Obama and Gates are the real race baiters

[shagdrum]

There you go again, pouting because you are incapable of responding to my challenge to point out the exact statement made by Obama that fits the correct and un-inflated definition of "race baiting", thereby disproving 1/2 of the title of this thread.

Actually, it has already been establish how what Obama did was race baiting. All you have done is scoff at the source used for the explanation of race baiting (while not providing any logical reason to ignore it) and then you try to redefine race baiting as narrowly as possible (by cherry picking your definition) to suit your argument. That is called equivocation; a fallacious argument. There is no honesty in your argument. No good faith.

I am not pouting I am simply not going to waste time trying to have a discussion on someone who is clearly not interested in an honest discussion because he is openly hostile to any alternative to his view; lacking intellectual integrity. You are clearly still nothing more then a troll and will be treated as such.

Even in the post I am responding to, you are mischaracterizing the entire discussion (and my arguments) to paint your argument in a positive light. You are setting up straw men, pointing out red herrings, ignoring key facts and/or points... you are spinning. There is no honesty and no good faith in that. All it does is frustrate any honest discussion. However, that seems to be all that you do he; baiting, flaming and frustrating any debate. Those are the actions of an internet troll.

If you demonstrated you were capable of an honest discussion, I am willing to engage in that with you. But I am not going to beat my head against a wall here and waste time on an internet troll.

 

[lincolnx2]

So you have a prosthetic detachable ball, and THAT'S the one you let people play with? Wow that must be disappointing to whoever is involved (I would think, not known from experience like I know your childish mind is going to say)...

Actually I wasn't going to say that, I dont talk about people! I am comfortable with myself and dont have to insult people to make myself feel better. Do you have anything to say in regards to the thread?

 

[lincolnx2]

You DO get upset, I've seen many examples, but you mostly just run away and hide at that point

Please provide an example of when I got "upset". Do you have anything to say related to this thread?

 

[fossten]

Please provide an example of when I got "upset". Do you have anything to say related to this thread?

|
V

I am really starting to believe you just say stuff to get a reaction out of me, it won't work, I have graduated SERE-C school, I don't get upset. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE!

 

[fossten]

Originally Posted by JohnnyBz00LS
There you go again, pouting because you are incapable of responding to my challenge to point out the exact statement made by Obama that fits the correct and un-inflated definition of "race baiting", thereby disproving 1/2 of the title of this thread.

I can get this from another source if you want. It will be essentially the same.

From Wikipedia:

Race baiting is an act of using racially derisive language, actions or other forms of communication, to anger, intimidate or incite a person or groups of people, or to make those persons behave in ways that are inimical, and often harmful to their personal or group interests.

This can also be accomplished by implying that there is an underlying race-based motive in the actions of others towards the group baited, where none in fact exists. The term "race" in this context can be construed very broadly to include the social constructs which define race or racial difference, as well as ethnic, religious, gender and economic differences.

Thus the use of any language or actions perceived to be for the purpose of exploiting weaknesses in persons who can be identified as members of certain groups, or to reinforce a group's perceived victimhood, can be contained within the concept of "race baiting." Many people who practice race baiting often believe in racism, or have an interest in making the group believe that racism is what motivates the actions of others.

*owned*

 

[lincolnx2]

|
V

Is that me getting upset?

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

I can get this from another source if you want. It will be essentially the same.

From Wikipedia:

NOTED: Fossten puts his/her full faith in the accuracy of information posted in Wikipedia and will hereby never again claim references to Wikipedia "bogus".

Allwords.com:

The act of using racially derisive language, actions, or other forms of communication in order to anger or intimidate or coerce a person or group of people.

en.wiktionary.org:

The act of using racially derisive language, actions, or other forms of communication in order to anger or intimidate or coerce a person or group of people.

www.merriam-webster.com:

The making of verbal attacks against members of a racial group.

Again, the most credible sources of the definition of "race baiting" do not include the expanded language found in Wikipedia and the numerous other sources that link back to it that would essentially make ANY discussion about race fall into that definition of race baiting.

*owned*

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Actually, it has already been establish how what Obama did was race baiting. All you have done is scoff at the source used for the explanation of race baiting (while not providing any logical reason to ignore it) and then you try to redefine race baiting as narrowly as possible (by cherry picking your definition) to suit your argument. That is called equivocation; a fallacious argument. There is no honesty in your argument. No good faith.

