September 04, 2013
How to Tell Me You Are Ignorant
Tell me that Trayvon Martin, a violent and drug-abusing thug, whom the record shows likely attacked George Zimmerman -- a man without any evidence of racism in him, who helped people of all races, including donating his time to tutor black children -- without provocation, was somehow a murder victim and a symbol of racism.
Tell me that the Martin/Zimmerman incident had anything whatsoever to do with "stand your ground" laws.
Tell me that the removal of section 4 of the Voting Rights Act violates anyone's civil rights, when -- literally and explicitly -- section 4 itself violated everyone's civil rights, by taking away their essential right to choose their own government to write and pass their own laws.
Tell me that (as President Obama said recently) that "the marketplace" is bad, without government to direct it; that government "empowers" us to fix the market's flaws and reduce poverty. For bonus points, argue (as President Obama said recently) that everything bad in the economy is the fault of "the marketplace" while simultaneously claiming that government has been active within the economy for many years, and it would be "extreme" to reverse that trend.
Tell me that the number of bills Congress has passed is a rational measure of how good a Congress is. For bonus points, tell me that the number of bills matters, but the number of pages in those bills doesn't.
Tell me that Republicans are anti-women just because they are against aborting the lives of unborn, living, human children.
Tell me that universal background checks will have an impact on violent crime, even though the data denies this claim (legally purchased guns without background checks -- the only gun transfers that would be affected by such a law -- make up a tiny percentage of the guns used in violent crimes: almost all guns used in violent crimes are obtained legally with background checks, or illegally).
There's many ways you can tell me that you are ignorant. These are just a few.
Posted by pudge at September 04, 2013
06:56 AM | Email This
1. Whoa...a bit of a sanctimonious general post don't you think, Mr Pudge (nice to see you posting tho...) :)
2. It is much simpler than that to tell if someone is ignorant. They merely need mention that they are on the Left.
3. Or tell me you don't want discussion on topics by saying that those who disagree with your positions are lying. Get a life Pudge!
anon: I have never, ever, in all my life, said that someone is "lying" because they disagree with me. You are lying by saying so. You can't back it up. It has never happened.
Duffman: it is "sanctimonious" to say that I think someone who denies clear and obvious facts is ignorant? I thought I was just being tautological.
5. I think every post of pudge's devolves into: "You're a liar!" "I'm not lying! You're a liar!" "You're lying!"
6. I have never, ever, in all my life, said that someone is "lying" because they disagree with me. You are lying by saying so. You can't back it up. It has never happened.
Not true, pudge. Posters have caught you doing this many times. When they call you on it, you delete their comments.
You've already deleted comments on this thread. You'll probably delete this one, too.
anonymous coward: Not true, pudge.
Posters have caught you doing this many times.
8. anonymous coward:
That's funny coming from someone who's declared that the right to remain anonymous is an essential part of free speech.
BTW: Is pudge your real name?
anonymous coward: That's funny coming from someone who's declared that the right to remain anonymous is an essential part of free speech.
Sure. But that doesn't mean you're not a coward. I also declare you have the essential right to sit in your home and smoke pot all day, but if you do, I still might call you a loser.
I don't say all anonymous posters are cowards. Sometimes there's a compelling reason to be anonymous. Here, there's not, that I can tell. The only people who have something to "fear" from me here are those who are past abusers, or plan on being abusive. Given your lies about me, it could be either.
And really, it's actually funny given the source of my 10-year employment at Slashdot, where people who chose to post anonymously were literally given the label "Anonymous Coward." It's an in-joke to those who know the site and know I worked there.
BTW: Is pudge your real name?
Yes. Not my legal name, no, but absolutely it is my real name. It's what many people call me, including most people online, in the computing world, and at my day job. My identity is not remotely hidden -- it is terribly easy to link my names together -- and "pudge" actually identifies me far more clearly to many (if not most) people who know of me.
You refuse to provide any evidence backing up your claim. That is, logically, all the proof I need. It is incumbent upon you to back up your claim.
The fact is I only (very rarely) remove exceptionally abusive comments, or (more often) all comments from previously abusive people. I do not remove their past comments that caused me to judge them abusive, but only their comments posted after that judgment, so the record of abuse remains. (I also remove spam. You're welcome.)
I have never once removed a comment, or judged someone "abusive," based on mere disagreement. The closest you could come to that is my view that persistent lying is abuse, but in every case, I either prove the poster is persistently lying, or I repeatedly demand the poster back up his claims, and he refuses, while still repeating the lie.
That is not mere disagreement, that is very clear and obvious and persistent dishonesty and lying, which reduces the quality of the discussion, and therefore the poster is banned.
If you have any evidence, present it. But you don't, do you?
Right pudge, were you expecting me to link to comments you've deleted as evidence?
There's no point in debating someone who dishonestly edits the conversation. I'll leave you to the spambots who seem to have a proper appreciation of your posts.
You have numerous times to me in the past. You never prove that what I stated was a lie, because you couldn't. It is your most common response when someone objects to your reasoning and provides valid counterarguments that you cannot refute other than saying you are lying.
