life too--who are loving, caring, capable people. And I don't believe their point of view to be a character flaw so much as some kind of dysfunction that makes them incapable of seeing the unintended negative consequences wrought by the policies and practices they embrace.

How do they get that way? And why do so many of us exposed to the same stuff reject progressivism purely because we can see and understand the negative consequences it produces? Why didn't we succumb to that 'religion' too?

I honestly don't know.

One trait those with that character flaw mostly all have is a lack of self awareness. It's very frustrating

Explain please. How is an ideology that is based on pure rose colored glasses, emotionalism, and 'sensitivity to feelings' a 'lack of self awareness'?

 

[Foxfyre]

Progressives are also mind-altered. They've been trained to believe certain things and nothing can convince them otherwise. They believe the government IS the economy, that mankind is altering the climate and that redistribution will actually succeed as an economic theory -- this time, for sure!

They also believe a big unlimited government run by a small group of elites, is a good thing. Thus proving they have learned absolutely nothing from history.

This is the one thing I have never been able to get anybody from the progressive camp to explain to me. How is it that 'we the people' are too greedy, too selfish, too unreliable, too self centered to entrust with the liberty to live our lives as we choose--we will invariably do it wrong without uniform rules and regulations to control everybody--but. . . .

. . .somehow all that greed, selfishness, unreliability, and self-centeredness magically disappears if we elect those same people to federal office and give them power over the rest of us and we can trust them to do it as it should be done?