Author Topic: Who is left?  (Read 15566 times)

Redskullvw

  • Members
    • View Profile
Who is left?
« on: September 13, 2016, 08:37:33 PM »
I'm just wondering who is left? I take a break because the political races were leaking into Ornery back in November 2015. Come back and its like the tumbleweeds are everywhere. Roll call?

Mynnion

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2016, 10:18:56 AM »
Start an interesting topic and see who responds.  The number of posters has declined with the political season.  There are more lurkers than posters.

Redskullvw

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2016, 08:45:07 AM »
I figured that the number of topics would be over the top right now. Looking at my archives in previous years, I'm stunned.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2016, 09:05:22 AM »
I remember joining the forum because of the wide range of topics.  There were threads about religion, music, philosophy, evolution, archeology, literature, food, war, personal struggles.  There may have been as many as 100 active participants back then.  Members even sent money or other aid to each other (I remember that I and others offered to send you things after your house burned down, and that you dropped off the radar around that time). The number of people steadily whittled down due to general attrition, migration to Facebook and other forums, but also to rising polarization and personal enmities that developed over time.  We're still stubborn, but very tame compared to the old days.  There was a time when we averaged about 1 new member a day, but I think the last one we've had was about a month ago, who was an old member joining under a new name.

The biggest single factor (IMO) in the participation decline was the shift to the new forum software.  The number of new threads dropped dramatically and a lot of old members simply decided not to rejoin.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2016, 09:41:06 AM »
From the front page
  July 31, 2014
The American Disease


I think that explains a lot.  Maybe I'm the minority here but there was more than a little name recognition going on that lead me here. 

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2016, 09:43:28 AM »
The number of people "whittled down" because OSC stopped writing the War Watch/World Watch essays.  After that, the board has just been a generally (but not always) polite debating society with an ever declining amount of research and proof presented for arguments.

Would love it if OSC started writing the columns again, even if we'd see an endless number of those posts from new people who "can't understand how their favorite author could say such things"!

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2016, 04:09:19 PM »
I'd say Facebook is the biggest factor overall, followed by OSCs desistence in providing discussion fodder.  The forum software switch was the last straw for some people because it wasn't seamless (it's too bad it was delayed for a decade past when reasonable migrations to newer software might have been possible).  I wasn't going to re-activate my account, but ended up wanting to comment on the forum software switch.

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2016, 04:45:53 PM »
I'm still here reading, but I do most of my political discussion on facebook now.

I think the cause of the decline of activity here is a collection of things, and is, in the end, inevitable:

  • Facebook, reddit, quora, and other centralized and generalized discussion outlets are supplanting the small forum model. People seem to like single logins and unified identities. This significantly reduces the number of new posters we see signing up.
  • Orson Scott Card has grown significantly less active on the front page, and I find his most recent articles to be less thought provoking.
  • We had about a three year period of discussions poisoned by an excessive amount of vitriol, worse than anything I remember in the history of the forums. I'm not going to go into my reasons for why I think that happened, but I think the quality of discussion was at an all-time low in 2012-2015. I think that bad period overcame the inertia of a lot of reasonable and good posters, and now they're settled in other places. I think we've had a significant improvement to the quality of the discussion in the last year or so, but we lost a lot of good people during that time (and in the aftermath), so the pool of active posters has shrunk considerably, too.
  • The move to the new forum software, while long overdue and adding some nice functionality, probably created a minor wall of resistance for a few posters that would otherwise still be active.

Interestingly, I have about ten members from here (active and dormant) on my facebook account who I continue to talk with regularly, about stuff we used to talk about on here. I've grown very close to a handful of people I've met here, and am very grateful for that.

In principle I would rather use this forum as an outlet for my political discussions, but facebook makes it easier, and more of my friends and family get involved in the discussion there.

I don't have a way to involve my sisters and cousins and acquaintances in the conversation here, but I do have a way to include my ornery friends in my facebook discussions. Feel free to add me.

That being said, Ornery will always have a special place in my heart, and I suspect I'll be here until long after the lights go off. I read most of what is posted, but I post less than I used to.

Maybe I should start a few threads. Those of you who knew my positions 2-5 years ago might be surprised at how my beliefs have evolved.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2016, 04:48:06 PM by JoshuaD »

JoshuaD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #8 on: September 15, 2016, 04:50:11 PM »
It also seems that, for better or worse, internet memes are driving a lot of discussion, and we have images disabled here.