Tell you what. Allow those who you have banned back to allow posting would be a first step in showing you are not living your post's headline. Allow conversations to be full of all posts (excluding spam, which should be blocked out in the first place). Will you? I very much doubt it. As pointed out a while back, when you posted to a thread not controlled by you and were called to task, you were taken to task. You are not always right and people do have different opinions on matter. You, however, don't want to hear other opinions. You close your mind and your posts so what readers are left with bland everyone is in agreement. Heck, you even banned Rags, I believe at one time, and a few others that generally are in your court. KDS has called you out on it too, in the past.
How does your pettiness in calling people liars when they have different opinions (an opinion can't technically be a lie) not show you as living your post's title?
The discussion on lying reminds me of the "Cretan Paradox" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox
). The Apostle Paul himself referred to this paradox himself. Since Paul stated that the paradox was true, and if we find a Cretan who wasn't, does that make the Apostle Paul also one.
I personally, loved it when Spock used this principle in the episode with Harry Mudd and the robot culture.
anonymous coward: Right pudge, were you expecting me to link to comments you've deleted as evidence?
No, because it's never happened.
There's no point in debating someone who dishonestly edits the conversation.
What's that got to do with me? I am very honest about everything I've removed.
anonymous coward: You have numerous times to me in the past.
It is your most common response when someone objects to your reasoning and provides valid counterarguments that you cannot refute other than saying you are lying.
when you posted to a thread not controlled by you and were called to task, you were taken to task.
If by "taken to task" you mean unsubtantiated claims about me as you're doing now, yes. If you mean that anyone ever actually demonstrated me banning or deleting based on mere difference of opinion, you're lying.
You are not always right and people do have different opinions on matter.
Both true, and completely irrelevant to the discussion.
You, however, don't want to hear other opinions.
You close your mind
you even banned Rags
How does your pettiness in calling people liars when they have different opinions
You're lying. I never call someone a liar out of pettiness, and while I do occasionally err and think an opinion is a false statement of fact, it is rare. You saying I close my mind is not an opinion, it is a false statement of fact. It is a lie.
I don't know how we got to the point in society where you can justify any bullshit you want by saying "it's just my opinion," but I don't buy into the deception.
16. No, because it's never happened.
That's what you say. I say you're lying.
I am very honest about everything I've removed.
In my experience, people who find it necessary to declare their honesty are usually dishonest.
I'm not going to argue with you. Others are free to form their own opinions regarding your lack of character.
anonymous coward: In the vein of Pudge's protests about those who raise the issue of lying and also in vein of Pudge's post itself, here is an interesting similar discussion from the PI regarding Global Warming
Thanks for backing me up. That's exactly right. I never call someone a liar for saying (something to the effect of) that they believe the scientific evidence shows we are likely causing global warming. I do call someone a liar for saying that the debate is over, or that there's no other possible explanations for the warming, or that the "deniers" have no case, and so on, because those are explicitly false statements of fact.
You can provide statistical proof
of the overestimation of Global Warming AND alternate and now confirmed theories
as to what controls our climate. to someone on the Left, and they still will believe in the religion of Al Gore. They do not want to look outside the statism they get from Climate Alarmism.
And they will lie all day about it as well, because insisting they are right and pudge is wrong is more important to those on the Left than truth or facts.
Pudge@9 lies, "I have never once removed a comment, or judged someone "abusive," based on mere disagreement. The closest you could come to that is my view that persistent lying is abuse, but in every case, I either prove the poster is persistently lying, or I repeatedly demand the poster back up his claims, and he refuses, while still repeating the lie."
In fact, pudge, you "banned" (such a juvenile term) me for disagreeing with you strenuously enough that you considered it lying. Everyone who reads your posts knows you bully people with the word "lying". You may think I'm wrong on everything but I was one of the few people who participated in on-topic substantial debate on this blog. Of course I can still do it anonymously but I rarely bother, given the drastically reduced readership, influence, and coherence of this site in the past year. Go ahead, delete this too. Congratulations.
20. And pudge, you are wrong about all 7 of the issues in the original post. Each of these issues is complicated; there is some validity to each "ignorant" statement and some reason to disagree with each. But to say it is "ignorant" to believe any of them is just wrong. "Ignorant" of what? Your absolutist way of thinking?
anonymous coward: In fact, pudge, you "banned" (such a juvenile term) ...
How is it juvenile? Do you have a better word? It seems the perfectly appropriate word.
... me for disagreeing with you strenuously enough that you considered it lying.
False. I banned you for actually lying.
Everyone who reads your posts knows you bully people with the word "lying".
See, but "everyone" is normally incapable of mounting even the most basic argument against my claim that something I call lying, is lying. I could not care less what someone thinks is "bullying." Lying is worse than anything I've done. If you lie, I call you on it. And your only possible defense is not that I am a big meanie, but that you were not, in fact, lying. But you were.
You may think I'm wrong on everything but I was one of the few people who participated in on-topic substantial debate on this blog.
That doesn't justify your lying.
And pudge, you are wrong about all 7 of the issues in the original post.
False. You're ignorant, or lying.
1. There is no evidence that Martin was a murder victim or that race had anything to do with the incident. None was even presented in court. They simply tried to imply facts of the case things about his state of mind that couldn't be substantiated. And not that it mattered to the case, but we know for a fact that Martin was a drug-abusing thug.
