No offense, but there is no point in debating with you. You have demonstrated a true lack of intelligence.
I must correct you - I demonstrated a true lack of agreeing with you. If this, in your opinion, indicates a lack intelligence, Well, That indicates rather more about you than me, don't you think?
Yeah, Churba. You're smarter about white house politics than the Senior White House Correspondent for ABC News.
And you're a true master of the art of debate, and this especially shows when American Politics is the topic at hand. Now that we're one for one on the topic of "Things nobody ever claimed", can we move on?
It must be nice to go through life being so arrogant.
Were I able to remove most of your own arrogance, you would be able to experience first hand what it's like going through life as arrogant as I am, however, I must say that I regret that this is something I can't do, and I must leave you with only speculation.
But let's face it, that's not unfamiliar territory, is it?
If you are ever interested in a sailing vacation, you should try the coast of Somalia.
If you're ever bored of an afternoon, I suggest you fellate a red hot iron bar.
I understand that. I then asked for your position on whether or not Obama has engaged in patronage. You would not respond, yet continued to attack. This is the behavior of a troll, plain and simple.
I've responded to you, yet you won't respond to me. You are a troll.
I understand that. I then asked for your position on whether or not Obama has engaged in patronage.
See, it doesn't work that way. You don't shift your burden and the other person doesn't waive their burden just because you decide to avoid your problem. The way I see it, it must have dawned on you that you weren't proving your point and then you decided to try and distract from your failure by ad hominems and trolling.
In this example, Joe is arguing for the sake of arguing. He knows darn well that Obama has engaged in patronage, and he knows that economic discrimination is bad. Nonetheless, he throws up irrelevant smoke and mirrors for the sole purpose of provocation. He's then shocked that someone is provoked.
The best way to draw out a troll is to pin them down to a position. Notice how Joe won't do that? There really isn't any stronger evidence that he's a troll.
(measured statement of position devoid of pointless, unrelated bullshit)
That's what I'm looking for! Can't you guys just go about this like adults? Filling your posts with arguments to authority, ad hominems, not just moving goalposts but goalposts that shouldn't be there in the first place, and all other kinds of pointless periphery gets really annoying. Every argument you, Joe, and Steve have is muddled, confusing, and so full of unrelated shit from all sides that I can barely stand reading them. You caught me in a curious mood tonight.
I think that Churba was working off an erroneous definition of "belief". The problem ought to be clarified shortly.
I'd say you're correct, though I was absolutely aware of it at the time. I was simply twisting his words to suit what I wanted them to mean, but Hey, another difference between K and I, I've got the balls to freely admit it.
Notice how Joe won't do that? There really isn't any stronger evidence that he's a troll.
I also notice that you've taken up more positions than than a very enthusiastic practitioner of the Karma Sutra.
Kilarney, I could say that your actions are those of a playground bully. You are attempting to pressure Joe into saying something that you want him to say, for no real reason other than self-satisfaction. Your tactic of choice is to continually repeat yourself and insult Joe.
I understand your point, whether or not I agree with it. However, it's entirely appropriate to establish that Joe is merely a troll. I feel better having shown that he is.
Kilarney, I could say that your actions are those of a playground bully. You are attempting to pressure Joe into saying something that you want him to say, for no real reason other than self-satisfaction.
Wrong. I'm just trying to point out that Joe actually agrees with me and is just a troll.
Don't you wonder about a guy who is arguing with me and yet refuses to say if he agrees or disagrees with me?
That's a troll, and that is Joe. Nobody can argue that in this case. I am pressuring Joe into taking a side in this debate because I am fleshing out a troll - nothing more. His refusal to take a side is continuous evidence that he is merely a troll.
But this board accepts trolls as long as they are Obama supporters. If you don't support Obama, that's when the lynch mob comes out.
That's too simplistic. Debate is good. Arguing is not.
Inconsistent rules is a factor. Not being truthful is a factor. I could go on.
Good debate is fine. A troll wants an argument.
A good debater admits when there is evidence of a position. A troll pretends that no evidence has been provided when ample evidence has indeed been provided. A good debater acknowledges long standing traditions. A troll pretends that they don't exist.
A troll pretends that the producer of Yo Gabba Gabba is the best choice to be ambassador to France.
Just what the case at this point in time? You've been jumping from position to position faster than a jackrabbit on heavy doses of amphetamines, and I'm not quite sure exactly what case we're on right now.
Churba, I'm not going to debate with someone who does not believe that there are pirates off the coast of Somalia. Such a person either lacks the capacity to reason or lacks basic cognitive ability. No point in wasting this forum's time.
Churba, I'm not going to debate with someone who does not believe that there are pirates off the coast of Somalia. Such a person doesn't know reason. No point in wasting this forum's time.