I've always liked that we don't have images, but I also like discussing memes, even though they are almost often simplistic and often frustrating.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2016, 06:28:09 PM »
I still check in, but now most of the time I'll dedicate the same time and effort to Quora - larger and more diverse audience, and their 'Be Nice Be Respectful' policy is enforced fairly well (though there is some clear bias).

Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #10 on: September 15, 2016, 08:20:22 PM »
I feel silly saying it, but I kind of resented the migration and feeling like all my history on this board was being wiped out.

Jordan

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #11 on: September 26, 2016, 08:40:29 PM »
Though I still come here, it's mostly to lurk and fairly infrequent. There's a few reasons; lack of time is the biggest, followed by lack of confidence in my writing and opinions.

Like LetterRip, I've enjoyed some minor contributions to Quora, though I feel mostly embarrassed about them. Sometimes I log into Facebook and try to respond to messages, though I rarely post anything substantial. Many of my friends and family come from extremely different political and social backgrounds, and I prefer to avoid the social maelstrom should they collide.

The main reasons I return here are that I think Ornery set, and still sets, a high bar for political discussion, and I very much miss many of the regular contributors from when I was active. It's genuinely nice to see some of you still here, even if it's mostly to say you don't post much. :)
« Last Edit: September 26, 2016, 08:42:57 PM by Jordan »

OrneryMod

  • Administrator
  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #12 on: September 26, 2016, 11:12:02 PM »
I feel silly saying it, but I kind of resented the migration and feeling like all my history on this board was being wiped out.

Sorry. We kept the old boards in place to try to mitigate that some, but I have a similar regret. 

If it's any small consolation, there appeared to be issues with the previous forum's database, where older threads were becoming mangled. Seeing that was the final push I needed for helping implement the new forums.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #13 on: September 27, 2016, 08:44:21 AM »
I don't suppose it's possible to have the old boards condensed down to a single file that can be downloaded?

Redskullvw

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #14 on: September 27, 2016, 10:52:16 AM »
Ive got most of the files up until about 2010. The rendering of the archive makes it too tedious a job for anyone with a life to do.

velcro

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #15 on: September 27, 2016, 06:31:07 PM »
I check in every 6 months or so, test the waters, and usually bail out when someone
-is personally insulting
-refuses to provide sources
-refuses to acknowledge that their "facts" have been disproven by reputable sources

That historically has taken about a week, but hope springs eternal that some posters have grown up a little in the intervening six months. :)

On a less confrontational tone, I prefer Ornery to Quora and Facebook for a few reasons.
-I don't want to start arguments with friends, Facebook or otherwise, that will affect our friendship.  While I have interacted with many of you for years, I don't think my life would change if any of you stopped talking to me because of a political disagreement.  So I try to stay polite, but don't pull punches.
-I like the fact that relatively few people post, and that they come back to read responses.  It is much more of a conversation than Quora. I can probe more deeply and refine my position over time, or even *gasp* change my mind.

So I may be here for a few weeks until someone pushes my buttons, then I will go off for a bit.

velcro

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #16 on: September 28, 2016, 10:11:10 PM »
Yeah, that didn't take long.

Directed at me already:
“You seem to think that other people shouldn't have or express opinions.”
“But since you'll have a conniption over that statement”
“I've never had any illusion that you'd believe any claim I make.  Nor when I back it up would you believe it. “

That last is a textbook response from people who refuse to provide facts. Which this poster refused to do.

Another poster said that a fact was "confirmed and documented" twice, when a little digging showed that a single individual claimed it happened, and admitted that they had nothing in writing.  Confirmed by nobody, documented by nothing.  I pointed that out, but no apology yet, no retraction.  This particular poster has done that for years.  Throw enough lies out at no cost, and some of them will stick and advance your cause, I guess.  Kind of like spam.  Too bad we don't shut it down here, it drowns out the real conversations.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #17 on: September 29, 2016, 04:09:40 AM »
People on the Internet are allowed to be wrong, you know.

And who is going to decide what is truth and what are lies? Whether something has been demonstrated to a point sufficient to force someone to cede an argument? Whether a source is reliable?