2. There is all the evidence in the world -- actual positive proof -- that "stand your ground" laws literally had nothing to do with the incident or the case. Nothing. This was, in the law, a simple self-defense case, and would've held up in any state, with or without such laws.
3. There is no evidence that anyone's rights are violated by the removal of section 4 of the VRA. There is evidence that rights *could* be violated, but not that they are. And, again, it is simple fact that the very existence of section 4 was a de facto violation of civil rights.
4. There is no evidence that the government twiddling with the economy reduces poverty more than "the marketplace" does. None at all. Not a shred. It's actually precisely the opposite, that poverty has grown as government regulation has grown.
5. There is no rational argument -- again, none at all -- that the amount of legislation is a reasonable measure of how good a Congress is. That's just terribly stupid. You have to look at what you think the needs are, and how well the legislation met those needs, not at how many laws were passed. That doesn't even make sense.
6. There is not even the remote beginnings of a rational argument that a Republican who is against abortion is "anti-women." Hell, about half (or more) of the Republicans who oppose abortion are women. It's just idiotic.
7. The facts are the facts. The number of guns used in violent crimes, where they were bought legally but without a background check, through the erroneously called "gun show loophole," is extremely small. The data shows probably less than 1 percent of such guns. Therefore, universal background checks won't have a statistically significant impact on violent crime. Almost all guns used in violent crimes are procured illegally (theft or black market), bought legally through a dealer with a background check, or procured from a friend or family member. None of those guns would be affected by this law. It's already illegal to get a gun illegally. It's not going to be illegal to get a gun legally. And friends and family won't be affected by this: if your F/F cannot pass a background check, you were already breaking the law giving it to them before, and it won't be any more illegal under the proposed law change.
Each of these issues is complicated
Not really. The facts are clear on all of them.
there is some validity to each "ignorant" statement
to say it is "ignorant" to believe any of them is just wrong
Back it up. Feel free. Show it is rational, and not ignorant, to agree with any of the statements I said is ignorant.
I don't back you up. You are lying. Nothing in my post "backs you up." Personally, I agree with other anonymous here that you are a bully to dissenters. My point of my post is to point out an old PI piece that basically states that opinions can't be lies and used the Denmark case as an example. Most all your posts and the posts of respondents fall in the range of opinions and interpretations of facts.
A fact is Zimmerman was charged with a crime. A fact is a trial was held and Zimmerman was found guilty. It is opinion to state, as you did, that the public made him out to be a murder victim and a symbol of racism. It would be true that "some" people held this view. It is also true that others held others views.
Another example (staying on your Zimmerman example):
It is your opinion that had nothing to do with stand your ground. That however, while it ends up to be the case, is not 100% the truth. The facts are that stand your ground law did have a partial influence initially in the case when it comes to the police's initial actions. The police had to consider whether the law was pertinent or not. In a state where it wasn't the law, then there would be no review by the police as to whether the law was applicable or not.
A final example from your list of 7:
"Tell me that Republicans are anti-women just because they are against aborting the lives of unborn, living, human children."
It is your opinion that some group of your audience (left-leaning?) raises this issue when responding to your posts. I am guessing, here, because you don't provide a full context as to why this point is even appropriate. Well that may be an opinion of yours and it may be fact that someone in the past has raised this point. It is also fact that many that disagree with you have not used this line. So the question is what is your point of throwing this line in there? It isn't a common response by people who disagree with you, or even SP posters that lean left politically. To me, it is meaningless drivel and a tangential argument that in fact does nothing to prove the point of your post.
anonymous coward: I don't back you up.
Shrug. Your link did.
Nothing in my post "backs you up."
Shrug. Your link describes my view and my practice very well. Where there is room for disagreement and different evaluations, there is no lie.
Personally, I agree with other anonymous here that you are a bully to dissenters.
I believe that to people who are unprepared, blunt honesty and strong logic appear as "bullying." Another shrug.
My point of my post is to point out an old PI piece that basically states that opinions can't be lies
Right. And I agree with that, and it backs me up.
Most all your posts and the posts of respondents fall in the range of opinions and interpretations of facts.
A fact is Zimmerman was charged with a crime.
A fact is a trial was held ...
... and Zimmerman was found guilty.
No, that would be a lie.
It is opinion to state, as you did, that the public made [Martin] out to be a murder victim and a symbol of racism.
No, that is very clear fact. You appear to be unaware of what happened, if you think he was found guilty, so maybe you also don't know that there were hundreds of examples of people across the media who said Martin was murdered, and Zimmerman had racist motivations ... and even at the March on Washington anniversary celebrations, Martin was compared to freaking Emmett Till repeatedly, and Martin's parents were on stage to sing "We Shall Overcome."
No, it is a fact that Martin is made out to be a murder victim and a symbol of racism. We have plenty of evidence of it. For you to say it is merely my opinion is bizarre.
It would be true that "some" people held this view.
... but you just said that was only an opinion. Now you say it is "true."
It is also true that others held others views.
It is your opinion that had nothing to do with stand your ground.
No, it's a fact. Read the court documents. Read the laws. Read the charging documents. It had nothing to do with any "stand your ground" laws.