I scoff at your source because YOU have, on numerous occasions, scoffed at that same source. So now YOU want to apply a double standard to Wiki's credibility?? :bowrofl: You can't have it both ways.

The logical reason to ignore that expanded definition (that I've already provided) is because to embrace it would allow nearly ANY and ALL discussions about race to be construed as "race baiting". You've got to draw the line somewhere, I'll draw my line consistent w/ the most credible sources available (3 of which are noted in my post above).

The core requirement for "race baiting" is the use of derisive language towards a group with the intent of angering or intimidating them. Without those two elements, it is NOT race baiting. You have yet AGAIN failed to point out Obama's statements that contain those elements of race baiting. *owned*

I am not pouting I am simply not going to waste time trying to have a discussion on someone who is clearly not interested in an honest discussion because he is openly hostile to any alternative to his view; lacking intellectual integrity. You are clearly still nothing more then a troll and will be treated as such.

Even in the post I am responding to, you are mischaracterizing the entire discussion (and my arguments) to paint your argument in a positive light. You are setting up straw men, pointing out red herrings, ignoring key facts and/or points... you are spinning. There is no honesty and no good faith in that. All it does is frustrate any honest discussion. However, that seems to be all that you do he; baiting, flaming and frustrating any debate. Those are the actions of an internet troll.

If you demonstrated you were capable of an honest discussion, I am willing to engage in that with you. But I am not going to beat my head against a wall here and waste time on an internet troll.

You know, Shag, every one of your complaints about me can be honestly made about you. The majority of the threads you've initiated have been distorted versions of reality, and many on here besides myself have called you on them. Even after being attacked as a "troll" by you, Foss and Monster, I've attempted, and will continue to attempt to engage in constructive debate. But continuing to initiate personal attacks on me will NOT make me go away, I will merely respond in kind.

Seems you'd be more comfortable hiding behind you little "ignore" wall w/ Foss.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

I would like to agree with you, but everything I have read about or seen of Gates shows him to have a huge ego and a massive racial chip on his shoulder. Frankly, I doubt he is capable of admitting he was out of line to himself, let alone to anyone else. But, I hope I am wrong.

I believe your hopes are being answered:

Black scholar says he’s able to joke about arrest
But Gates also says he’s gotten death threats, closed public e-mail address

AP
updated 6:00 p.m. ET, Sun., Aug 2, 2009

CHILMARK, Mass. - Black Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. on Sunday joked about his arrest by a white police officer, but also described receiving death threats and dreaming about being arrested at the White House.

In his first public appearance since having a beer at the White House on Thursday with the officer and President Barack Obama, Gates said the national debate over racial profiling sparked by his arrest shows that issues of class and race still run "profoundly deep" in the United States.

"They have not been resolved at all," he said, speaking to a crowd of more than 150 who came to see him at the Martha's Vineyard Book Festival.

Gates was mostly light-hearted during his speech and even poked fun at himself after a man in the crowd told him he admired his sense of humor.

"I should have been funnier in the kitchen of my house on July 16," he said.

But Gates also described how the incident and the subsequent national debate affected him personally. He said he had to shut down his public e-mail and change his cell phone number after receiving numerous death and bomb threats, including one that read, "You should die; you're a racist."

Gates was arrested on a disorderly conduct charge at his Cambridge home after police responded to an emergency call about a possible burglary from a woman who thought she saw two men forcing their way into the house.

The officer who arrested him, Sgt. James Crowley, said Gates became belligerent and called him a racist after he asked for identification. Gates accused police of racial profiling and called Crowley a "rogue cop."

The charge was dropped.

Obama stepped into the fray during a White House news conference when he said Cambridge police had "acted stupidly" by arresting Gates after they had identified him as being in his own home. The president later said he should have chosen his words more carefully and invited the two men to the White House for a beer.

Gates said that the night before he went to the White House, he dreamed about getting arrested there.

Officer, scholar may meet again privately
When the two first came face to face in the White House, Gates said that both he and his family and Crowley and his family "looked like a deer caught in headlights."

He said Crowley looked "so relieved" when he shook his hand, and the two were able to find humor in the media frenzy unleashed by his arrest.

Gates said he and Crowley discussed meeting again privately — either going to lunch or taking in a Boston Red Sox baseball or Celtics basketball game — or having their two families go out to dinner together.

