What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[nodoginnafight]

"The difference really comes in the fact that rightwingers/conservatives can generally analyze and discuss such concepts separately from ideology or partisanship I find very few leftwingers/liberals who can."

I find the exact opposite to be true. I find that is easier to find hyper-partisanship on the right

For example - if a right-winger accepts and champions a measure that orginated with left wingers, the left-wingers will applaud them and work with them. That doesn't happen when a left winger adopts a position orginally proposed from the right. The right is far more likely to oppose a measure based not on the measure itself but based on who is proposing it.

 

[koshergrl]

The reason liberals and conservatives have such a hard time debating the issues is that hyper-partisans try to define what the other side thinks or favors in outlandish and unreasonable terms in an effort to vilify them.

These characterizations, when accepted as fact, make it almost impossible to conduct a reasonable dialogue.

No, the reason they have a hard time debating the issues is because progressives are by definition dishonest. They lie about the subject matter, they lie about their motivation, and they lie about their world vision.

On top of the outright lies, they think that lying is acceptable, if one is motivated by progressivism....

 

[nodoginnafight]

The reason liberals and conservatives have such a hard time debating the issues is that hyper-partisans try to define what the other side thinks or favors in outlandish and unreasonable terms in an effort to vilify them.

These characterizations, when accepted as fact, make it almost impossible to conduct a reasonable dialogue.

No, the reason they have a hard time debating the issues is because progressives are by definition dishonest. They lie about the subject matter, they lie about their motivation, and they lie about their world vision.

On top of the outright lies, they think that lying is acceptable, if one is motivated by progressivism....

Trying to brush with too broad a brush is - by definition (and I know what the term - "by definition" means) dishonest. And I've seen (at the very least) just as many dishonest representations stemming from the right as from the left.

 

[Foxfyre]

"The difference really comes in the fact that rightwingers/conservatives can generally analyze and discuss such concepts separately from ideology or partisanship I find very few leftwingers/liberals who can."

I find the exact opposite to be true. I find that is easier to find hyper-partisanship on the right

Can you read over this thread and honestly say that?

Let's put it to the test.

EXAMPLE: Drawing from memory a 'conservative' observation from the President's thread:

FDR's social security program provided some relief from hardship encountered by many seniors and was almost certainly intended as a compassionate measure requiring little mandatory contribution from society as a whole. But though it started out very modestly, it has been a significant factor in discouraging families and individuals from saving for retirement and has been a factor in families no longer feeling obligated to care for the well being of their most senior members. And as it has grown into an increasingly unsustainable entitlement, it has also enhanced the perception of government as caretaker and safety net rather than government as the protector of individual rights. It has changed the character of American society to a greater degree than has any other single program.

I agree with the above paragraph and all the observations described in it.

What say you? And if you disagree with it, for what reason do you disagree?

 

[koshergrl]

The reason liberals and conservatives have such a hard time debating the issues is that hyper-partisans try to define what the other side thinks or favors in outlandish and unreasonable terms in an effort to vilify them.

These characterizations, when accepted as fact, make it almost impossible to conduct a reasonable dialogue.

No, the reason they have a hard time debating the issues is because progressives are by definition dishonest. They lie about the subject matter, they lie about their motivation, and they lie about their world vision.

On top of the outright lies, they think that lying is acceptable, if one is motivated by progressivism....

Trying to brush with too broad a brush is - by definition (and I know what the term - "by definition" means) dishonest. And I've seen (at the very least) just as many dishonest representations stemming from the right as from the left.

Bullshit. There are no exceptions, ALL progressives fall under this particular umbrella. It doesnt' matter what *you've* seen. Particularly if you're a progressive (which you would of course lie about). Because all progressives are dishonest. There are no exceptions.

 

[nodoginnafight]

"The difference really comes in the fact that rightwingers/conservatives can generally analyze and discuss such concepts separately from ideology or partisanship I find very few leftwingers/liberals who can."

I find the exact opposite to be true. I find that is easier to find hyper-partisanship on the right

Can you read over this thread and honestly say that?

Let's put it to the test.