That however, while it ends up to be the case, is not 100% the truth.
Yes, it's not 100% of the truth. Another part of the truth is that Zimmerman likes ice cream, and that the Broncos are playing the Ravens tonight (if the rain delay ends).
The defense did consider using "stand your ground" as a defense, but then didn't. It was not brought up in any other manner (except in documents where it is just part of the required boilerplate, such as in jury instructions), and therefore had nothing to do with the case or the trial.
The facts are that stand your ground law did have a partial influence initially in the case when it comes to the police's initial actions.
False. You are making it up.
The police had to consider whether the law was pertinent or not.
Only if the circumstances warranted it, which they didn't. You're lying.
It is your opinion that some group of your audience (left-leaning?) raises this issue when responding to your posts.
No. I cannot recall a time when that happened, and if it has, it had nothing to do with what I wrote.
I am guessing, here, because you don't provide a full context as to why this point is even appropriate.
Um. It is entirely clear and obvious. I was simply -- as I explicitly stated -- giving a list of ways for people to demonstrate to me that they are ignorant.
So the question is what is your point of throwing this line in there?
I am really confused as to how this could have been made more clear.
To me, it is meaningless drivel and a tangential argument that in fact does nothing to prove the point of your post.
The post wasn't trying to prove a point. It was just a list of things that people can say to tell me they are ignorant.
I must be ignorant:
Trayvon Martin is definitely a symbol of racism to me - reverse racism and he was a victim of his own murder attempt.
I would wholeheartedly tell you that there would be a strong correlation to how good a Congress is in relation to the number of bills it passes (assuming we measure regulations as one bill could have thousands of those). It would be a strong correlation where the fewer of them, the better that Congress is.
Also, if each background check came with a large coupon towards a weapon purchase (which I would support) then I could claim that universal background checks would have a great impact on violent crime.
doug: clever. :p
I agree that Martin is a symbol of racism in a sense, though not as you say. I don't know what "reverse racism" is, but I see no serious evidence Martin actually attempted to kill Zimmerman (though Zimmerman may reasonably have thought so), or that he had racial motivations.
That said, it is entirely clear that the overwhelming majority of supporters of Martin are racists. They supported Martin because he was black, and ZImmerman was "white." Barack Obama, Al Sharpton, Oprah Winfrey, and others ... Martin was black. That's the only reason they cared, and the only reason he got their support.
As to the number of bills, I agree there is likely some correlation (and that smaller is better), but that doesn't mean we can actually say that the number of laws represents the quality of the Congress. We look at what the laws do and judge the quality of the Congress, and then see the correlation, not the other way around.
As an obvious example: if a Congress passed a record high number of bills, but 90% of those bills were repealing existing laws, you might think that was a great Congress, the best ever! Unless, of course, the remaining 10% were the worst laws ever passed, to replace the repealed ones. Then you'd think it is the worst ever. With the exact same number of laws.
First off, let me say that my sentence that Zimmerman was convicted was a typing mistake (and lack of proofreading). I meant to say "not
convicted", which a better term would have been acquitted.
Second, regarding "stand your ground", you appear to take the process as starting from the point when the charge was made against Zimmerman, which in that case you are correct that stand your ground did not come into play. However, that is not my point. The process starts at the event and includes all actions subsequent, which do include the police having to review whether the law applied. By news reports right after the event happened, we know this to be the case. The fact that it was decided it didn't apply still means the law had to be taken into consideration. In a state where the law wasn't on the books, it would be one law the police didn't have to review when coming up with the charges.
anonymous coward: Second, regarding "stand your ground", you appear to take the process as starting from the point when the charge was made against Zimmerman
No, I do not.
The process starts at the event and includes all actions subsequent, which do include the police having to review whether the law applied.
By news reports right after the event happened, we know this to be the case.
No. The police said they investigated whether he acted in "self-defense," which is the same reason why he was acquitted. It was not about "Stand Your Ground," according to the police.
Even Mother Jones, trying to prove that Stand Your Ground actually mattered, confirms this, while trying to (falsely) claim that it mattered to authorities. There's no evidence of it.
And MoJo's other claims that "Stand Your Ground" mattered are just as bad: they say Zimmerman knew about SYG laws, but that doesn't necessarily imply anything about his actions; worse, they say the jury instructions included "he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force," but that is literally boilerplate applying to all deadly-use-of-force cases. They similarly dishonestly say SYG influenced Juror B-37, when there's no evidence of it.
Look, this is very simple. Stand Your Ground laws essentially, simply, remove the "duty to retreat" from the law. But that duty -- without SYG -- is not created until Zimmerman has a reason to fear for his life. And the evidence we have shows that such a point never existed: at the time Zimmerman would have had a duty to retreat, he didn't have the ability to retreat, because he was on his back being beaten by Martin. Stand Your Ground simply bears no relevance to the case. The laws provisions never would have been triggered by the events, as we understand them.
That's the real point. How the hell can he have a duty to retreat when he is flat on his back being grounded-and-pounded? That is why the police left him go, and that is why he was acquitted. No SYG law did, or could have, affected the outcome.
The fact that it was decided it didn't apply still means the law had to be taken into consideration.
No, because they never got to that point.