"I offered to get his kids into Harvard if he doesn't arrest me again," he said, drawing loud laughter from the audience.

Gates appeared at the festival on the island summer resort off the Massachusetts coast to promote his 2009 book, "In Search of Our Roots: How 19 Extraordinary African Americans Reclaimed Their Past." The book traces the family trees of black celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey and Chris Rock.

 

[shagdrum]

I scoff at your source because YOU have, on numerous occasions, scoffed at that same source. So now YOU want to apply a double standard to Wiki's credibility?? :bowrofl: You can't have it both ways.

Now you are distorting my actions. If I discount wikipedia it is in individual instances with specific logical reasons for doing so. You are ignoring those specific reasons for those instances and instead generalizing which effectively mischaracterizes my actions. You are setting up a straw man and you know it.

Further proof that you are incapable of any honest discussion.

Can you cite any examples? Considering your lack of honesty, links to individual threads and specific quotes are necessary to confirm any of your claims.

Put up or shut up.

The logical reason to ignore that expanded definition (that I've already provided) is because to embrace it would allow nearly ANY and ALL discussions about race to be construed as "race baiting".

Wrong. It is dependent on how that language is used. If it is used in a manner which can serve to

As usual you are either to stupid to recognize the point or too dishonest to admit it. The wikipedia source covers all possible definitions. I highlighted which one Obama's actions fall into. Now you are trying to cherry-pick your definition to fit your claims. You are rationalizing through dishonest, fallacious arguments; specifically equivocation in this case.'

Even your "breakdown" of your cherry picked definition of "race baiting" doesn't exclude Obama's actions. The term "racial profiling" is racially divisive language. The manner in which Obama used it served that purpose by implying that the cops were in fact racially profiling.

Your dishonesty is evident for all to see. You mischaracterize my arguments in the past on this forum to set up a straw man to smear me with. Then you deny reality by equivocating and cherry-picking to rationalize your preconceived notions. There is no critical thought there. You are credulous toward anything Obama says and down right hostile to anything that counters that. There is no chance for objectivity at that point. As you have demonstrated, there is no chance for civility with you (can be civil when someone is intentionally and blatantly lying about you and distorting your positions). You have demonstrated that there is no good faith with you here. Unfortunately, that is all to common with the liberals on this forum.

You know, Shag, every one of your complaints about me can be honestly made about you.

Yet they haven't. Why is that? Any time someone has tried to make those claims, they are very vague about it and can never give specifics. When they try to do so, it becomes clear that they are being dishonest in making the claim. Usually by taking me out of context or otherwise distorting my arguments.

Besides, even if what you say is true, that in no way justifies your actions. It is nothing but an attempt to deflect.

The majority of the threads you've initiated have been distorted versions of reality, and many on here besides myself have called you on them.

Just because you think they are distortions of reality doesn't mean that they in fact are. My "distortions" of reality can be and are backed up by empirical evidence and/or logical arguments. When you (or most anyone else) try to challenge my "distortion" or provide your own "reality", it tends to come down to demagoguery, dishonesty and more distortion as the only thing that can defend your view or reality.

Even after being attacked as a "troll" by you, Foss and Monster, I've attempted, and will continue to attempt to engage in constructive debate. But continuing to initiate personal attacks on me will NOT make me go away, I will merely respond in kind.

More distortion. Those type of actions are why you are treated with hostility. You are not simply the "innocent victim" looking to defend youself and you know it. The fact is that I am responding to you are your distortions, lies and dishonest. You are known as a troll on this forum for good reason. You habitually bait with your posts, lie on here and generally frustrate any honest discussion. There can be no "constructive debate" in that atmosphere. Despite your claim of trying to engage in a constructive debate, your actions clearly and conclusively show that you have no interest in a "constructive debate" here.

Dishonest, deceptive and fallacious arguments as well as demagoguery work against constructive debate. But those are the means you habitually employ. In this thread alone, you are cherry picking, equivocating, and lying about me and my actions.

I have said before that if you are truly willing to have an honest and civil discussion I will be glad to engage in that with you. But when you are dishonest, using flawed reasoning, smearing, etc. you are not trying to have a civil discussion. The ball is, and always has been, in your court on this. You have to discuss things honestly and with civility (no personal attacks). Otherwise you are a detriment to this forum and a waste of time for anyone to engage.