I'm simply pressuring you into your side of the debate to flesh out a troll. After all, by your own statements, you are -
A troll pretends that no evidence has been provided when ample evidence has indeed been provided.
You've provided no evidence to back up your position - you've simply posted links a bunch of news articles, opinion pieces, and blog posts - so, you have pointed out a bunch of people that agree with you, great. You still don't have any evidence.
A good debater acknowledges long standing traditions. A troll pretends that they don't exist.
I see what you did there. I'd love to say it was clever, but I'm kinda disappointed, You're normally a little better than that. But if saying that I want to see hard evidence rather that speculation, conjecture, and opinion of others is "Ignoring Long standing traditions", then fine, I'm ignoring long standing tradition. I'm not so confident in my own knowledge of the situation that I can just say "Hey, all these people think this, I must be right!" - so, I seek to educate myself on the matter before I make a decision.
Churba, I'm not going to debate with someone who does not believe that there are pirates off the coast of Somalia.
You're goddamn right you're not, because to call the way you carry on even so much as an attempt at debate is a slap in the face to even the most unskilled and amateurish debater. I'm not any better, honestly, but at least I'm not claiming to be.
Churba, against my better judgment, I want to respond to something you said.
The burden of proof tends to lie with anyone who is arguing against received wisdom. It is well settled that patronage is a long-standing component of American politics. Therefore, those arguing that Obama is NOT engaging in patronage have the burden of proof. I carry the benefit of assumption.
But a troll ignores this reality. They just want to argue these matters, and won't take a position on the topic itself. Just like you and Joe are doing.
And, Joe, you are still hiding in your troll cave and won't answer a question on a substantive matter. Do you believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage?
Are there any other forum members that believe that money has NOT played a role Obama's appointment of certain ambassadors?
I'm starting to realize that there are just two or three people in this forum that believe this to be the case.
These are probably the same people that would have believed that the south was just fine back in the 50's. If only those black people would be quiet. After all, they could never meet their burden of proof. Just because the newspapers kept reporting lynchings and other violence... well... no reason the believe that this actually happened. An abundance of news reports has never meant anything. Nobody should believe such reports. Heck, next thing you know we'll start believing that there are pirates off the coast of Somalia. How crazy would that be!
You continue to equate economic discrimination to racial discrimination, but there is the very important distinction that economic status is not immutable, but race is.
I believe I have made my point about trivializing economic discrimination. No point in arguing the matter further. Would you be so cheeky if this was based on race, sexual orientation, etc.?
You clearly understand the difference (or you'd be arguing that Obama's actions were illegal as well as immoral), but I don't see the point in continuing to bring up issues such as race.
For fuck's sake, Kilarney, if you want good debate you're certainly not showing it. Ad hominems, red herrings, appeals to authority; these are all called logical fallacies because they're not supposed to be used in debate. They kill the civility, distract from the point, and do nothing but clutter the page. If you want good debate then drop the arrogant, pompous, intellectually dishonest bullshit and just debate. If the other side isn't doing the same, just ignore it! Then you can take solace in the fact that you're better than them, and everyone will like you that much better.
It's not just Kilarney, though. The way I see it you guys (you know who you are) can either learn something from Lackofcheese, or each each side can sit within it's respective bullshit circle-jerk and throws rocks at each other until one gets bored and the other declares a sad, empty victory.
Churba, against my better judgment, I want to respond to something you said.
Foolish indeed, but I'm going to...eh, screw it. I insult you, you insult me, lather rinse repeat, let's just not and say we did.
The burden of proof tends to lie with anyone who is arguing against received wisdom. It is well settled that patronage is a long-standing component of American politics. Therefore, those arguing that Obama is NOT engaging in patronage have the burden of proof. I carry the benefit of assumption.
I'm not arguing against it. I'm saying I'd like to see more evidence before I make a decision, as irrelevant as my decisions are. What I said, originally, was
What I'd like to see is someone Either proving that it was a case of "These guys have the money, they get the job" because frankly, No matter how much you waffle on about how obvious it is, or how foolish it is to assume it's not, yadda yadda yadda, without proof, all you have is idle arm-chair politics speculation.
I meant to say "is someone Either proving or disproving" but that was entirely my mistake in poorly laying out my position, rather than you mistaking my position, just for a start - also, I should have been clearer rather than assuming you'd read it as a collective "You" rather than specifically yourself, for another example. If I may, let me try again.
What I'd like to see is someone either proving or disproving that it was a case of "These guys have the money, they get the job" because frankly, No matter how much anyone waffles on about how obvious it is that it is one way or the other, or how foolish it is to assume it is or it is not, without proof, all these people have is idle arm-chair politics speculation. I'm not confident enough in my knowledge of the situation to make any assessment or form an opinion either way.
I carry the benefit of assumption.