EXAMPLE: Drawing from memory a 'conservative' observation from the President's thread:

FDR's social security program provided some relief from hardship encountered by many seniors and was almost certainly intended as a compassionate measure requiring little mandatory contribution from society as a whole. But though it started out very modestly, it has been a significant factor in discouraging families and individuals from saving for retirement and has been a factor in families no longer feeling obligated to care for the well being of their most senior members. And as it has grown into an increasingly unsustainable entitlement, it has also enhanced the perception of government as caretaker and safety net rather than government as the protector of individual rights. It has changed the character of American society to a greater degree than has any other single program.

I agree with the above paragraph and all the observations described in it.

What say you? And if you disagree with it, for what reason do you disagree?

Firstly, Do you really expect to draw out ONE QUOTE and use it reach the conclusion about from which end of the political spectrum the most dishonesty comes from?????

Secondly, I have never seen - throughout history - a society that became stronger through social welfare programs.

Thirdly, I have never seen - throughout history - a government survive by letting people starve to death without lifting a finger.

Now about the section you quoted, I would say that the expansion and growth of programs like this have hurt more than they have helped.

 

[nodoginnafight]

No, the reason they have a hard time debating the issues is because progressives are by definition dishonest. They lie about the subject matter, they lie about their motivation, and they lie about their world vision.

On top of the outright lies, they think that lying is acceptable, if one is motivated by progressivism....

Trying to brush with too broad a brush is - by definition (and I know what the term - "by definition" means) dishonest. And I've seen (at the very least) just as many dishonest representations stemming from the right as from the left.

Bullshit. There are no exceptions, ALL progressives fall under this particular umbrella. It doesnt' matter what *you've* seen. Particularly if you're a progressive (which you would of course lie about). Because all progressives are dishonest. There are no exceptions.

a fine example of my point,thanks!

 

[koshergrl]

I don't do relativism. It's just another name for lack of integrity and dishonesty.

aka..progressivism.

 

[Foxfyre]

"The difference really comes in the fact that rightwingers/conservatives can generally analyze and discuss such concepts separately from ideology or partisanship I find very few leftwingers/liberals who can."

I find the exact opposite to be true. I find that is easier to find hyper-partisanship on the right

Can you read over this thread and honestly say that?

Let's put it to the test.

EXAMPLE: Drawing from memory a 'conservative' observation from the President's thread:

FDR's social security program provided some relief from hardship encountered by many seniors and was almost certainly intended as a compassionate measure requiring little mandatory contribution from society as a whole. But though it started out very modestly, it has been a significant factor in discouraging families and individuals from saving for retirement and has been a factor in families no longer feeling obligated to care for the well being of their most senior members. And as it has grown into an increasingly unsustainable entitlement, it has also enhanced the perception of government as caretaker and safety net rather than government as the protector of individual rights. It has changed the character of American society to a greater degree than has any other single program.

I agree with the above paragraph and all the observations described in it.

What say you? And if you disagree with it, for what reason do you disagree?

Firstly, Do you really expect to draw out ONE QUOTE and use it reach the conclusion about from which end of the political spectrum the most dishonesty comes from?????

Secondly, I have never seen - throughout history - a society that became stronger through social welfare programs.

Thirdly, I have never seen - throughout history - a government survive by letting people starve to death without lifting a finger.

Now about the section you quoted, I would say that the expansion and growth of programs like this have hurt more than they have helped.

Firstly, the paragraph was not a quote but a recap of a concept discussed in the other thread. And it was not discussing dishonesty but was rather testing hyper-partisanship. If we are to have coherent (and non frustrating) discussions, it is important to hear and understand what the other person is saying before rebutting or commenting on it.

Secondly: Do you consider Social Security to be a social welfare program and therefore a program that does not strengthen society?

Thirdly: Do you see Social Security as the means by which the government survives by not letting people starve to death without lifting a finger? If so, what finger was the government lifting in the 150+ years before there was Social Security?

All this is assuming of course that you were focused on the thesis in the paragraph but you seem to be contradicting yourself while not addressing the conclusion of the thesis.

Again here is the money sentences from the paragraph, and I AM quoting what I wrote now:

And as (Social Security) has grown into an increasingly unsustainable entitlement, it has also enhanced the perception of government as caretaker and safety net rather than government as the protector of individual rights. It has changed the character of American society to a greater degree than has any other single program.

Again, I agree with this.

Do you?