 

[foxpaws]

Your dishonesty is evident for all to see. You mischaracterize my arguments in the past on this forum to set up a straw man to smear me with. Then you deny reality by equivocating and cherry-picking to rationalize your preconceived notions. There is no critical thought there. You are credulous toward anything Obama says and down right hostile to anything that counters that. There is no chance for objectivity at that point. As you have demonstrated, there is no chance for civility with you (can be civil when someone is intentionally and blatantly lying about you and distorting your positions). You have demonstrated that there is no good faith with you here. Unfortunately, that is all to common with the liberals on this forum.

I am glad to see that you so easily ‘label’ liberals shag, as the ‘bad’ side.

I, as a liberal, don’t assume that all conservatives on this site are victimized, easily offended, fearful, rigid, vulnerable and need the reassurance of tradition and authority, finding it in conservative politics.

Shag, however, you do seem to fall into the same patterns – when you are losing an argument shag, in this case the tiny aside that Johnny brought up about Wiki not being a reliable source, stating the fact that you had also claimed that Wiki was unreliable in the past, you revert to ‘not arguing in good faith, lying, distorting, uncivil’, while also claiming a variety of debate ‘rules’ have been broken.

Wiki is junk. You have argued well in the past to dismiss it, why hang onto now like Linus clutching a tired worn blanket?

Would it be so hard to admit that the other definitions, more common, academically accepted and certainly more prevalent should take precedent here.

I just read this thread – not really paying attention to it until this point, because I believe Obama was in the wrong stating that the Cambridge police were ‘stupid’. But when I read a quote like this from you shag…

Frankly, you should be removed from this forum.

I really do wonder why it is that you feel so threatened. No one should be removed from the site, regarding their opinion, their way of arguing it, or the fact that you just don’t like them. Johnny has made many good points in this thread, and while, initially, it may have appeared he was trolling, he certainly isn’t now. He is arguing in good faith. Whether or not you agree with him is moot, no one should be removed from the site for stating an opinion.

However, I am trolling, and will now go back to wherever it is that the trolls hide.

 

[shagdrum]

However, I am trolling, and will now go back to wherever it is that the trolls hide.

Let's see, you are repeating/re-enforcing Johnny's distortions and lies about me (specifically concerning my "dismissal" of wiki sources), injecting irrelevant false stereotypes of conservatives in a catty manner ("...need the reassurance of tradition and authority")...

Yep, you are trolling. Not only that, you are propagandizing and trying to marginalize by distortion.

You are also proving my point about the liberals on this forum; no good faith, honesty or civility. Only demagoguery. Thanks.

Like I said to Johnny, find where I have dismissed a wiki source out of hand (without giving a specific, logical reason dictated by the specific context of what is being discussed/claimed and the reasoning behind that claim). Provide exact quote as well as link to the post in question so it can be verified.

You know what you are claiming is a distortion just as Johnny does.

put up or shut up.

 

[foxpaws]

Like I said to Johnny, find where I have dismissed a wiki source out of hand (without giving a specific, logical reason dictated by the specific context of what is being discussed/claimed and the reasoning behind that claim). Provide exact quote as well as link to the post in question so it can be verified.

I have it easy - I have never used Wiki as source, knowing that it is junk. I don't have to justify my use of it ever, because I know how wiki works, and why you don't ever use it as source.... However, now that you need it, it somehow rises to 'acceptable in certain cases,' those cases being defined by you shag. Even Wiki's founder - Wales knows that it is poor source...

Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia compiled by a distributed network of volunteers, has often come under attack by academics as being shoddy and full of inaccuracies. Even Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, says he wants to get the message out to college students that they shouldn’t use it for class projects or serious research.​

And even Wiki states it is not a dictionary, and should not be used as such...

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide.​

You aren't an arbitrator here shag - Wiki is bad source...

You are also proving my point about the liberals on this forum; no good faith, honesty or civility. Only demagoguery. Thanks.

And you reinforce my point that you, shag, personally, find it easy to blanket label people, that your prejudice against the left has hampered your ability to rationally discuss issues, reverting to a set form.

Now, for your slurs... it is you, with your irrational hatred of the left, that has used this forum as a voice for your demagoguery. You are the one that consistently paints an entire group of people as lying, uncivil, acting in poor faith, playing upon the emotions that those words cause. You work by instilling fear in others, arousing emotions designed to obscure valid points made by the left.