The Mod? Mob rule? You? The sheer logistical nightmare of that make the horrific "motive inference policing" period of a few years back look like utopian perfection.

Sorry, but this isn't a courtroom. There doesn't have to be a declared winner, and people don't have to give an admission that they've lost as payment for when they do lose.

We're all intelligent people here, and we hardly need our hands to be held and our faces rubbed in it to know when an argument isn't being sourced, or when someone has lost a point and is flailing just so they won't have to admit it. Trust me, if the things that you imply should be enforced were enforced,  I wouldn't even lurk here, never mind post.

You know what else always happens within a week of you posting here? You lamenting the fact that other posters refuse to post in the fashion that you want them to, and then quitting the forum when people don't do as you ask.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #18 on: September 29, 2016, 12:02:43 PM »
But Quag, what is the correct response then to someone who insults you, or at least questions your intelligence, based on a contention that is provably wrong?  Should we simply smile and take it?  Repeatedly point out the error and hope everyone else will acknowledge it?  Respond in kind?

It's a tricky point since the criteria for "provable" varies with individuals.  But taking the worst-case scenario, we could have someone who continually repeats a obvious lie, mocks those who disagree, and declares himself the winner after he browbeats any critics.  The forums would quickly become very tiresome in that case.  Social pressure seems to be the only way to keep such a person at bay.

We all need to check our work, and have others check it for us to find those aspects we might have missed.  Sourcing is important.  And asking for sources keeps us all honest.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #19 on: September 29, 2016, 12:07:34 PM »
A simple, "That is wrong, here's the proof" is plenty IMO.  Going beyond that and attempting to extract a retraction or apology is typically both a waste of time AND patronizing to the rest of the people reading.  You are in effect suggesting that the rest of us are so helpless that without you protecting us from misinformation we would be doomed.

Correct a person often enough (and convincingly) and it no longer matters if they recant.  It's not like Ornery is the same as your facebook feed.  The smaller the group, the less you need to treat them like helpless herd animals.

velcro

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #20 on: September 29, 2016, 01:29:13 PM »
"You are in effect suggesting that the rest of us are so helpless that without you protecting us from misinformation we would be doomed."

When someone claims"vaccines cause autism", and you point out that all the data supporting that position has been disproven, and then they continue to bring up vaguely plausible, but false, arguments to support it, what do you do?  When the thread gets so long that it seems like there "must" be something to the claim, how do you get across the fact that there really is nothing?

Do you shut up and let them go on, so readers, and lurkers, start to believe it? (BTW, right now there are 5 users and 11 guests here, so making assumptions based on users is not valid for most readers of Ornery)

I don't think everyone else here is helpless.  But when someone tells an outright lie, and of the dozens of people reading it, I am the only one who points it out, how exactly am I supposed to know that everyone recognizes it as a lie?  When 72% of registered Republicans still doubt that Obama was born in the US, is it overkill to make very clear the difference between truth and lies?

I ask for retractions to give people the benefit of the doubt.  If they were mistaken, they will retract.  I do.  If they are stubborn, or intentionally lying, they will refuse.  I want to know which they are, and I want to show to the community which they are, so that the community can better judge how much to trust them.

I think people should be accountable for what they post.  I keep hoping that at least a few people on Ornery will openly agree with that, and actually say something to those who refuse to be accountable.

"You lamenting the fact that other posters refuse to post in the fashion that you want them to".  No, that posters refuse to post in the fashion that actually provides communication and education to readers, instead of distortion, lies and lack of accountability.

DJQuag, any crappy comments section provides the environment you describe, anything goes. I keep hoping that Ornery is better than that.




velcro

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #21 on: September 29, 2016, 01:44:44 PM »
Wayward wrote:
"Social pressure seems to be the only way to keep such a person at bay."
"It's a tricky point since the criteria for "provable" varies with individuals."

There needs to be a middle ground where the vaccine conspiracy theorist is vastly outvoted by opposing comments, but not shut up.

Too many times it is one on one, and it looks like a toss-up, when it should be 100 to one against the lies.

Does anyone else feel this way?  When we read a lie, an obvious, factual lie, can we all just post a few words to show that Ornery cares about the truth?

