On 2002-07-12 12:37, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-07-12 11:33, Marc Lamb wrote:
You have become a stupid old, worn out comic strip, Stonewall. All yellowed around the edges from such extreme bitterness and decay. Not Funny is the name of it. And a cheap caricature of the very supposed "garbage" you rail against.

Look at that post.

OK, but let's look at the WHOLE post:

On 2002-07-12 11:33, Marc Lamb wrote:

"And I was not even talking about "disagreeable liberal callers." I was talking about conservatives who criticize the Bush administration. He immediately cuts them off and labels them 'seminar callers from the DNC.'" --Stonewall Patton

I am a "conservative" who has resoundingly criticized Bush and certain members of his Administration: namely Colin Powell. And I can attest flatout, this is, again, patently false. Limbaugh, himself, has been excoriated recently for his criticism of Bush.

You, sir, are lying out your teeth with these ridiculous charges. Meanwhile, you throw out such pretentious guttertripe as "Goebbelesque, Limbaughhesque, Machiavellian human garbage fashion."

You have become a stupid old, worn out comic strip, Stonewall. All yellowed around the edges from such extreme bitterness and decay. Not Funny is the name of it. And a cheap caricature of the very supposed "garbage" you rail against.

On 2002-07-12 12:37, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Now look again.

Er, ok... Done.

On 2002-07-12 12:37, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Anybody who looks at that post of yours has to laugh at the absurdity in that the pot is obviously calling the kettle black (and it is not even clear that the kettle is black at all). Note that when I attach an epithet to someone, I clearly demonstrate how they exhibit that trait. In other words, it is not ad hominem.

Actually, Marc made his point fairly well.

(1) Marc quotes you, accurately, claiming that Limbaugh cuts off conservatives who criticize Bush. (No problem here, no? That is what you said.)

(2) Marc points out that Marc is HIMSELF a conservative who criticizes Bush. (Minor point to Marc's argument, not really needed.)

(3) Marc points out that LIMBAUGH is a conservative who criticizes Bush. (Major point to Marc's argument. Why would Limbaugh cut off callers who agreed with him?)

Now, within the single post, Marc offers as much proof of (3) as you did of (1), that is, none. However, I am myself aware that (3) is correct: Limbaugh has in fact criticized Bush a lot in the past year. (Take CFR, for example.) So, for what it's worth, I will back up Marc on that. (Transcripts would be nice, but I have none.)

If (3) is correct, it calls into question (1), because Limbaugh would not be motivated to censor a caller who agrees with him.

Marc then asserts:

(4) Stonewall is lying.

Marc says that you exhibit the trait of being a liar because you knowingly misrepresent the facts about Limbaugh by asserting the falsehood in (1).

Now, there are a few details to quibble about, but Marc's argument is not at all ad hominem. It is a logical argument. Perhaps it could use fleshing out a bit, but the outline of a logical argument is there.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-07-12 13:20 ]</font>

Firemind,

Not to quibble, but "stupid worn out old man" probably fits in the ad hominem category.

monghan:

OK, fair, if Marc said that.

However, I believe he said "stupid worn-out comic strip" or something like that. It was just a metaphor, really, not an assertion as such.

I mean, obviously Stonewall is NOT actually a comic strip.

monoghan,

At least you could actually try getting the quote right, before you try and determine it's "ad hominem category"> :smile:

"If (3) is correct, it calls into question (1), because Limbaugh would not be motivated to censor a caller who agrees with him." --firemind

Limbaugh, like any good entertainer, strives for the good debate. He clearly understands that good liberal callers (or those that disagree with him) make for good, passionate entertainment. Thus it makes for better ratings.

I do the very same thing here at T4T.com. Debating with those that agree with me is about as boring as watching the grass grow. :smile:

Debating Stonewall, on the other hand, can be very entertaining. You can make him type nine smoking paragraphs with a sentence or two. Maybe that's the real reason I'm yanking his chain....

NAA, it's because I'm INFATUATED with him. Yeah, that's the ticket!

On 2002-07-12 12:53, Marc Lamb wrote:

"My soul is free and I make an effort to do good and to ensure that others are not taken advantage of by devious Machiavels because deception, so hypocritical as it is, is just plain evil by any standard. I render myself subservient to my God and act such that I can face Him with a clear conscience." --Stonewall Patton

You a liar, sir. All reprobate liars maintain a "clear conscience."

No, I am definitely not a liar (and you feel threatened by this fact, hence the vitriol you constantly post) and it is an absolutely phenomonal act of hubris for you to consider yourself even minimally equipped to determine who is a reprobate and who is not. Do you allow God any authority in any matter whatsoever? Or must He always defer to you?

This is why I pity you. You are so far down this path that you take your self-hatred out on everybody around you every day, be it me or Brian Rush or whoever else. You do not even know that you are breathing unless you are attacking somebody personally. And you do not show even the slightest inclination to accept it, much less confront it and set about improving yourself. So, like Bill Murray waking up in Groundhog Day, your constant incitements of others continue day after day with no end in sight. Issues, policies, and working toward a better future need not apply; personal attack is the only game in your town. Whatever, Marc. Those of us on the receiving end just tune you out. Problem solved.

