Some Thoughts on Partisan Argument Patterns

[SteveThaiBinh]

As with one my earlier examples, pacifists may seem noble, until they call for the deaths of American soldiers.  No, I definitely wouldn't try to personify conservatives as cute and cuddly, but I never would do so to liberals.

Yet someone who calls for the deaths of American soldiers can hardly be a pacifist, can she? Any more than a self-professed 'Muslim' who calls for the killing of innocents can be a Muslim. Too often we compare the best of our own side with the worst of the other, and inevitably find the other wanting.

 

Democracy fails unless we can see the honour in our opponents.

[Cantousent]

How about this: a long time ago, some folks (we'll call them liberals for the sake of discussion) decided that the best way to attack a different group of folks (we'll call them conservatives) was to question, repeatedly, the intelligence of the second group.

 

Liberals think they're right while conservatives *know* they are? Steve has a good point about seeing the honor in our opponents. I'll go even further. We have enemies in this world. There is no sustainable all inclusive "us" in this world. At some point, there will be an "us" against whom will be arrayed a "them." This is the nature of mankind and I have seen nothing thus far that indicates we will change. What we must not do is treat our opponents as our enemies.

[Jack the Ripper]

Democracy fails unless we can see the honour in our opponents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In this case, when someone is on the ground at a political protest or event, that often requires squinting. A prominent conservative shows up on a college campus to speak, a liberal throws a pie in their face. Pro-war demonstrators organize at an anti-war rally, they are violently assaulted and left bleeding and bruised in the middle of a busy street. Liberal protests are ridden with militant anti-Semites, communists, anarchists, satanists, and thirty-two flavors of demonstrators showcasing their bizarre sexual fetishes in the most public place they can find. They plead for the release of murderers of fathers, husbands, wives and daughters. This certainly isn't the "worst" of them, and in fact, judging by their elected officials, it is typical of them. When a democrat displays himself as being moderate and willing to cooperate with Republicans, he is criticized, cast out, and cannibalized. But when a democrat says, "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for," they become the chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

[Walsingham]

Jack you may be going a wee bit far in pasting Liberals with all this. Perhaps what you are seeeing is the enemy of my enemy syndrome at work. An anti-war or anti-bush rally draws everyone who wants that end, not a coherent rally of minds. Not that this is an excuse. People can and do refuse to share marches together.

 

BTW, can you post a link to the incdent where pro-war protestors were beaten up?

[Jack the Ripper]

Jack you may be going a wee bit far in pasting Liberals with all this.

 

They paint themselves with their own palette. If liberals consistently acted peace loving and light, I'd say that they were peace loving and light. Instead, they slash tires so that conservatives can't vote, yell in crowds so that conservatives can't be heard, and bash conservative values as out dated and ignorant per their leisure.

 

Perhaps what you are seeeing is the enemy of my enemy syndrome at work.

 

I'm sorry, what is "the enemy of my enemy syndrome"?

 

An anti-war or anti-bush rally draws everyone who wants that end,  not a coherent rally of minds.

 

(Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you're referring to either the rhetorists or the pacifists/anti-war crowd as being the majority of rational liberals that I haven't represented with my examples so far.)

 

I agree with the idea that pacifism exists, and I even agree that there are many liberals who are pacifists. Quakers, Ghandi quoters, idealists - all good folks. If everyone in the world was like that, the idea would work.

 

But I really wouldn't say that most liberals are pacifists. More, I'd say that they deliberately seek confrontation. Probably out of a desperate need forpublicity.

 

I live between two major liberal cities in California, a liberal state. So I've been on the ground between San Francisco and Los Angeles. It's actually kind of humorous to see people with peace placards and doves marching side by side with people wearing Che Guevera t-shirts or raising Palestinian flags up high. Having seen who shows up for these rallies, and having floated around the internet for a number of years, and having seen who liberal democrats elect and why, I would say that most liberals are not rational, peace loving people. Especially not in recent years.