Or is the consensus that anything goes, and we have no right to put science and reason above ignorance and distortion?  That we have no right to declare something to be a lie, no matter how obvious?

Yes, intelligent people can see the facts and decide for themselves.  But when they see a lie and are silent, it gives power to the lie. And for the people who are not educated, or trained, or motivated to see the facts, and who feel better believing the lie, that silence convinces them to take the easy way and believe the lie.

If I read a lie, I will not be silent.  And when the lie is repeated, I will repeat the truth, until the liar stops.  I hope others on Ornery understand this and do the same.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #22 on: September 29, 2016, 02:00:57 PM »
Nothing is a lie, since we cannot prove objective reality without invoking God like Descartes did.

Setting that aside, I satisfy myself with providing proof, and I don't find I need to call people out as liars or fools, make them admit that they are liars or fools, or have other people confirm that they are liars or fools.

Generally, I still find Ornery to be relatively grounded in reality, compared to what I see on Facebook, reddit, and other online discussions.

I think the lack of infusion of new participants has led people to consider the poster more than the post. There's a lot more callouts to off-topic cross discussions. I often wonder if it wouldn't be more productive to anonymize all posts.

I do think that providing sources is helpful, and there's a lot less of quote+url than there used to be, and that's too bad.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #23 on: September 29, 2016, 02:08:14 PM »
velcro, I believe you are overstating our capacity to "prove" that something is a lie. In most cases at best we can present good evidence for a side, which will still require interpretation to agree with. Many disagreements here develop as a result of interpreting the same data differently, which in a way is how it should be. Sometimes people do stick to foolish positions, but I wouldn't say this is because they are doubling down on 'lies.' More like their interpretive narrative isn't open to new information, which, it's true, will often create several one-sided 'conversations' happening at the same time, rather than a discussion where everyone is open to modifying their position. That being said, I've still found I learn a lot here even when people merely state their position and aren't open to shifting. From my perspective, the only person whose perspective I'd like to see shift is mine, so the others can take what they may from it.

The only thing that grates on me, in particular, is when replies aren't taken seriously or their content is ignored. But if someone acknowledges what was said and still disagrees, that's cool.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #24 on: September 29, 2016, 02:56:41 PM »
I have no problem calling people out on a "lie" or a mistake.  I in fact am typically appreciative when someone informs me when I make one or parrot a lie. 

That is however quite different from a constant barrage where one person refuses to relent and another refuses to let them have the last word.  I'm opposed to censorship.  Because of this I'm also against futility.  ;)  You are free to write whatever you want.  I'm free to roll my eyes and form a tendency to skim or ignore anything a consistently untrustworthy source has to say on one or more topics.  It's easier to do when I don't also have to ignore requests that I pick up a torch and pitchfork to aid the mob in chasing the offender out of town.

DJQuag

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #25 on: September 29, 2016, 03:00:00 PM »
You say that the thing I describe is anything goes, Velcro, but I disagree. For one thing, straightforward personal attacks (although not veiled ones) are verboten. It helps keep a sheen of civility to the whole thing.

As for our duty to educate and inform the masses...nah. I'm here to read interesting viewpoints and thoughts and, when the fancy takes me, get into an argumen-ahem, *debate* with someone. If one of these mystery lurkers really can't figure out for themselves that someone keeps repeating an unsourced claim that has been pretty thoroughly refuted, well at that point I consider it a "them" problem, not a "me" problem.

Gaoics79

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #26 on: September 29, 2016, 03:12:48 PM »
I think one needs to be careful with accusations of "lying". Repeating a false claim based on faulty logic, defective facts or personal bias, is not "lying". It is extremely rare in these discussions that I get any whiff of true dishonesty Velcro.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #27 on: September 29, 2016, 03:28:55 PM »
All interesting responses.  I tend to have a more visceral reaction to what Velcro's doing with his posts on this point.  I think too many of the claims are literally disagreements in opinion masquerading as facts.  Demands for "proof" of a person's opinion is too often just an attempt at burden shifting and/or generating a strawman.  I mean look at the thread the complaint originated from (this time anyway).  There's no way to prove the subjective idea that 'Gore had it worse' any more than there is to prove the subjective idea that 'Bush had it worse.'  We can all have opinions and even cite to specific evidence, but the final judgment is a subjective comparison.  I find it beyond obnoxious to label other people liars because they won't agree to a futile attempt to refute a strawman, or agree to play the burden shifting game whereby a failure to prove an unprovable opinion is claimed to be proof of the opposite unprovable opinion.