 

[nodoginnafight]

And as (Social Security) has grown into an increasingly unsustainable entitlement, it has also enhanced the perception of government as caretaker and safety net rather than government as the protector of individual rights. It has changed the character of American society to a greater degree than has any other single program.

Again, I agree with this.

Do you?[/QUOTE]

SS grown into an increasingly unstable entitlement? I agree
Enhanced the "gov't caretaker" perception? Undoubtedly
Changed the character of Am. society more than anything else? That's too sweeping for me to say right now. I'll think on it and look for you to respond in the future after some thought.

Do I agree with your premise that agreeing or disagreeing with a single passage about Social Security is an accurate barometer of hyper-partisanship? Absolutely not.

Do you believe there is significantly more dishonesty from one side of the political spectrum?
That's MY hyper-partisan test.

 

[LilOlLady]

Maybe because they are usually right?

 

[Foxfyre]

Trying to fix the screwed up quotes:

I wrote

And as (Social Security) has grown into an increasingly unsustainable entitlement, it has also enhanced the perception of government as caretaker and safety net rather than government as the protector of individual rights. It has changed the character of American society to a greater degree than has any other single program


Again, I agree with this.

Do you?

Nodog wrote:

SS grown into an increasingly unstable entitlement? I agree
Enhanced the "gov't caretaker" perception? Undoubtedly
Changed the character of Am. society more than anything else? That's too sweeping for me to say right now. I'll think on it and look for you to respond in the future after some thought.

Do I agree with your premise that agreeing or disagreeing with a single passage about Social Security is an accurate barometer of hyper-partisanship? Absolutely not.

Do you believe there is significantly more dishonesty from one side of the political spectrum?
That's MY hyper-partisan test.

I did not provide or suggest any premise that agreeing or disagreeing with a single passage about Social Security (or anything else) is an accurate barometer of hyper-partisanship. Again, it is important to accurately hear and understand what another person is saying before rebutting or commenting on it as the alternative is often a characeristic of hyper-partisanship.

What I was testing however is whether your response to such a concept would demonstrate hyper-partisanship. (So far it doesn't appear to strongly do so though inability to focus on a specific concept and attempt to divert it to something else can be a characteristic of hyper-partisanship.)

I will be happy to respond to the "American character' concept should you care to pursue that. The concept did not originate with me, but I found it interesting. I have already given it some thought and came to the conclusion it is accurate. I think disagreement with that is not necessarily hyper-partisanship, but disagreement without ability to articulate a coherent reason for the disagreement is a strong characteristic of hyper-partisanship.

I do not see hyper-partisanship and dishonesty as necessarily the same thing. I think one can be hyper-partisan with 100% conviction that everything he or she believes is right, true, honest, and noble. He or she just won't be able to give a coherent reason for WHY it is.

Oh, and I firmly believe those on the left are far more likely to be hyper-partisan ideologically and far less likely to be able to focus on a single concept and articulate a concept for their opinion about it. I base that opinion on long observance and the fact that so far, on all of these threads, no leftist has proved me wrong about it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Foxfrye - after further review, I'm having a harder and harder time pointing out Social Security is the most defining program in modern America.

There are way too many other significant things that have contributed such as voting rights for non-property owners, blacks, women, illiterates, etc

But perhaps you don't consider those as fitting the definition of a program?

So, even though it did not fit the discussion going on, I played your game. Will you answer MY question that IS in line with the thread? Do you think one side of the political spectrum is more dishonest than another?

By the way - YOU are the one who interjected the social security quote and "test" which was not germaine to the topic under discussion. However, I am willing to over-look that hyper-partisan barometer if you return to the subject as I originally proposed it.

Do you think one end of the political spectrum is more dishonest than another?

 

[kaz]

You mean like the way anyone receiving public assistance is a welfare cheat and all union workers are lazy, overpaid slobs?

Well, it is like that but not in the way you meant it.

Liberals defend them even when they are that. The rest of us want the ones who are guilty held accountable. Which is pretty much our relative positions on everything. Liberals attack or defend an entire side and hold no one personally accountable. If the rest of us try to hold an individual accountable, you cry we're attacking everyone in their entire group.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfrye - after further review, I'm having a harder and harder time pointing out Social Security is the most defining program in modern America.

There are way too many other significant things that have contributed such as voting rights for non-property owners, blacks, women, illiterates, etc

But perhaps you don't consider those as fitting the definition of a program?