I don't claim this of all conservatives shag, unlike you I know that is playing on emotions and passions, and that it is a terrible case of prejudice. I do claim this of you shag - and that is where we differ.

I know to paint an entire group of people with the same hateful terms is wrong, it is a from of prejudice, just as using racial slurs against someone is wrong. Labeling all liberals as untruthful, dishonest and uncivil is no different than the racial terms people use against minorities. And it is just as wrong.

 

[shagdrum]

You aren't an arbitrator here shag - Wiki is bad source...

I never said that I am some sort of "arbiter". Another false stereotype on your part.

All you are doing is making an ad hominem attack on the source to avoid having to disprove the message. How about you stop attacking the messenger.

As much as you like to claim I am generalizing and making blanket statements, that is precisely what you are doing with wikipedia. Just because some entries are less then credible doesn't mean that all entries are. Instead of relying on the intellectually lazy tactic of discrediting an entire source. What you are doing is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

And you reinforce my point that you, shag, personally, find it easy to blanket label people, that your prejudice against the left has hampered your ability to rationally discuss issues, reverting to a set form.

I am only talking about the liberals on this forum. The facts back up my assertions. You and Johnny's actions here specifically do so. I can cite plenty of other evidence if necessary, but I am not going to give specific names unless and until those people chose to inject themselves into this debate.

Now, for your slurs... it is you, with your irrational hatred of the left, that has used this forum as a voice for your demagoguery.

Irrational hatred? Now you can read minds? You are speculating quite a bit.

You are the one that consistently paints an entire group of people as lying, uncivil, acting in poor faith, playing upon the emotions that those words cause. You work by instilling fear in others, arousing emotions designed to obscure valid points made by the left.

No, I am simply inferring from the available information. Specifically the patterns used in any discussion/debate by certain people on this forum.

More spin on your part that ignores the truth.

I don't claim this of all conservatives shag

No, you simply try to inject false stereotypes about us in a catty manner. Remember the whole "group think" thing? Or in post #86 of this forum when you suggested that conservatives, "...need the reassurance of tradition and authority" in such a way as to be able to deny you actually claimed that. However that idea is out there now. You and I both know it is a gross distortion of conservative philosophy and it is irrelevant to what was being discussed. But You apparently have an axe to grind and are, in your catty, passive aggressive manner, distorting and smearing.

You don't make the claims I make, or even directly even make criticisms, instead suggesting and infering them. That is simply more deception, and shows what in my view is your two-faced nature.

The fact is I can back up my claims here, and have done so countless times on this forum. However, you are mischaracterizing my claims here to apply them to all liberals when I am focusing on the ones in this forum. More proof of the dishonesty inherent in your arguing style.

FYI: logically and factually pointing out the truth about people's actions is not "playing on other people's emotions", it is revealing the truth. Any emotional response as a consequence to that action is not falsely created but genuine and due not to the actions of the messenger but to the actions that the messenger is pointing out. However, when false stereotypes are injected, arguments are mischaracterized to set up a straw man, baseless negative speculation is claimed to be true, then any emotional response is due to the dishonesty and the distortion of the messenger. That is playing off people's emotions.

I know to paint an entire group of people with the same hateful terms is wrong, it is a from of prejudice, just as using racial slurs against someone is wrong. Labeling all liberals as untruthful, dishonest and uncivil is no different than the racial terms people use against minorities. And it is just as wrong.

A prejudice is an adverse opinion formed BEFOREHAND. That is clearly not the case here, as I have demonstrated countless times on this forum. I am inferring things from the actions taken in this forum about those who take those actions.

So, you are;

• Mischaracterizing what I am saying
• dishonestly trying to discredit a source through fallacious (ad hominem) means instead of actually discrediting the message presented
• deceptively trying to inject false stereotypes

No good faith or honesty (and thus no civility) there.

Go grind your axe somewhere else. I am through wasting my time on you.

 

[foxpaws]

I never said that I am some sort of "arbiter". Another false stereotype on your part.

All you are doing is making an ad hominem attack on the source to avoid having to disprove the message. How about you stop attacking the messenger.

Shag, you just state that your way is correct… that you have deemed it so, if that isn’t self arbitration, I don’t know what is.