 

Which brings me to the other group you may have been referring to: the rhetorists. Or by some other name, the people who copy major liberal talking points as their justification for being liberal... but don't really have any facts to back them up. If I asked you to defend your claims that the United States did the following:

 

Unilateral withdrawal from all international treaties, unrestricted use of the armed forces in pursuit of economic policy, total freezes on immigration...

 

I doubt you could be even remotely successful. Especially if I asked you to use only scholarly sources of information.

 

Not that this is an excuse. People can and do refuse to share marches together.

 

Indeed, yes. And they should. Why people would want their voices heard next to a group calling for genocide is beyond me.

 

BTW, can you post a link to the incdent where pro-war protestors were beaten up?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I thought I linked to the video already? You probably have to scroll down a little to see the link. If that was the wrong one, I apologize. I know that the event I referred to is also shown in this video, but the whole movie takes up an hour of your life and I'm not sure exactly where it is chronologically. If you don't feel like watching the whole thing, here is a pro-war protester's first hand account. If you do feel like watching the whole thing, you'll see that whenever a conservative was attacked, shoved or had their sign ripped from their hands and destroyed, they did not react in kind, but instead remained civil, and complained to the police.

[Nick_i_am]

I think what we might be seeing here is a little bit of 'bias'.

[Jack the Ripper]

I think what we might be seeing here is a little bit of 'bias'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If that's the case, feel free to rebut me. I offer only my own observations based on real events.

[Nick_i_am]

I'm not american, I don't care about the means to the end, just the end itself.

 

But if YOU can't see that you're doing exactly the same thing that you're blaming others for, haha.

[Jack the Ripper]

I'm not american, I don't care about the means to the end, just the end itself.

 

But if YOU can't see that you're doing exactly the same thing that you're blaming others for, haha.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Please provide examples, facts and quotes.

[Nick_i_am]

Please provide examples, facts and quotes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Jack the Ripper]

Please provide examples, facts and quotes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Nick_i_am]

That was a 'meh, effort' either you go back, look at your own arguments and the way they are argued with a blank mind, then do the same to your opponents, or you pass me off as a raving idiot and prove my point anyway. 'examples, facts and quotes' are irrelivent because they were just a way of saying 'i'll show you how many ways I can try to wriggle out of a situation with words'. In other words 'give me somthing to argue about without having to actually look at my own methodology' the 'i'll shoot you from the fort, but wont look at the fort itself'. Anything more is just simantics, and since it IS the impression of a complete outsider with a very limited view, in an odd way, it becomes even more valuble when only looking at the case in point.

 

The sophists, from whom the word 'sophistic' was derived, were an 'orginisation' of people living an anchent greece. They rapidly got themselves banned from sparta (a 'city-state' that was basically a huge millitary camp) for repeatedly going to the leaders one day to argue and convince them of a point, then going back the next day to convince them of another. Opinions may me one thing but 'examples, facts and quotes' are rapidly proven irrelivent when such 'details' mean such a loss of focus on the big picture.

 

This is my opinion.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Nick_i_am

[Hurlshort]

We could always take a vote on whether Jack is biased against liberals. Would that be the democratic way of doing things?

[Nick_i_am]

It's not like librals arn't bias against republicans either, it's when one side tries to gain the moral high-ground when they are both doing essentally the same thing in a slightly different way that I happen to find it amusing.

[metadigital]

We could always take a vote on whether Jack is biased against liberals.  Would that be the democratic way of doing things?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It would certainly constitute a Democratic way of doing things.

 

 

[Jack the Ripper]

That was a 'meh, effort' either you go back, look at your own arguments and the way they are argued with a blank mind, then do the same to your opponents, or you pass me off as a raving idiot and prove my point anyway.

 

I get a multitude of kneejerk reactions from liberals when I post things like this, and since I am not sure exactly which one yours is, I'll run through them all real quick. If you're trying to argue that any of the examples I've pointed out are justified if viewed objectively, I disagree. If you're trying to argue that this sort of thing isn't typical among liberals, I disagree. If you're trying to pretend these events never happened for whatever reason, I disagree. And if you're trying to dodge these facts to put yourself on a pedestal where you don't have to confront them, you can't accept reality.