I also think there's a good bit of argument from authority fallacy going on.  Where he claims that he's "proven" something because he cites to a piece of evidence he thinks is controlling and therefore all contrary opinions are false (and in some cases should be suppressed, at least based on previous threads).  Sometimes there is a controlling piece of evidence for a fact or assumption, sometimes not so much (the "not so much" was certainly the case on the prior boards in the Planned Parenthood thread where he claimed that the opinion of an accountant with no actual access to the books in question, was controlling, even though anyone with a knowledge of accounting rules understands how much wiggle room there was).  In any event, having an opinion derived from experience or years of review is not an unreasonable thing.

I have no objection to providing references for factual claims or even for material assumptions.  It's utterly nonsense to demand citations for opinions and conclusions.  Unless of course, I'm supposed to say, Seriati said, "It's utterly nonsense to demand citations for opinions and conclusions."  See I won the Internet.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #28 on: September 29, 2016, 04:24:55 PM »
Quote
I'm here to read interesting viewpoints and thoughts and, when the fancy takes me, get into an argumen-ahem, *debate* with someone.

As long as [*sniff*] they're better than [*sniff*] certain other debates that [*sniff*] we've seen lately. ;)

(I think there's something wrong with my keyboard. :) )

velcro

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #29 on: September 29, 2016, 09:51:33 PM »
I understand some of the points made here, and will try not to be quite so zealous in demanding the truth.

However, when someone says, twice, a fact is "confirmed and documented", when all available evidence says it was a statement by an individual who had nothing in writing, that, I believe, is a lie. Or really not caring a whit whether something is actually true, as long as it agrees with your world view.  Which to me is just as bad.

I never asked for "citations on opinions or conclusions". You said "Bush was treated worse, as is virtually every Republican candidate, but in completely different specific ways."  I asked you to provide specific examples of the specific ways you mentioned.  Very different than what you portrayed me doing.  If you didn't know what any specific ways were, why exactly did you say they existed? Is it just your opinion that they exist, but you have never actually seen an example?

"A failure to prove an unprovable opinion is claimed to be proof of the opposite unprovable opinion".  And who might have claimed that?  Not me.  Once again, you misrepresent what I did.  I will ask you to show me the quote to support your accusation, but you may just do what you did last time - say I won't believe it if you show me, so why waste your time.  Or claim the above is just an opinion, with no need to support it.

What actually happened was I pointed out that Gore had it worse because he was mocked for things he didn't do (a statement supported by the Vanity Fair article, and the original sources), and Bush was mocked for things he did do (a statement which you essentially agreed with). No mention of your lack of proof as proof of my argument. No mention of proof of my argument.  Just sources and reasoning.

"There's no way to prove the subjective idea that 'Gore had it worse' any more than there is to prove the subjective idea that 'Bush had it worse.'" Very true. However, I supported my argument with the statement above, things done vs. things not done, etc.  There was reasoning and there were sources.  Your argument, ahem, opinion, was supported by, literally, absolutely nothing whatsoever.

What I "proved" in the Planned Parenthood thread, IIRC, was as follows:

Someone claimed that there was no expert testimony about whether the reimbursable costs were reasonable, when in fact four experts were consulted who said it was reasonable.  I didn't prove the costs were reasonable, but I proved that the claim that no such testimony existed was false.  It is very easy to disprove a negative - simply provide a single counterexample.  That is what I did.  I don't have access to the original, but if you can show that this statement is incorrect, have at it.  Otherwise, you have again distorted what I said.

So a few people have commented somewhat negatively to me on my attempt to keep the discussion here evidence based and to point out blatant untruths.  Yet nobody has commented negatively to posters who have made offensive comments aimed at me, or proclaimed the complete certainty of falsehoods, or have grossly distorted what I have said recently and years past.  Any comment on that?  I truly have confidence that you have seen and understand the evidence of what I said, and what was said to me.  Anyone care to weigh in on who they think is trying to support the truth and civility, and who is trying to distort the truth and act rudely? Or is asking people to take sides when someone is being falsely accused too uncomfortable?



Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #30 on: September 29, 2016, 10:11:28 PM »
Perhaps because I'm a member of another board where this is common, I make a big distinction between being surely (or ornery, if you will) and being rude. On occasion people here are blatantly rude, but in general in the past the moderation has covered that decently. Many statements that feel rude, and which in any case aren't necessarily polite, may be intellectually offensive or dismissive but as far as internet forums go I put a higher standard on 'rude' to the point where it has to be called out. In my time here I've on occasion come to the defence of the odd person who I thought was being targeted unfairly, but when it comes to standoffish resistance to agreement I don't think we need to call that out as a group and protect anyone from it. Seriati may be intractable in his positions sometimes, but I wouldn't put him anywhere near the category of those posters in the past who have harmed forum decorum. I value his responses to issues in general.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #31 on: September 30, 2016, 07:23:35 AM »
Quote
So a few people have commented somewhat negatively to me on my attempt to keep the discussion here evidence based and to point out blatant untruths.  Yet nobody has commented negatively to posters who have made offensive comments aimed at me, or proclaimed the complete certainty of falsehoods, or have grossly distorted what I have said recently and years past.  Any comment on that?  I truly have confidence that you have seen and understand the evidence of what I said, and what was said to me.  Anyone care to weigh in on who they think is trying to support the truth and civility, and who is trying to distort the truth and act rudely? Or is asking people to take sides when someone is being falsely accused too uncomfortable?
I sympathize with your position, but I can't agree that you should expect all of the things you ask for.  The fact that we argue and often don't come to common agreement means both that sometimes some of us refuse to acknowledge our errors, but also that sometimes different assumptions (stated or not) lead us to different irreconcilable conclusions.  There's more agreement here that Trump is, as one of us calls him, a dumpster fire, than there has ever been before on this board about any candidate for the Presidency.  OTOH, there is perhaps even more disagreement about Hillary Clinton than ever before, as even not all of the leftish members think she is a worthy candidate.  Your way of thinking about things is good, but not perfect, but valid entirely because it is yours, not less valid because it isn't everybody's.  You have to accept that discussion here requires that you bring both reason and elbow pads.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #32 on: September 30, 2016, 11:08:27 AM »
I never asked for "citations on opinions or conclusions". You said "Bush was treated worse, as is virtually every Republican candidate, but in completely different specific ways."  I asked you to provide specific examples of the specific ways you mentioned.  Very different than what you portrayed me doing.

That's a quote of an opinion or conclusion, you can tell from the word "worse," which is a comparative term.  Asking me why I believe it is a respectful thing to do.  And I responded with exactly why I believed it for Bush v. Gore.  The fact that you attribute a higher value of "worse" to Gore because you think the way he was mistreated was worse, and I place a higher value of "worse" to Bush because I think the intensity, scope and scale of mistreatment favors him, is a divergence of opinion. 

Is that what you think you did?  Asked me to explain my beliefs?  Cause honestly, your first posts were a demand that I provide documented proof from the time period of the election (ie 16 years ago) that Bush was mistreated in exactly the same manner, with the implication that if it was not at the same or a greater scale it would not be proof of the "claim." 

Quote
If you didn't know what any specific ways were, why exactly did you say they existed? Is it just your opinion that they exist, but you have never actually seen an example?

I specifically addressed your point.  Even pointed to one example of what I was talking about, ie that Bush was hammered for the ridiculous things he said but clearly didn't mean.  Which is exactly the kind of statement, unless you dispute that it was true, that is evidence of why I could believe what I do and say what I say on a meta-claim about who was treated worse by the media.

Quote
"A failure to prove an unprovable opinion is claimed to be proof of the opposite unprovable opinion".  And who might have claimed that?  Not me.  Once again, you misrepresent what I did.  I will ask you to show me the quote to support your accusation, but you may just do what you did last time - say I won't believe it if you show me, so why waste your time.  Or claim the above is just an opinion, with no need to support it.

What else where you doing with your attempt to burden shift then?  And you've already more than once asserted that what you've labeled my "claims" should not be believed unless I provide the evidence you deem satisfactory.

I could live with the idea that we call them "just an opinion," if you held yourself to the same standard, but you don't logically distinguish between your opinions and your facts, see below for an example.