Consider baseball. David Ortiz hits a home run on a pitch that might've been outside the strike zone. Does the umpire need to take into consideration that the pitch might've been a ball or a strike? Of course not. That's what happened here: the fact that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense preempts any SYG discussion, because SYG is what happens after you feel your life is threatened, but before someone attacks you and puts you flat on your back. And that point never existed in this case.
I would like to take this moment to send a personal note to one of SP loudest lefty's. Please bear with me because in that note there will a delicious "Tell Me You Are Ignorant" that I report with absolute, bubbling over, glee.
Dear Tensor, I crossed my first picket line last night! Although I must say, it wasn't much of one. We have more attendance at the weekly Teen Mass at our parish than we saw last night. By the way, I thought permits to protest never allowed the closing of a public street? Oh Wait. Seattle sympathizes while profiting. Duh. I have to say the highlight of the "protesters" was that well over 45 yr old, rather square shaped female in a sheer pink ... thing ... twirling her baton. Way to be taken serious about your issue! I had to laugh over that and the fact that the male "protesters" were silent and rather bored while the female same were loud and obnoxious. Fits the definition, eh? We waved from the windows and I resisted temptation to blow kisses.
So anyway to reference Pudge's "Tell Me You Are Ignorant" theme, I thought specifically of you as I was introduced to the couple sitting to our right at the table. You've spent much time mocking the fact I was going into Seattle against my vow to continue to boycott it and as much time mocking that the WPC was 'giving' Seattle money to do so.
Well, it turns out that our table mates are the owners of one of the most single iconic, popular, Seattle eateries, especially amongst Seattleites (read loud lefty's) and rarely known by tourists. Their business is booming in where the heart would be if the liberal beast actually had one! It gives me so much pleasure to think you have unwittingly been patronizing a place owned by Conservatives, who are members and supporters of the WPC all while using YOUR food dollars to do so! And no, it's not Ivar's.
I really want to thank you for all that mocking you thought you were doing. It made meeting these new friends all that much better! And, it gives me additional pleasure to think that every single time you run into any one of your fav well known Seattle eateries you'll be wondering ...! Hmm, maybe you'll be eating in. Thanks for the laugh!
"Tell Me You Are Ignorant"
AND that was BEFORE we got to the speakers, who were wonderful. And guess what? Neither mentioned to object of your idolatry! They were positive and uplifting. We didn't need names to see the stark contrast with a certain incompetent boob and the utter failure of his ideology! I'm sure the speeches will be posted in a few days, if they aren't already.
Oh. And I was interviewed by a PBS reporter. I wonder if she had any clue how utterly ironic that was...
Here's the one I don't throw last night: KISSES!
Rags, I work in Seattle, among many conservatives. And my favorite news source is PBS NewsHour (though I am not as big a fan as I was when Lehrer was on it).
I even saw the Mayor on his bike on Fifth and Pike earlier this week!
anonymous coward: "He cited the statute number for Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, which provides immunity to people who kill someone in self defense."
Yes, that is, at best, misleading. "Stand Your Ground", again, means you have no duty to retreat. When a bill is passed and becomes law, it contains many provisions in it, and actually becomes multiple laws. So technically it was a part of the same bill, but it is not explicitly regarding the duty to retreat, and this prohibition on prosecution could exist (and in this case, does function) independently of any duty to retreat, or lack thereof.
In other words, a state can have a duty to retreat with such immunity, or no duty to retreat and no such immunity, or -- as is the case here -- such immunity irrespective of the duty to retreat.
There is no reason in here to think Lee was referring to the lack of duty to retreat, to "Stand Your Ground."
32. Oh and one more point here: if you are against Stand Your Ground laws in general, it makes absolutely no sense to -- as many have done -- attack immunities like this that are part of the bill, because they are independent of the duty to retreat. I am absolutely opposed to any manufactured, fictional, "duty to retreat." But that doesn't mean I am in favor of immunities like in the Florida law. It's a completely separate issue.
33. It's ironic that pudge has deleted on-topic comments from people in this very thread because he doesn't like the people who posted them. He may think we don't notice when comments appear and suddenly disappear, but we do. What a juvenile bully.
Bruce@33: It's ironic that pudge has deleted on-topic comments from people in this very thread because he doesn't like the people who posted them.
You're lying. Please stop spreading lies.
Comments from people who are abusive are removed. It has nothing to do with whether I like them, and whether or not they are on-topic is not even part of the equation, since I don't read them.
It does not help when the Republicans fail to refute the lies that the leftists parrot to the press, who takes it and runs with it. Of course, the media are mainly corrupt pipsqueaks, but that still does not excuse the GOP leadership from failing to refute and debate against the lies from the left that promote more ignorance.
Of course, President Barack Sharpton showed himself to be in the race hustler camp with his divisive comments which were are pre-designed after conferring with the racist AG Eric Holder. They are trying and unfortunately succeeding in spreading ignorance to the masses no thanks the GOP, with the exception of Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, who have rebutted the president's flawed and strawmen arguments. Beavis (McCain) and Butthead (Graham) has become unexpected allies of the White House over Syria, which fuels more ignorance.
36. 36-41 are spam and are irrelevant to the topic.