Actually, I think it's because I found his recent habit of commenting on everyones political results thingy to be pretty annoying.

"Hey, man, you are just TOTALLY authoritarian!"

"Dude, you must be a COMPLETE authoritarian!"

Somebody had to call him on it. Being called an "authoritarian" is an insult.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-07-12 13:44 ]</font>

On 2002-07-12 13:37, firemind wrote:
Debating Stonewall, on the other hand, can be very entertaining. You can make him type nine smoking paragraphs with a sentence or two. Maybe that's the real reason I'm yanking his chain....

NAA, it's because I'm INFATUATED with him. Yeah, that's the ticket!

But none of my paragraphs are actually "smoking." Are you incapable of comprehending this or are you unwilling to accept this? I am perfectly calm when I write whatever paragraphs you are referring to. Perhaps it is more in your interest to misrepresent me as "smoking." But of course that would be dishonest of you. What else is new?

Marc,

My bad. Not that I am opposed to use of ad hominem attacks, mind you. Proceed.

SSSMMMOOOKINNN'''!!!

A quick note to those that think the War on Drugs is cheaper than the alternative. I'm not that concerned about this issue, but I've always thought this is the perfect emotion v. common sense issue. If you believe, you can't be dissuaded. If you think it's stupid - the same applies :grin:.

And another quick note to our posters from the right, who have demonstrated the correct procedure for common defense - reserving all their best invective for each other.


Bravo, I think.

On 2002-07-12 14:12, David '47 wrote:
And another quick note to our posters from the right, who have demonstrated the correct procedure for common defense - reserving all their best invective for each other.


Bravo, I think.

Whoa! You haven't heard Brian Rush and Eric Meece go after each other, have you? :grin:

On 2002-07-12 12:50, Justin '77 wrote:
That said, I am willing to hand over none of my life to the federal, or state, or city, or other government for the ostensible purpose of caring for 'the junkie in the corner'. If the junkie in the corner is someone I care about, I can help them just fine myself, and my money would be more efficiently used if not filtered through the hands of a half-dozen bureaucrats. Conversely, if I was the junkie in the corner, I would have no right to demand another person surrender any portion of his life to help me. Either you own your own life and so does everyone around you own theirs, or no one does.

The solution to the problem as you define it is: "stop fighting with people who want to use drugs," coupled with "stop forcing people to surrender their lives for others."

As a note, I am not advocating (and I can't believe this even needs to be explicitly stated) letting all the indigent people in the world starve and die. In fact, I've personally taken in would-be homeless individuals, fed them, and provided them with a place to stay while their situation improved; I've personally helped build homes to be given to people who can't afford them. I've personally bought and fed food to kids who otherwise would have gone hungry. I'll continue doing this, one way or another, and I do and did it because all the people in question were ones I cared about. Kindness and goodness work in spite of force, but they can do so much more, so much better without it.

I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you advocating letting some rather than all of the indigent people in the world starve and die? The difference between all and some being "the ones I cared about"?

I'm not trying to be inflamatory. In discussions I've had with libertarians, some of them have indeed advocated "letting them starve" as a regrettable, but necessary, aspect of freedom. Others haven't been so sure.

On 2002-07-12 14:15, Jenny Genser wrote:

On 2002-07-12 14:12, David '47 wrote:
And another quick note to our posters from the right, who have demonstrated the correct procedure for common defense - reserving all their best invective for each other.


Bravo, I think.

Whoa! You haven't heard Brian Rush and Eric Meece go after each other, have you? :grin:

True believers always know everything with certainty, and stand ready to heap hostility on the believer who's fallen from the true path.

So far the show is pretty good. I await the onslaught from the left.

Pass the popcorn.

Justin '77 wrote:

That said, I am willing to hand over none of my life to the federal, or state, or city, or other government for the ostensible purpose of caring for 'the junkie in the corner'. If the junkie in the corner is someone I care about, I can help them just fine myself, and my money would be more efficiently used if not filtered through the hands of a half-dozen bureaucrats.

...and Mike Alexander '59 replied:

I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you advocating letting some rather than all of the indigent people in the world starve and die? The difference between all and some being "the ones I cared about"? ...

Exacly the issue that troubled me, but you got there first. Setting aside the obvious ethical and moral problem, there is also a practical matter to consider - mainly the unwillingness of the 'unclean and unloved' to simply roll over and die. If you move the social rules all the way to the Darwinian extreme, expect the down-and-out to take you at your word. And remember, desparate people act as if they're fearless.

If those are the rules we're going to adopt, I'm planning on a very expensive security system at my house.

_________________
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together :wink:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David '47 on 2002-07-12 14:39 ]</font>

Just an aside, but Candice Bergen saying that she agreed with Dan Quayle's speech about Murphy Brown seems unthinkable in a 3T.