Above, I went out of my way to show that even the founder of Wiki says ‘don’t use Wiki as source’ and I used Wiki itself that stated ‘Wiki isn’t a dictionary.’ I can’t believe that you would still stand by Wiki source…

You are holding on to this like a child Shag. You use source ‘discredidation’ quite often to refute a point. Example – Media Matters. You discredit them out of hand… whenever anyone uses them as source. In this case I used both the founder and owner of the source, along with the source itself to discredit it’s usage. Wiki is terrible source.

I am only talking about the liberals on this forum. The facts back up my assertions. You and Johnny's actions here specifically do so. I can cite plenty of other evidence if necessary, but I am not going to give specific names unless and until those people chose to inject themselves into this debate.
Snip
No, I am simply inferring from the available information. Specifically the patterns used in any discussion/debate by certain people on this forum.

Liberals on this forum… do you even know who they all are? You are stereotyping and you are being prejudicial. I am taking you to task on your labeling. You can call me those things all you want – and you do. But, to blindly label an entire group of people based on the actions of ‘certain people’ is wrong.

No, you simply try to inject false stereotypes about us in a catty manner. Remember the whole "group think" thing? Or in post #86 of this forum when you suggested that conservatives, "...need the reassurance of tradition and authority" in such a way as to be able to deny you actually claimed that. However that idea is out there now. You and I both know it is a gross distortion of conservative philosophy and it is irrelevant to what was being discussed. But You apparently have an axe to grind and are, in your catty, passive aggressive manner, distorting and smearing.

If you read post #86, you will note that I state that I don’t assume all conservatives deserve the labels that are attributed to them, and then I list them. Heck, there are plenty of liberals that feel victimized, but I wouldn’t ever say that all liberals, whether in a closed group like this forum, or in a larger ‘national’ sense feel victimized. They are all individuals, and should be treated as such. Not lumped into some all encompassing group.

Groupthink doesn’t imply hatred or contempt. Groupthink is something that happens. I never said it was bad or that it was ‘wrong’ – it was just something that occurs. I also said that the left on this forum also is guilty of ‘groupthink’. It doesn’t imply good or bad, until someone interjects a ‘barometer’ to the statement.

A prejudice is an adverse opinion formed BEFOREHAND. That is clearly not the case here, as I have demonstrated countless times on this forum. I am inferring things from the actions taken in this forum about those who take those actions.

Shag, you are creating an atmosphere of prejudice. You keep putting forth blanket statements that refer to all members of a group, in hopes that people reading this will dismiss anything anyone has to say from that group. By saying that all liberal members of this forum are dishonest, uncivil, and without good faith you are fostering a viewpoint you want others to embrace regarding liberals. You do this so people viewing this forum will pre-judge the liberal viewpoints placed into discussion as being untruthful, because ‘all liberals on this forum’ are that way.

Irrational hatred? Now you can read minds? You are speculating quite a bit.
Snip
Go grind your axe somewhere else. I am through wasting my time on you.

As you end all discussions that get a little ‘dicey’ when your particular form of hatred is pointed out. I can’t read minds, but I certainly can read posts, and when you start to lump all the members into a group that you then label with hateful terms it does show irrational tendencies towards that group.

 

[shagdrum]

Shag, you just state that your way is correct… that you have deemed it so, if that isn’t self arbitration, I don’t know what is.

My "way" is simply attempting to be honest and civil and expecting that from others. I only treat them with the same level of civility they treat me and call them on any dishonest tactics.

Above, I went out of my way to show that even the founder of Wiki says ‘don’t use Wiki as source’ and I used Wiki itself that stated ‘Wiki isn’t a dictionary.’ I can’t believe that you would still stand by Wiki source…

You are holding on to this like a child Shag. You use source ‘discredidation’ quite often to refute a point. Example – Media Matters. You discredit them out of hand… whenever anyone uses them as source. In this case I used both the founder and owner of the source, along with the source itself to discredit it’s usage. Wiki is terrible source.

You keep talking in generalities but can never provide any examples.

It is rather telling that you are focusing on simply discrediting the source and not the claim it is making. You have done this a number of times in the past; attack the messenger to avoid confronting the message. That is dishonest and you know it.

Just because a source may not be credible on a certain subject doesn't meant that it has absolutely no credibility. If the source in question is not credible on the issue about which it is being cited, then it will be evident in the claim it is making. You nor Johnny have been able to show that. All you can do is try and dismiss the source.

The ONLY thing that matters is weather or not the claim in question is credible. You have yet to show a lack of credibility in the claim in question.