KDS, @36 is now funny. :-)
But yes refuting the lies, with force and reason and facts, is important. I have been told by many people, many of them nonpartisan, that Republicans are simply against women and minorities and the middle class, and in favor of the wealthy. It's trash, and we need to speak up, because otherwise we lose. People believe the lies, despite the complete lack of evidence supporting them.
And the President is not merely a "race hustler," he's a racist. He supported Taryvon Martin and opposed George Zimmerman explicitly -- he didn't even hide it -- because of the color of their respecting skins. Only a racist does that.
And last I checked, McCain and Graham -- whom I respect, but disagree with often, including here -- disagreed with the President's plan for Syria and said they wouldn't support it, because they said they could not support a strike that was intended to not affect the outcome.
@36 is a sitting target. So be it... With all due respect, this country is war weary and Neo-cons like McCain and Graham don't help even if they disagree with racist President Obama's so-called community organizer caliber plan. McCain seems to be pulling for the wrong side ! (Syria would likely end up like Egypt was with the Moslem brotherhood, worse off than with Assad). Hopefully, this will be Mr. McCains last term.
The consequences of military action would not be good. I tend to believe both sides have used chemical weapons - one more reason we should not be involved.
KDS: I don't know if the country is war-weary. If so, shame on the country. If war is the right thing to do, shame on us for growing weary doing the right thing; if war is not the right thing to do, shame on us for supporting it.
A pundit the other day said we are not war-weary, but "war smart." We're more savvy about what the costs and benefits are, and how to evaluate the information being used to convince us it's the right thing. I think that's right.
Not that this addresses your point at all.
I do not agree McCain is backing the "wrong side," e.g., that one side is better than the other. But I do believe it is not our job to pick sides, and that's where McCain is wrong. (I also think Egypt is in a perfectly fine place, a necessary place, for it to grow into a state of modernity, and that Syria might be headed for the same place. The American Revolution was no picinic, but I think we were better off for it.)
I agree with you, there's nothing positive to gain from military action, whether Obama's military action (which is designed to not have a positive outcome! how completely nuts is that?), or McCain's. I don't even care that chemical weapons were used: I see no significant difference between being attacked by a chemical weapon or a conventional one. Sorry. I know that's not politically correct, but conventional weapons have done a lot more damage, killed far more people, in this conflict. Other than saying "it's bad, mmmmkay?" no one has made a serious case for why the use of the weapons -- which I agree are bad and should not be used -- justify any military response at all from third parties.
Yokels and Yahoos in DC tell us that if we don't act, we tell them they are free to use chemical weapons again. Yes, and if we do act according to Obama's plan, we tell them they are free to kill as many people as they want to with conventional weapons, just as our inaction to this point has told them that. It's completely insane.
So I am with you. Military action against Syria makes no sense. McCain is wrong.
Doesn't mean I have to hate McCain. Yes, I disagree with him a lot. Shrug. I disagree with lots of people a lot. There's not a single person in DC I don't disagree with a lot, from Ron Paul and John McCain to Nancy Pelosi and Alan Grayson. I'd rather focus on getting rid of Grayson and Pelosi than going after Paul and McCain.
40. It's awesome to pay a visit this web site and reading
the views of all friends on the topic of this paragraph, while
I am also keen of getting knowledge.
anonymous coward: But of course the people who are "banned" cannot present any evidence!
False, obviously. Not on my posts, sure, but elsewhere on this site, including the "Public Blog."
In a single thread, pudge called one commenter "a jackass", another "completely obtuse", and another "a retarded monkey". He then banned at least 2 of those people.
Yes. You're all welcome.
Who was being abusive?
Bruce and Proteus. Read the comments for yourself. Proteus and Bruce were telling massive lies. Calling them names pales in comparison to the abuse of lying.
Who was reducing the quality of the discussion?
The liars. That's the point.
Read it and decide for yourself
You don't want people to do that. Well, since you're an anonymous coward, I guess you don't care that you are ruining your reputation by linking to a discussion that proves I acted appropriately.
"The consequences of military action would not be good. I tend to believe both sides have used chemical weapons - one more reason we should not be involved"
This of course, is an example of an opinion, and therefore cannot be false, which was my point in the PI article I pointed out.
It can be misguided and silly, since only one side has control of the chemical weapons and their use has to be authorized at the highest level. Further, we (US and UK) have recordings of top officers of Assad ordering their use (wonder if this is through the NSA's great network and decryption capabilities -- i.e., assuming published reports based on evidence Snowden collected). No the less, KDS, go bodly where there is no evidence to support your opinion and know that since Pudge probably agrees with it, then you won't be called a liar. Others are not so fortunate (like yours truly).
anonymous coward: It can be misguided and silly, since only one side has control of the chemical weapons
This of course, is an example of a false statement of fact. It may be that only one side has control of chemical weapons, but you don't actually know that, so saying that as a fact is a lie.
No the less, KDS, go bodly where there is no evidence to support your opinion and know that since Pudge probably agrees with it
I don't. I have no reason to suspect the "rebels" have used chemical weapons. But I have no reason to suspect anyone knows they haven't or couldn't, as you falsely claim.
1. I did not "say" the other side didn't have weapons. What I said was that one side has "control" of the chemical weapons. The negative (that the others side didn't have any weapons) is an assumption on your part and is false.