So, even though it did not fit the discussion going on, I played your game. Will you answer MY question that IS in line with the thread? Do you think one side of the political spectrum is more dishonest than another?

By the way - YOU are the one who interjected the social security quote and "test" which was not germaine to the topic under discussion. However, I am willing to over-look that hyper-partisan barometer if you return to the subject as I originally proposed it.

Do you think one end of the political spectrum is more dishonest than another?

Asked and answered in my immediately preceding post. I do not presume to look into the heart and soul of other people no matter how much I might disagree with what they say or what they do. If I look at a tree and say it is red, maybe it looks that way to me. It won't be red, but in my mind it is. And I am being honest about what I see. Being wrong and being dishonest are entirely two separate things.

As are being ignorant and being dishonest.

Or being stupid and being dishonest.

Or being brainwashed and being dishonest.

Or being hyper-partisan and being dishonest.

Having said that, my perception is that those in the leftwing camp are far more likely to engage in dishonest tactics and or use 'truth' in such a way to create a less-than-honest impression in others which is its own form of dishonesty. Example: NBC editing a tape of the conversation George Zimmerman was having with the police before the shooting. They made him appear to be a racist when the unedited transcript gave an entirely different impression. Or those on USMB who quote people out of context or keep repeating an assigned mantra that would fit one particular circumstance but in fact is not representative of more than that one particular circumstance.

And as a disclaimer I have to acknowledge that it is quite possible that my own personal biases color my perceptions.

 

[nodoginnafight]

F;oxfrye - I'll go further. I'm certain my opinions have an impact on my perceptions. (T is true of everyone since there is no such thing as absolute objectivity. I won't list the blantant dishonesty I've witnessed from the right. It would take far too long. Suffice it to say I could reel off at least two dozen from one Fox show alone. But agreed, the today show editing that that 911 tape was deplorable.

Have a nice evening.

 

[koshergrl]

"I said it and that's all the proof you need!"

 

[Foxfyre]

F;oxfrye - I'll go further. I'm certain my opinions have an impact on my perceptions. (T is true of everyone since there is no such thing as absolute objectivity. I won't list the blantant dishonesty I've witnessed from the right. It would take far too long. Suffice it to say I could reel off at least two dozen from one Fox show alone. But agreed, the today show editing that that 911 tape was deplorable.

Have a nice evening.

Thank you. I'm recording Dancing with the Stars as I type this and it's always good for a giggle or two. But seriously, do you only watch rightwing television which would be Fox since there isn't anything else that doesn't tilt left? I do watch some Fox programming and I'm sorry, I just don't see the dishonesty that you're seeing.

But I've been posting the misleading headlines, edited tapes, buried facts, etc. I've seen in many media sources on several different current stories, most especially the Zimmerman/Martin story. I have NOT caught Fox doing any of that, nor have I caught Fox giving any deference to one or the other party. They DO point out when obviously flawed or misleading information is being put out by others.

I have also given credit to CNN and MSNBC who have actually done some decent investigative journalism on that story and, while I don't have a huge amount of respect for either channel, I give credit where credit is due.

But unless you are spending all your time watching Fox, which seems very doubtful as you seem to have such a low opinion of it, and you aren't seeing 'such blatant dishonesty' anywhere else, in my opinion you aren't being objective at all but are displahying some hyper-partisanship.

But unless we use some specific examples, it can easily all be rhetoric with no basis in fact.

You have a good evening too.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Foxfrye - I spend a significant amount of time watching Fox. Perhaps you don't note their bias/inaccuracies because you agree with their slant and you just consider it "truth." Is that "partisan?" Of course. Is it "hyperpartisan?" Not necessarily. Watch for this on Fox: how many stories quote rightwing sources without presenting a left-wing perspective? How many stories quote leftwing sources without presenting a right-wing perspective? When Fox news assembles a panel to discuss issues, how many on that panel represent the right and how many represent the left? How much time is afforded to the left versus the right?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Bias <> Inaccurate.

Fox lacks the far left slant that other news agencies have. As such, we can say they have a center or right bias. They present things in ways that may not always be supportive of the democratic party. This sets them apart from CNN and MSDNC, but does that make them "inaccurate?" Is accuracy determined by how well a story serves the party? CBS certainly thinks so, but I'm not convinced.