Also, on the media matters stuff, I "dismissed" them (if you want to call it that) for reasons very specific to the content of which they were being cited. Stop mischaracterizing my actions.

Liberals on this forum… do you even know who they all are?

Yes. I have certain specific people in mind when I say that. I am not going to name names though. I will point them out if and when they present an opportunity for me to do so.

You are stereotyping and you are being prejudicial.

I am simply pointing out dishonest and immature actions/arguments and drawing logical conclusions from the habitual use of those type of actions/arguments. If anything it is the people using those dishonest and immature actions/arguments that are stereotyping themselves.

I am taking you to task on your labeling. You can call me those things all you want – and you do. But, to blindly label an entire group of people based on the actions of ‘certain people’ is wrong.

Try all you like. All you have been able to do is to distort my record and make general claims. You have yet to provide any disprovable specifics.

The facts back up what I am saying. Only counterfactual assumptions on your part back up what you are saying.

If you read post #86, you will note that I state that I don’t assume all conservatives deserve the labels that are attributed to them, and then I list them. Heck, there are plenty of liberals that feel victimized, but I wouldn’t ever say that all liberals, whether in a closed group like this forum, or in a larger ‘national’ sense feel victimized. They are all individuals, and should be treated as such. Not lumped into some all encompassing group.

Groupthink doesn’t imply hatred or contempt. Groupthink is something that happens. I never said it was bad or that it was ‘wrong’ – it was just something that occurs. I also said that the left on this forum also is guilty of ‘groupthink’. It doesn’t imply good or bad, until someone interjects a ‘barometer’ to the statement.

Now you are talking in circles. You know what you are doing (as does anyone else following this forum for a while) and are now trying to rationalize it.

I never said groupthink implied "hatred or contempt". I said it was a false stereotype. Hatred and/or contempt are not necessary for that. Interestingly, you are not denying that you did try and create that false stereotype here.

Another false stereotype you are, by implication, trying to inject; that the "standards" I expect are somehow "arbitrary" and/or only for "college debate". You know better then that yet you intentionally try and use that to smear me. My "standards" are simply honesty, integrity and civility. Something anyone would expect in a civil discussion.

Shag, you are creating an atmosphere of prejudice.

Once again you are focusing on the style of what I am claiming while ignoring the actual substance of what I am saying. In fact, you go so far as to distort what I am saying (either directly or by implication) to support smear.

If you cannot counter the substance of what I am saying (not your distortion of what I am saying) then you are simply whining.

If someone speaks the truth, they are creating an "atmosphere of prejudice"?! If you can not handle the truth, the fault lies with YOU.

Aren't you creating an "atmosphere of prejudice" when you try and inject false stereotypes about certain people and or those holding certain views?

As you end all discussions that get a little ‘dicey’ when your particular form of hatred is pointed out.

Again, more focus on style over substance. The only "hatred" I have is for certain actions. Like lying and distorting someone's argument and/or record. Like injecting false stereotypes or false premises into the discussion. Those type of actions I have a real problem with, as would anyone expecting to have an honest, civil discussion.

Your utter contempt for anyone expecting any degree of honesty, integrity, civility and good faith in a discussion is pretty self evident though.

So, that is now three posts in a row where you have:

• Mischaracterizing what I am saying
• dishonestly tried to discredit a source through fallacious (ad hominem) means instead of actually discrediting the message presented
• deceptively tried to inject false stereotypes

It is abundantly clear that you are incapable of any civil discussion here. Your actions can only be aimed at smearing and/or dishonestly marginalizing.

As I said before, you clearly have an axe to grind. You have done this before, and you have demonstrated in countless threads that you will lie, mischaracterize, smear, spin, etc. and never admit to anything that may work against your position when you are like this. Your stubbornness and complete disregard for intellectual honesty and integrity is why it is a waste of time to engage you.

 

[fossten]

Shag, you just state that your way is correct… that you have deemed it so, if that isn’t self arbitration, I don’t know what is.

Above, I went out of my way to show that even the founder of Wiki says ‘don’t use Wiki as source’ and I used Wiki itself that stated ‘Wiki isn’t a dictionary.’ I can’t believe that you would still stand by Wiki source…

You are holding on to this like a child Shag. You use source ‘discredidation’ quite often to refute a point. Example – Media Matters. You discredit them out of hand… whenever anyone uses them as source. In this case I used both the founder and owner of the source, along with the source itself to discredit it’s usage. Wiki is terrible source.