2. I didn't falsely claim anything. Again, you are assuming something in a statement that isn't there. My statement was that one side (for sure) had control of the type of weapons in question. That doesn't mean that the other side didn't have the possibility of having lessons. Geez! And you are the one who usually parses words to fit your argument. You should recognize your logic error.
Stating one opinion doesn't negate other options. How is my statement that Assad's government had control of Sarin Gas false?
We know it was Sarin Gas from actual samples. We also know it wasn't a small amount (the scale of the attack). While there are reports of rebels having a few canisters, there is no evidence of rebels having the volume exhibited by the attack in question. There also is the intercepted correspondence ordering the attack.
Here (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/02/syria-crisis-questions-answered) is the Guardian's write up on the question. Included is links to the reports of potential rebel forces potentially having a small volume. There are no reports of any of the rebel groups having significant volume, although after the attack, I am sure their supporters from other countries may try supplying them some, which leads to the main point and reason for a US response. The difference between WMD and regular weapons is the scale of devastation that can ensue. Would you hold the same opinion if Syria had a Nuclear Weapon and used it on the people? Well weapons like sarin gas can cause the same scale of causalities, and with other countries in the region also having this deadly WMD's, this escalation has to be put to a halt. Now how one does it is definitely in question and whether air strikes would do any good is definitely questionable, but to say nothing should be done is turning a blind eye and is potentially a Munich (1938 Munich Agreement) moment. Never again. The world turned a blind eye once, we must never again.
anonymous coward: My statement was that one side (for sure) had control of the type of weapons in question. That doesn't mean that the other side didn't have the possibility of having lessons. ... How is my statement that Assad's government had control of Sarin Gas false?
Wow. No. You're lying about what you said. You said -- quoting here -- "only one side has control of the chemical weapons. ..." That absolutely does mean, in any form of English, that the other side didn't have them. It is explicitly exclusionary.
And you cannot know that the other side does not have them; therefore, your statement was false.
there is no evidence of rebels having the volume exhibited by the attack in question ... There are no reports of any of the rebel groups having significant volume ...
Agreed. But that doesn't mean they don't, but you claimed that they don't, which is a false statement.
The difference between WMD and regular weapons is the scale of devastation that can ensue.
At these scales, who cares? Honestly. I don't. Note, I am not saying I do not care about the devastation, or that more devastation is not worse than less. I am saying, rather, that conventional weapons have killed far more, and continue to do so. I care more about what actual devastation is happening, and it is insane -- to me -- that we care more about the use of nerve gas against a relative handful of people than the conventional weapons used to kill many times more people.
Would you hold the same opinion if Syria had a Nuclear Weapon and used it on the people?
Nuclear weapons are different.
Well weapons like sarin gas can cause the same scale of causalities
No, they cannot. Sarin gas cannot do what we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I do not put chemical agents in the same class of weaponry as nuclear weapons (close to the same as dirty bombs, but for clarification, I am talking about nuclear bombs, not conventional ones that spread radiation).
this escalation has to be put to a halt
It's not our job to do it.
And, by the way, the President is absolutely violating the War Powers Resolution if he goes in with specific statutory authorization, which is -- in absence of a declaration of war or attack on the U.S. -- absolutely required by that document. I don't know why everyone seems to think he can attack anyone he wants without that authorization (or declaration, or attack), but the law is extremely clear.
to say nothing should be done is turning a blind eye and is potentially a Munich (1938 Munich Agreement) moment
I don't agree.
The world turned a blind eye once, we must never again.
So you are in favor of the invasion of Iraq?
You are WRONG about the meaning of what control means. Does one have to quote the dictionary to get it across to you? It is meaningless attempting to discuss something with you when you can't even fathom any other meanings than what your limited view of terms can mean. No wonder you have such trouble with people who disagree with you. You fail to understand the meaning of common terms.
Let me give you my statement again but in all the cases. It isn't a binary statement. It is a ternary statement. One case is side A has control. A second case is side B has control. The third case is neither side has control. Control means dominant. It doesn't mean absolute. Let's look at this last weekend's football games for examples. Since the dawgs didn't play, we will have to look at other teams. No one would debate that the Ducks didn't control their game. It doesn't mean the other side didn't touch the ball, only that Oregon had a dominating control of the game and thus the game wasn't really in doubt. Contrast this with the USC vs WSU game. In this game, neither team had control the entire game. Control shifted back and forth.
So, getting back to my statement, it doesn't assume that the rebels couldn't have wmd's like sarin gas. It only assumes that they have such little amount that it doesn't impact the battle. Assad has a factor (ratio) in the hundreds, if not thousands, of these weapons. To say my statement is false would mean that either the playing field was level (both sides had a lot or a few), or that the opposition had magnitude greater amounts than Assad. You have not demonstrated either of these conditions. The news reports have not backed either of these cases. What is left with is the case where one side's quantity, which is known to a certain degree, vastly and superiority dominates the other side. The opposition would not come close in a chemical weapon war with Assad.
So long it has been good discussing. Hopefully, my main point that opinions can't be lies has nudged it's way into your mind. Not all people think the same. The world is not binary where there are only two conditions. You need to realize this. Your argumentative tone, like with me demonstrates the fact that you missed, in this case, the fact that the statement was ternary.