You would, were I arguing against you on if it was Patronage or not, but my entire position on it is "Not enough evidence, I can't make any assessment or judgement"
But a troll ignores this reality.
Again, I don't argue the reality that you would have the benefit of assumption, were we on the opposing sides of the same argument.
They just want to argue these matters, and won't take a position on the topic itself.
I don't have enough knowledge of the situation to take a position other than "I don't know enough about the situation." If you refer back, I didn't even try to argue the matter, I just stated that I wish I had more evidence, if in a convoluted and semi-nonsensical fashion.
Your reply was to ask if I was trolling or oblivious, and even ignoring that I don't give more than the slightest possible amount of care or attention to American politics, or the assumption that despite being foreign(And, you know this, it's hardly a secret) and having no real reason to learn about American politics - again, which have barely even the tiniest effect on me whatsoever - that I would know about any of your long standing traditions within the system, ignoring all of that, exactly what were you trying to achieve by responding to a neutral statement with an attack?
As an aside, this is mighty clever -
Do you believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage?
Joe says Yes. You tell him to prove it, and having the exact same amount of direct, concrete evidence as anyone else, for or against - ie, none - he can't, score one for Kilarney.
Joe says No. He's agreeing with you, you get to accuse him of arguing for the sake of arguing against you, and being a troll. Again, Score one for Kilarney.
Joe doesn't give a yes or no answer - You accuse him of dodging the question, Trolling, secretly agreeing with you, what have you, and score one for Kilarney.
Here is a quote from an MSNBC article: American presidents rewarding top campaign fundraisers with plum ambassadorships has long been common practice for both Democrats and Republicans alike.
But President Obama, who has vowed to “change the ways of Washington,” has not only continued this tradition of his predecessors, he has outpaced them.
Hmm... what do you think the term "reward" means? Does it mean that they were the most qualified for the position? Oh yeah... and there are no pirates off the coast of Somalia.
Oh yeah... and there are no pirates off the coast of Somalia.
Why do you keep saying this? As far as I can tell the comment about pirates was actually a comment on the concept of belief. There's loads and loads of talk about pirates, but to back it up there's loads and loads of proof too. I was in Mombasa port this year, and there was proof lined up along the docks. And because there is a shit-ton of proof, shipping companies, cruise operators and private sailors are all doing something about it. In this case what someone believes or doesn't believe has very little value.
However, in questions where personal views play a big part, like character judgments and ethics, it's very hard to find or provide proof. In this case people can believe one way or another. And in either case it's possible to find huge numbers of people who agree with you. However, the most prudent position is that which all the people you are arguing with have taken, that is; until there's more evidence, I'm not going to come down on either side of the line.
In this case what someone believes or doesn't believe has very little value.
That's the case I was making - but K chose to ignore it. He got a good soundbite(obviously not literally, but you know what I mean) that makes me sound stupid, and he latched onto it. Now, he refuses to let it go, even though it just looks more like it went over his head, rather than any reflection on me.
I am glad that civil rights leaders in the 1950s didn't throw in the towel because it was merely "likely" that blacks were being discriminated against.
These are probably the same people that would have believed that the south was just fine back in the 50's. If only those black people would be quiet. After all, they could never meet their burden of proof. Just because the newspapers kept reporting lynchings and other violence... well... no reason the believe that this actually happened. An abundance of news reports has never meant anything. Nobody should believe such reports. Heck, next thing you know we'll start believing that there are pirates off the coast of Somalia. How crazy would that be!
As for others that "don't care" about equality - I am proud to care. At the end of the day, I'd rather care than not care.
Getting a position because you pay money =/= Getting a position because you have money. Even if this is a case of patronage, it's not an automatic indicator of the kind of classism you're painting it as.
As a non-heterosexual in an interracial relationship, I find it mildly insulting that you keep framing this as some form of civil rights issue. Hell, if you're going to be concerned about civil rights issues regarding the Caribbean nations, there are far greater issues than who get posted as U.S. ambassadors.
As a non-heterosexual in an interracial relationship, I find it mildly insulting that you keep framing this as some form of civil rights issue.
My concern is that economic discrimination often goes hand in hand with other civil rights issues. Not everything can be so neatly compartmentalized.
Considering we're talking about an African-American president that has shown support for GLBT rights and attempted to improve relations with "the Muslim world", I'm curious as to which civil rights issues you're concerned about.
Comments
But let's face it, that's not unfamiliar territory, is it? If you're ever bored of an afternoon, I suggest you fellate a red hot iron bar.
I've responded to you, yet you won't respond to me. You are a troll.
The best way to draw out a troll is to pin them down to a position. Notice how Joe won't do that? There really isn't any stronger evidence that he's a troll.
Don't you wonder about a guy who is arguing with me and yet refuses to say if he agrees or disagrees with me?