 

'examples, facts and quotes' are irrelivent because they were just a way of saying 'i'll show you how many ways I can try to wriggle out of a situation with words'.

 

That is ridiculous. I can defend my opinions because they are based on facts. Events that have taken place in the real world, quotes from real people recorded by reliable sources, known scientific and economic facts. That is not "wriggling out of a situation." Wriggling out of a situation is when one can not defend themselves with empyrical evidence so they go off on a quasi-thought out rant. You can scream "bias" all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that the things I've pointed out have really happened and really are common for liberals. I've proven myself already. I've presented my points and backed them up with facts. Where are yours? All you have are ad hominem attacks and bizarre colloquialisms.

 

In other words 'give me somthing to argue about without having to actually look at my own methodology' the 'i'll shoot you from the fort, but wont look at the fort itself'. Anything more is just simantics, and since it IS the impression of a complete outsider with a very limited view, in an odd way, it becomes even more valuble when only looking at the case in point.

 

I can't make heads or tails of anything after "the 'i'll shoot you from the fort'... My methodology is to come across pieces of evidence, weigh them, discern whether or not they are reliable, and then form and express my thoughts based on that evidence. Your methodology is to freak out and scream "bias" when you can't think of any other way to play my antagonist.

 

The sophists, from whom the word 'sophistic' was derived, were an 'orginisation' of people living an anchent greece. They rapidly got themselves banned from sparta (a 'city-state' that was basically a huge millitary camp) for repeatedly  going to the leaders one day to argue and convince them of a point, then going back the next day to convince them of another. Opinions may me one thing but 'examples, facts and quotes' are rapidly proven irrelivent when such 'details' mean such a loss of focus on the big picture.

 

"Anchent Greece," eh? I've got a slightly more current comparison for your opinion. Stephen Colbert had a monologue on his first self titled show that went something like this:

 

"I don't care much for books. Too many words, too much reading. Too many facts. And facts are cold, emotionless, uncaring. But you know what's warm and fuzzy? Feelings. See, here at the Colbert Report, we don't tell you "the facts" about "reality" and "real life." Instead, we *feel* the truth to you. We don't report on what the AP says, we tell you what we feel is right. And that's how you're going to get to the truth, America: through my gut feelings."

 

This is my opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Indeed, it is.

Edited February 8, 2006 by Jack the Ripper

[Nick_i_am]

Wait, you just agreed with me.

 

EDIT: yeah, your post is still pretty bias, it's all well and good to shout about the bad things that one side has done then claim that the other side is perfect, but it's still bias.

 

facts LOL

 

they slash tires so that conservatives can't vote, yell in crowds so that conservatives can't be heard

 

you'll see that whenever a conservative was attacked, shoved or had their sign ripped from their hands and destroyed, they did not react in kind, but instead remained civil, and complained to the police.

Edited February 8, 2006 by Nick_i_am

[Jack the Ripper]

Wait, you just agreed with me.

 

EDIT: yeah, your post is still pretty bias, it's all well and good to shout about the bad things that one side has done then claim that the other side is perfect, but it's still bias.

 

Now you're trying to justify labelling me as irrationally biased by claiming I said things that I never did. What does that say of your bias?

 

facts LOL

 

Sigged.

 

they slash tires so that conservatives can't vote,

 

From here:

 

Five Democratic presidential campaign workers, including the sons of a congresswoman and a former mayor, were wrongly implicated in Election Day vandalism by national political operatives from their own party, defense attorneys argued at their trial Tuesday.

 

Prosecutors accused the five of slashing 40 tires on get-out-the-vote vans at a Republican campaign office in the early hours before the Nov. 2, 2004, election, causing more than $5,000 in damage.

 

Four later confessed.

 

After a two-week felony trial culminating with notes from a conflicted jury, four Kerry-Edwards campaign workers - including the sons of U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) and former Acting Mayor Marvin Pratt - had their charges in the Election Day 2004 tire-slashing reduced to misdemeanors and accepted the deal.

