Heh. There’s something amusing circular about that.

And it initially struck me as vaguely dismissive. First dismiss my comments by suggesting I haven’t been around long enough to understand. And when I note I have been around long enough, challenge me to prove it.

Ah, the downside of typed comments. No vocal inflections, so folks can mis-interpret. And I have been known to read too much into things.

I’ll take it at face value as just a request for clarification.

I know why you insult them because I’ve seen many of their postings. And I’ve seen your (and others’) attempts to post reasoned replies.

I assume you insult them because you’re frustrated. You’ve tried to reply with reasoned facts, they tend to continue to post unreasoned drivel and it’s frustrating. So you take an all too common approach and start calling them names.

I’d love to hear your theory on that.

But “sub-human”? No. Seems all to typical human behavior, IMHO.

On both sides.

sigh

If you’ve been here as long as we have, you would know why we insult them.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve done the research, posted the facts, only to have them run away are repeat the same lies again.

I call them sub-human, because they are.

Yeah, I know. It’s just Oliver’s blog and not in front of the cameras. Still…

Then, some on our side decided that they should be part of the debate, after all, there are two sides to every story, right? Now they and their disciples are running our country’s policy. There are not two sides to every story. Some things are just repulsive to American ideals and aren’t worth rational discussion, other than to point out their inhumanity.

I’m not sure you’ve been lurking here long enough, then.

I’m not a fan of the name-calling, either, but neither tactic–hostility or reason–ever thwarts the persistence of Oliver’s conservative contingent.

As for Gandhi, and King, for that matter…the important thing about not abdicating the high ground is that the whole world was watching them not abdicate. Here on Oliver’s forum, and in fact in most political debates, the only people watching are the people involved, and nobody’s mind is getting changed in those forums.

(I believe it was Kyle Baker who wrote that the point of nonviolent protest was not to get beaten up for a good cause, but to get beaten up for a good cause in front of cameras.)

Absolutely. When they make supportless arguments and someone calmly replies, “Uh, no, actually. These facts clearly show you’re wrong here, here and here.” not only do you “win” the argument, but (in my experience) they get frustrated by your not playing the name-calling game and (eventually) go away.

Fair enough, I suppose, if your goal is to just have fun.

But I’d disagree that debate requires both sides to behave themselves. It’s when the other side isn’t arguing in good faith that clear, reasoned and civil responses are important. The only alternative is to fall into a “Well they started it” position that doesn’t make anyone look good.

To pick an admittedly extreme example, Ghandi never abandoned the high ground. (Uh, oh. Did I just invoke some corollary to Godwin’s law?)

As far as lurkers being persuaded of our argument, maybe the fact that some ideas are so repulsive to even merit debate is a signal of our humanity. Look at JT’s droppings on the other thread, with his bigoted arguments. Do they even deserve debate? Or is “Shut up bigot” pretty much what they deserve.

As far as lurkers being persuaded of our argument, maybe the fact that some ideas are so repulsive to even merit debate is a signal of our humanity. Look at JT’s droppings on the other thread, with his bigoted arguments. Do they even deserve debate? Or is “Shut up bigot” pretty much what they deserve.

Damn spell checker fails me again. Sigh.

But not likely to win supporters to your side. At least to of the ilk I presume you’d want no your side.

As a lurker here for several months, and an infrequent commenter, I’m not impressed with most of the arguments made by JT. On occasion he makes a reasonable point. More frequently he makes it badly.

But despite my natural tendency to fall more on the C.S. and Enlightened Liberal side of a discussion, I’m way put off by the name calling that comes from that side. It’s unfortunate that reasoned replies to JT-type straw man arguments are spoiled by a concluding “so there, asshole.”

The Democrats in Congress have the same problem. One day I wish that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would get up and call them assholes sometime. Because that’s who you call someone like Jt or Jay, someone who advocates torture and genocide. You don’t debate “people” like that, you call them what they are.

Just tell him to fuck off and then call him sub-human. At least it’s cathartic.

Yeah? And….?

Do you have some evidence that anyone knew about McHaney’s pedophilia BEFORE he was arrested? You know, the sort of evidence we have in spades for Foley and his Republican protectors? If not isn’t your comparison a little bit ….mmm… what’s the word I’m looking for … desperate?

My point still stands: McHaney was fired AFTER he was arrested. Foley was shunned BEFORE he was arrested.

J.