On 2002-07-12 14:16, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
[Are you advocating letting some rather than all of the indigent people in the world starve and die? The difference between all and some being "the ones I cared about"?

I tend to only concern myself with my neighbors, colleagues, and other folks I care about. In a pinch, I'm probably the type of moron who'd jump into traffic to push a guy out of the way. My argument is that no one has the right to throw me into traffic to achieve that same end, or do any lesser such act. I guess then, that I would say, yes, let the 6-billion people out there with whom I have no contact or personal awareness do their thing. I tend to believe, however, that I'm not the only decent person on earth, so the likelihood that all the indigent people I never meet are doomed is pretty small.



Did that answer your question?

I wonder if these arguments we're seeing are nothing more than an attempt to propel this thread to 1000+ pages.

Go Marc! Go firemind! Go Stonewall! only 698 to go!



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Justin '77 on 2002-07-12 14:54 ]</font>

On 2002-07-12 14:53, Justin '77 wrote:
I wonder if these arguments we're seeing are nothing more than an attempt to propel this thread to 1000+ pages.

Go Marc! Go firemind! Go Stonewall! only 698 to go!

688, actually :grin:

On 2002-07-12 14:51, monoghan wrote:
Just an aside, but Candice Bergen saying that she agreed with Dan Quayle's speech about Murphy Brown seems unthinkable in a 3T.

Huh? Did she say that recently? Or is this just a rhetorical point you're making?

On 2002-07-12 15:18, Jenny Genser wrote:

On 2002-07-12 14:51, monoghan wrote:
Just an aside, but Candice Bergen saying that she agreed with Dan Quayle's speech about Murphy Brown seems unthinkable in a 3T.

Huh? Did she say that recently? Or is this just a rhetorical point you're making?

Now she tells us. Ten years ago, then-vice president D. Quayle notoriously criticized C. Bergen's Murphy Brown character for "mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone and calling it just another lifestyle choice."

"Quayle had a point," says Bergen. "His speech was a perfectly intelligent speech about fathers not being dispensable, and nobody ageed with that more than I did."


Thanks Candy. We needed that.


Quayles speech, was sooooooo politically motivated and manipulative (I'm sure thanks to his handlers), though, that it turned this voter off.

On 2002-07-12 11:14, Neisha '67 wrote:

On 2002-07-12 10:48, justmom wrote:

On 2002-07-12 07:35, Justin '77 wrote:
mom,

What you said was "I have the right to be protected from harm when reasonable protection is in place."



My point, in response to this statement is twofold: first, a fundamental element of a just society is a guarantee that everyone's rights are accorded. .... When you feel the urge to state a right, think, at whose expense will I obtain this? Will another person have to surrender (not trade) their labor or property that I might enjoy this? Rights do not contradict.

Exactly, right on the first point.
But, I stand by the laws of the land as they are now. It is my stance that "freeing up" people to snort, smoke, inject, Whatever,whenever, how much ever they want, at affordable prices to boot WILL infringe on everyones rights.
If the taxes, cost to state, etc..... is so exhorbitant with tabacco, I can't begin to
imagine the cost to state with all the junkies laying around with an addiction, a 'disease' if you will. The poor people, they can't help it, it's beyond their controll, we need to subsidise them.
We do it for alcoholics. Alcoholics, get so debilitated they can't work, they get classified as " disabled" and collect checks from the state. Would you do less for the poor junkie who smoked his brain out to the point of being dillusional and insane. I mean after all, the guy was just excercising his right to mess himself up. No one else was affected right? So how much more of your pay check are you willing to hand over to the federal govt. in order to make sure, the junkie on the corner is given the humane
conditions of medical care, food and shelter?

Look, Justin, I know you as a Libertarian or whatever. Would say to hell with subsidies to the junkie who by his own choosing screwed up his life. But, not everyone looks at issues the way you do. You have to deal with all the people and all of their views. And too many people believe it's inhumane to let someone starve and die in the gutter. And the simple truth of the matter is, drugs may become decriminalized. But, if and when they do, the looser junkie will be subsidized, whether or not you agree with that part of the package.

Gotta go, maybe I'll address the rest later.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: justmom on 2002-07-12 11:00 ]</font>

Actually, justmom, social security regs specifically exclude disabilities caused by drugs or alcohol. In order for an addict to get SSI or SSD, s/he has to get a doctor to state that the disability was present *before* the claimant started using. This is a pretty tough standard. Occassionally, if a person has been clean for an extended period, like six months or more, and a neurologist can state that they still have a disability that has nothing to do with drugs or alcohol, a judge will buy that.

Alcoholism is , as we are told, a disease, the manifestation of said disease is the drinking. When one drinks to extreams many things end up happening. An example being kidney failure. Now, because of a personal choice to drink, alcoholic is 'disabled' with a very real disease. He then gets to collect a check paid for by you.