 

The fifth Democratic staffer accused of crippling Republican vans won a jury acquittal by sticking with a fight against the felony charge.

 

yell in crowds so that conservatives can't be heard

 

Here's an example of a typical one on one. There's another example somewhere of a swarm of liberals trying to storm a conservative speaker and trying to chant over her microphone that I was thinking of when I wrote that, but that would take some googling to find. If you insist on seeing it to prove my claim, I'll happily look for it.

 

you'll see that whenever a conservative was attacked, shoved or had their sign ripped from their hands and destroyed, they did not react in kind, but instead remained civil, and complained to the police.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The fact that you quoted this explicitly proves that you're an emotional reactionary. I linked to the video showing this already. There were no fancy edits, the police reports were consistent with what was shown. But you aren't interested in that. You're interested in labels.

[Azarkon]

Jack, your posting style pretty much proves my point, and the exchange between you and Nick is almost straight out of the pattern I presented. (Notice, in particular, your dependency on facts, your repeated attacks on liberals, and your confidence in Republican maturity; now compare that to some of the more "wavy" posts on this thread where people against you are either refusing to offer evidence or taking the route of philosophical/ideological rhetoric). I don't think I necessarily visit sites that skew to the left (though this one certainly might): after all, ALOT of FPS/MMOG gamers are right-wing, moreso because many of them are off-duty soldiers. I've accumulated a significant amount of my observations on sites where the typical political debate ends up with a few unrelenting liberals arguing against masses of conservatives and self-proclaimed Republicans.

 

Perhaps what I'm sensing here is a divide between the extremists on either side and the moderates. It could be, as you say, that DU is a cesspool of anti-American sentiments and that they represent the state of the modern ultra-left. But clearly, non-political message boards do not tend to attract the extremists and tends to be more representative of the average politically-conscious but typically moderate poster. That might explain why when liberals post on these boards they tend not to be the flag burning types, and might reveal a important principle - which is that people in general share a sense of common tendency that they attribute to their particular political philosophies. Consequently, many people tend to have misconceptions of the *other* side, which they demonize by association with the extremists of that side, without noticing that they themselves would never want to be associated with their own extremists.

 

Anyhow, food for thought and let's keep the liberal-bashing down to an acceptable level :D

Edited February 8, 2006 by Azarkon

[KBAegis]

"He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings, and all beings in his own Self, and looks on everything with an impartial eye."

 

First of all, and I mean this with the utmost respect for all parties involved, but please stop being a**holes to each other. I think that there's alot of irrational belligerence tied up into what should be an impartial discussion with other human beings. I think everyone here should be able to admit to themselves that they don't want to kill someone who they've only met on a 10' x 10' piece of plastic with text on it. I mean, it's kind of a large jump to make from, "I disagree, Tom" to, "I'd like to kill you and your family because of what you did to me back in February of 2006, Tom."

 

That having been said, the real problem here is overgeneralization. The independent factions which make up the liberal and conservative ideologies and an unfortunate stretch from there to the Republican and Democratic parties are numerous and far reaching, and I think that everyone here can find some sort of common ground.

 

Getting this thread back on track, I personally find that polarization is the largest problem with men and nations. If you guys haven't, you should read up on a MMORPG called Monkeysphere. It has a very interesting premise, and I've seen it accurately reflected in society. In any true conflict, it does a man will to dehumanize his enemy. When a man shoots another man in a war, he doesn't think about that mans father, mother, brothers, sisters, and children. He thinks about what that mans government is doing to his government. Conflicts of nations are oversimplified because the conflict of men is too atrocious and horrible to comprehend. Thus, polarization.

 

Civilization depends on the ability of men to find a humane way to reconcile their differences. Without that, we all become beasts, slave to our own nature.

 

My curiosity has always been more focused on whether this conflict is beneficial in the long run. If people only listen to sources which they agree with, their opinions are reinforced positively and they are never introduced to new materials. If people only bash heads with their ideological opponents, however, this reinforces negatively and inevitably leads to circular and cumulative causation.