Quote
What actually happened was I pointed out that Gore had it worse because he was mocked for things he didn't do (a statement supported by the Vanity Fair article, and the original sources), and Bush was mocked for things he did do (a statement which you essentially agreed with). No mention of your lack of proof as proof of my argument. No mention of proof of my argument.  Just sources and reasoning.

No one disputed what happened to Gore, that's not proof of your claim.  The difference here is nothing but reasoning and opinion.   You have an opinion that what happened to Gore is subjectively worse that's all.  You've provided no more proof of that than I have.

Quote
"There's no way to prove the subjective idea that 'Gore had it worse' any more than there is to prove the subjective idea that 'Bush had it worse.'" Very true. However, I supported my argument with the statement above, things done vs. things not done, etc.  There was reasoning and there were sources.  Your argument, ahem, opinion, was supported by, literally, absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Again, this why I find this conversation with you annoying.  You didn't support your argument with any fact.  The fact in question was not in dispute.  Or to put it another way, whether or not Gore even existed, is not a fact on which the essence of your claim, "I believe that calling out someone for something stupid that they did not do or say is harsh treatment.  Calling out someone for something stupid that they did do or say is not harsh treatment, it is journalism," is dependent.  Accordingly it is not support for your claim, it's only support for exactly what I said - they were treated harshly in different ways. 

You do understand the logic here right?

Quote
What I "proved" in the Planned Parenthood thread, IIRC, was as follows:

Someone claimed that there was no expert testimony about whether the reimbursable costs were reasonable, when in fact four experts were consulted who said it was reasonable.    I didn't prove the costs were reasonable, but I proved that the claim that no such testimony existed was false. 

I agree that's the strawman you tried to argue against.  Of course, you misunderstood the actual argument and responded with a fallacious appeal to authority as a result.

The argument was that only one person knew the actual costs, and everyone else was speculating.  Pointing to "experts" who were themselves speculating isn't a fact that is on point.

Maybe if you're going to claim that people are mistreating you, you should refrain from simultaneously attacking them with your backhand.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #33 on: September 30, 2016, 11:17:34 AM »
Seriati may be intractable in his positions sometimes, but I wouldn't put him anywhere near the category of those posters in the past who have harmed forum decorum. I value his responses to issues in general.

I assume you mean stubborn, but it could be difficult to deal with, can't say I disagree.  I will say this, I'm most difficult when I see arguments that don't have internal logical consistency.  Like everyone, I'm most persuadable, when you can demonstrate an assumption I'm making is incorrect and least persuadable when you just assert an assumption I'm making is incorrect.

For example, that's why I miss Prytolin, I hardly ever agreed with his assumptions, but generally speaking if you accepted them his arguments and conclusions were very logical.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #34 on: September 30, 2016, 11:40:09 AM »
Seriati may be intractable in his positions sometimes, but I wouldn't put him anywhere near the category of those posters in the past who have harmed forum decorum. I value his responses to issues in general.

I assume you mean stubborn, but it could be difficult to deal with, can't say I disagree.  I will say this, I'm most difficult when I see arguments that don't have internal logical consistency.

Well, I meant what I said. Sometimes you simply won't budge on a point (for instance, the thread about the water crisis in Michigan), but my insinuation isn't that there is any problem with that. it isn't a difficulty for me, at any rate. I, personally, learn more by having you state a point and stick with it than I would if you gave in and agreed right away. The refusal (by either party) to 'give in' tends to create more fuel for getting into the specifics of the argument, even though one likewise runs the risk of being mired in technical details. I prefer things the way they are, rather than having people be obliged to accept a resolution of which answer was the "correct" one.

AI Wessex

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Who is left?
« Reply #35 on: September 30, 2016, 03:59:30 PM »
Yeah, well not always.  Besides sometimes having different assumptions we have different facts.  Sometimes both can be fallacious.  It galls me when opinions are paraded as facts and that people weasel out of admitting they're wrong when they won't -- because they can't -- back up facts that are in dispute.  Ironically, one poster here who I absolutely disagree with on nearly every word out of his mouth other than "the" or "and" is Cherry.  He dodges and weaves with the best of them, but sometimes will acknowledge his error before launching his new nonsense argument.  I suppose that says something good about him, though I can't quite put my finger on it.