One other example of the proper use of the term control from math/statistics. In a statistical process control chart, a process is defined as being in control when it's variation us within three standard deviations of the mean. There may be occurrences outside the control limits that need investigating, but the variation within is assumed part of the process. See Deming's work for further background. The term doesn't mean 100%. Three standard deviations is not 100%.
anonymous coward: no, you are simply wrong. You were responding to the claim, "I tend to believe both sides have used chemical weapons." You responded, "[your opinion] can be misguided and silly, since only one side has control of the chemical weapons. ..."
You were not responding to the idea that one has used them more than the other. You were responding to the idea that both used them, and in saying the idea "can be misguided and silly," your words were necessarily implying that only one side has access to them, because it would not matter in your response if one side has "dominance" of the weapons, since the point was only that both sides have used them. You could have argued that one side being dominant -- which, again, you also don't know, so that too is a lie, but assuming you meant that -- made it so that it didn't matter if both sides used the weapons. But you didn't: you instead directly criticized the view that both sides have used them.
Context matters, and it is clear what you meant. You're lying about it. That's pretty sad.
Hopefully, my main point that opinions can't be lies has nudged it's [sic] way into your mind.
I have always abided by that. You have not a single example where I called an opinion a lie. Please stop lying about that.
Not all people think the same.
True, and irrelevant.
The world is not binary where there are only two conditions.
That doesn't make any sense, to say the world could possibly be "binary." But it does make perfect sense to say that someone who is intentionally distorting the truth is lying. Because that is what the word means.
You need to realize this.
Your argumentative tone, like with me demonstrates the fact that you missed, in this case, the fact that the statement was ternary.
You're lying. The context was entirely clear.
You know what. I have tried to craft a response, but after numerous attempts, I feel it isn't worth it. Your words in 46 were "It is explicitly exclusionary." I have pointed out that control has three states and is not binary as your words indicate. If you fail to understand this, then nothing I write further will help explain the original statement any better. I stand by my original statement. With respect to the August 21 attack, which is what the US is responding to, only one side had control of the necessary supply of chemical weapons to kill 1400 plus civilians. To state the other side had equal or greater control of the necessary weapons to carry out this attack is up to you and KDS to demonstrate. If you feel the other side had this capability, feel free to state how they were capable, including the delivery mechanisms (these were just placed and exploded, there is evidence of the rockets used to deliver and further evidence that it may have been a new 50 liter version, not previously seen, which only Assad's government, not the rebels, has the research capability of producing). Nothing you have stated backs up your argument that the rebels carried out the August 21 attack, which is the only documented use we have to go on. Yes, there are rumors of other use, but no documented incidents.
Actually, doing your work for you, I have found a second attack incident. There was one that occurred on March 19. That one was a lot smaller than the August 21 attack (26 dead versus 1400 plus). The Russians say rebels did this, so maybe this is what KDS is referring to. However, by the following report by a defector, he states Assad did it. OBTW, there are reports that while government officials within Assad's government may have been involved, they may have been rogue and not following Assad's orders, which may explain why it doesn't make sense for Assad himself to carry out the attack.
Link on March 19 attack:
Again, this doesn't negate the fact that Assad's government having 1000 metric tons versus the rebels having a handful of canisters. The rebels may have had enough for the March 19th attack, but there is no evidence they had the quantity or delivery mechanisms used for the August 21st attack.
52. To clarify, before you jump all over me Pudge.
"OBTW, there are reports that while government officials within Assad's government may have been involved, they may have been rogue and not following Assad's orders, which may explain why it doesn't make sense for Assad himself to carry out the attack." refers to the August 21 attack not the March 19th attack.
anonymous coward writes, I have pointed out that control has three states and is not binary as your words indicate.
Yes, and I pointed out that this explanation of yours does not fit the context. And you have not even attempted to address that point, so please do not pretend that you've actually made your case.
With respect to the August 21 attack, which is what the US is responding to, only one side had control of the necessary supply of chemical weapons to kill 1400 plus civilians.
False. You do not know that. Stop pretending you do.
To state the other side had equal or greater control of the necessary weapons to carry out this attack is up to you and KDS to demonstrate.
You are lying, on multiple levels. First, KDS never implied it was equal or greater, and his statement did not depend on it being equal or greater. Second, I never implied the other side had any chemical weapons, and in fact, I explicitly said I do not believe they did. Third, no, you are the one asserting the other side did not have "control" of those weapons, so it is up to you to prove that.
Nothing you have stated backs up your argument that the rebels carried out the August 21 attack
You are lying. I never made such an argument, and, in fact, I said I don't believe they did it.
I don't even know whom you hope to impress by telling this lie. I have been extremely clear from the beginning that I don't believe it. @44, in my first response about this topic, I wrote, "I have no reason to suspect the 'rebels' have used chemical weapons. But I have no reason to suspect anyone knows they haven't or couldn't, as you falsely claim."
You read that. Yet you continue with this lie. Why?
Again, this doesn't negate the fact that Assad's government having 1000 metric tons versus the rebels having a handful of canisters.
False. You do not know that. Stop pretending you do.