That's a troll, and that is Joe. Nobody can argue that in this case. I am pressuring Joe into taking a side in this debate because I am fleshing out a troll - nothing more. His refusal to take a side is continuous evidence that he is merely a troll.
But this board accepts trolls as long as they are Obama supporters. If you don't support Obama, that's when the lynch mob comes out.
Inconsistent rules is a factor. Not being truthful is a factor. I could go on.
Good debate is fine. A troll wants an argument.
A good debater admits when there is evidence of a position. A troll pretends that no evidence has been provided when ample evidence has indeed been provided. A good debater acknowledges long standing traditions. A troll pretends that they don't exist.
A troll pretends that the producer of Yo Gabba Gabba is the best choice to be ambassador to France.
The burden of proof tends to lie with anyone who is arguing against received wisdom. It is well settled that patronage is a long-standing component of American politics. Therefore, those arguing that Obama is NOT engaging in patronage have the burden of proof. I carry the benefit of assumption.
But a troll ignores this reality. They just want to argue these matters, and won't take a position on the topic itself. Just like you and Joe are doing.
And, Joe, you are still hiding in your troll cave and won't answer a question on a substantive matter. Do you believe that Obama has NOT engaged in patronage?
I'm starting to realize that there are just two or three people in this forum that believe this to be the case.
These are probably the same people that would have believed that the south was just fine back in the 50's. If only those black people would be quiet. After all, they could never meet their burden of proof. Just because the newspapers kept reporting lynchings and other violence... well... no reason the believe that this actually happened. An abundance of news reports has never meant anything. Nobody should believe such reports. Heck, next thing you know we'll start believing that there are pirates off the coast of Somalia. How crazy would that be!
It's not just Kilarney, though. The way I see it you guys (you know who you are) can either learn something from Lackofcheese, or each each side can sit within it's respective bullshit circle-jerk and throws rocks at each other until one gets bored and the other declares a sad, empty victory.
If I may, let me try again.
What I'd like to see is someone either proving or disproving that it was a case of "These guys have the money, they get the job" because frankly, No matter how much anyone waffles on about how obvious it is that it is one way or the other, or how foolish it is to assume it is or it is not, without proof, all these people have is idle arm-chair politics speculation. I'm not confident enough in my knowledge of the situation to make any assessment or form an opinion either way. You would, were I arguing against you on if it was Patronage or not, but my entire position on it is "Not enough evidence, I can't make any assessment or judgement" Again, I don't argue the reality that you would have the benefit of assumption, were we on the opposing sides of the same argument. I don't have enough knowledge of the situation to take a position other than "I don't know enough about the situation."
If you refer back, I didn't even try to argue the matter, I just stated that I wish I had more evidence, if in a convoluted and semi-nonsensical fashion.
Your reply was to ask if I was trolling or oblivious, and even ignoring that I don't give more than the slightest possible amount of care or attention to American politics, or the assumption that despite being foreign(And, you know this, it's hardly a secret) and having no real reason to learn about American politics - again, which have barely even the tiniest effect on me whatsoever - that I would know about any of your long standing traditions within the system, ignoring all of that, exactly what were you trying to achieve by responding to a neutral statement with an attack?
As an aside, this is mighty clever -Joe says Yes. You tell him to prove it, and having the exact same amount of direct, concrete evidence as anyone else, for or against - ie, none - he can't, score one for Kilarney.
Joe says No. He's agreeing with you, you get to accuse him of arguing for the sake of arguing against you, and being a troll. Again, Score one for Kilarney.
Joe doesn't give a yes or no answer - You accuse him of dodging the question, Trolling, secretly agreeing with you, what have you, and score one for Kilarney.
Admirably cunning.
Until and unless Joe actually states a position as requested, any arguing he engages in is that of a troll. Plain and simple.
American presidents rewarding top campaign fundraisers with plum ambassadorships has long been common practice for both Democrats and Republicans alike.
But President Obama, who has vowed to “change the ways of Washington,” has not only continued this tradition of his predecessors, he has outpaced them.
Hmm... what do you think the term "reward" means? Does it mean that they were the most qualified for the position? Oh yeah... and there are no pirates off the coast of Somalia.
However, in questions where personal views play a big part, like character judgments and ethics, it's very hard to find or provide proof. In this case people can believe one way or another. And in either case it's possible to find huge numbers of people who agree with you. However, the most prudent position is that which all the people you are arguing with have taken, that is; until there's more evidence, I'm not going to come down on either side of the line.
As for others that "don't care" about equality - I am proud to care. At the end of the day, I'd rather care than not care.
As a non-heterosexual in an interracial relationship, I find it mildly insulting that you keep framing this as some form of civil rights issue. Hell, if you're going to be concerned about civil rights issues regarding the Caribbean nations, there are far greater issues than who get posted as U.S. ambassadors.
[EDITED to fix grammar]