 

So what do you guys think? Is this productive? Is it beneficial? You aren't convincing anyone but yourselves talking like that. So? Are you convinced yet?

Edited February 8, 2006 by KBAegis

[SteveThaiBinh]

Debates often become polarised, because that's the nature of the activity. There's little reason to listen to your opponent and no reason to change your opinion.

 

Problem-solving activities are more productive in bring out people's inner moderate. Sit a group of left- and right-wingers, and people without political views, and tell them to produce a plan to do something (reform the judicial system, for example), and they will debate and discuss and eventually come up with something that's rather good and that nearly all of them can agree. If there is pressure for an agreement, people will compromise.

[Shadowstrider]

Debates often become polarised, because that's the nature of the activity.  There's little reason to listen to your opponent and no reason to change your opinion.

 

No it isn't. This is only the case when people refuse to listen to reason. There have been plenty of debates where I've convinced people or people have convinced me about a situation.

 

Problem-solving activities are more productive in bring out people's inner moderate.  Sit a group of left- and right-wingers, and people without political views, and tell them to produce a plan to do something (reform the judicial system, for example), and they will debate and discuss and eventually come up with something that's rather good and that nearly all of them can agree.  If there is pressure for an agreement, people will compromise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Emphasis added.

 

If debates never solve anything, then why do they eventually come up with something that's rather good?

 

*Looks left, looks right.*

 

Debates aren't the problem, the obstinance of people is the problem.

[KBAegis]

Interesting. So Shadow, how would you account for the propagation of, for example, racism? If the fundamental problem lies in "the obstinance of people," or rather their resistance to outside influences, instead of the medium through which things are discussed, then why do conflicts exacerbate themselves once started? If my opinion is my opinion, and your opinion is your opinion, then how do you account for clash? Why then are racial groups persecuted instead of merely isolated?

[Nick_i_am]

Jack, your posting style pretty much proves my point, and the exchange between you and Nick is almost straight out of the pattern I presented. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You jerk, you stole part of my point!

 

Now you're trying to justify labelling me as irrationally biased by claiming I said things that I never did. What does that say of your bias?

 

You're still missing the point, you're very willing to bash librals and boast about the behavior of republicans without looking at the other face of the coin of either side. You say nothing of all the 'good' liberals who actually do do credit to their side, and nothing to all the 'bad' republicans who probably hold views that would make you personally sick, THIS is bias. This thread was NEVER about 'i'm going to support my side and ironically prove the point of the thread' it was 'what trends have you noticed in reguards to the debate patterns of either side' quite what tire slashing has to do with this as anything more than justifying your own views. Just look at your 'Democracy fails unless we can see the honour in our opponents.' ALL the examples you cited were of evil democrats taking advantage of poor misunderstood republicans. The point is COMPLETELY valid, but you havn't said ONE bad thing about any republican in a thread which is all about how two sides balance each other. My bias towards republicans/librals is irrelivent because I dont care for either side, why would I, my point was never that any of the facts you presented were wrong, just that they were focused on one side, and 'not being in either camp' it becomes easier for me to see.

 

Incidently, my bias is against close-minded morons who can't see the forest for their own tree-humping.

 

facts LOL

Edited February 8, 2006 by Nick_i_am

[SteveThaiBinh]

No it isn't.  This is only the case when people refuse to listen to reason.

Debates come in many shapes and forms, that's true. I've also changed my mind and the minds of others in debates, but I've participated in debates where reasonable and open-minded people seemed to be driven to retrenchment and polarisation by the debate itself. The confrontational aspect inherent in some debate formats encourages participants to score points off the other side, with the moderates in the centre either silenced or pushed into choosing sides neither of which they feel happy with. I'm not saying this always happens, I'm saying it's one of the forces at work in debates, and one that can be partially overcome by a problem-solving format. I also don't accept that this is just closed-minded people being closed-minded - though there's some of that as well.

If debates never solve anything, then why do they eventually come up with something that's rather good?

Debates and discussion with the aim of solving a specific problem are successful at doing so, as opposed to debates for their own sake. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.