Liberals on this forum… do you even know who they all are? You are stereotyping and you are being prejudicial. I am taking you to task on your labeling. You can call me those things all you want – and you do. But, to blindly label an entire group of people based on the actions of ‘certain people’ is wrong.



If you read post #86, you will note that I state that I don’t assume all conservatives deserve the labels that are attributed to them, and then I list them. Heck, there are plenty of liberals that feel victimized, but I wouldn’t ever say that all liberals, whether in a closed group like this forum, or in a larger ‘national’ sense feel victimized. They are all individuals, and should be treated as such. Not lumped into some all encompassing group.

Groupthink doesn’t imply hatred or contempt. Groupthink is something that happens. I never said it was bad or that it was ‘wrong’ – it was just something that occurs. I also said that the left on this forum also is guilty of ‘groupthink’. It doesn’t imply good or bad, until someone interjects a ‘barometer’ to the statement.



Shag, you are creating an atmosphere of prejudice. You keep putting forth blanket statements that refer to all members of a group, in hopes that people reading this will dismiss anything anyone has to say from that group. By saying that all liberal members of this forum are dishonest, uncivil, and without good faith you are fostering a viewpoint you want others to embrace regarding liberals. You do this so people viewing this forum will pre-judge the liberal viewpoints placed into discussion as being untruthful, because ‘all liberals on this forum’ are that way.



As you end all discussions that get a little ‘dicey’ when your particular form of hatred is pointed out. I can’t read minds, but I certainly can read posts, and when you start to lump all the members into a group that you then label with hateful terms it does show irrational tendencies towards that group.

This is about the whiniest post I've seen in a long time. Why don't you just call Shag a big poopy head?

 

[foxpaws]

Also, on the media matters stuff, I "dismissed" them (if you want to call it that) for reasons very specific to the content of which they were being cited. Stop mischaracterizing my actions.

Really shag - I just want to get this out of the way before I look at the rest of your post - because this stood out as being rather 'selective memory' on your part...

Maybe you don't remember this little statement of yours...

FYI; Media Matters is not, in any way, a credible source. This isn't simply due to their liberal bias but because their behavior shows a habitual dishonesty and lack of objectivity. They habitually distort and outright lie to smear certian people/organizations and dishonestly defend certian people/organizations. Just because Media Matters says something does not mean it is true.

You can read about their distortions and deceptive methodology here and here.

You are just attacking the source here - not the content. May I ask why it is OK for you to question source, and it isn't appropriate that I get to do it?

Plus, your source, the two links that 'reveal' how MediaMatters "distorts and uses deceptive methodology" are very conservative sites... The sources that I used to debunk Wiki are the founder and owner of Wiki and Wiki itself. I didn't have to go to a liberal or conservative site - the actual people who produce Wiki say 'don't use this as reference', 'don't use this as a dictionary'.

Certainly my 'debunking' source is far less slanted than yours...

 

[foxpaws]

This is about the whiniest post I've seen in a long time. Why don't you just call Shag a big poopy head?

Because I reserve the very special title of 'big poopy head' for really special people foss...

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Really shag - I just want to get this out of the way before I look at the rest of your post - because this stood out as being rather 'selective memory' on your part...

Maybe you don't remember this little statement of yours...



You are just attacking the source here - not the content. May I ask why it is OK for you to question source, and it isn't appropriate that I get to do it?

Plus, your source, the two links that 'reveal' how MediaMatters "distorts and uses deceptive methodology" are very conservative sites... The sources that I used to debunk Wiki are the founder and owner of Wiki and Wiki itself. I didn't have to go to a liberal or conservative site - the actual people who produce Wiki say 'don't use this as reference', 'don't use this as a dictionary'.

Certainly my 'debunking' source is far less slanted than yours...

Ka-Ching! *owned* Thanks for saving me the effort, Fox.

Shag, you are as transparent as the vaccum of space. You think you get to make all the rules everyone has to play by, then you get pissy and pout when you get busted breaking your own rules. You can dish it out but you can't take it. Your behavior makes a 6-yr old seem mature.

 

[shagdrum]

You are just attacking the source here - not the content. May I ask why it is OK for you to question source, and it isn't appropriate that I get to do it?

I pointed out how the source is not credible. But I didn't, in any way, use that as an excuse to dismiss and ignore the content of the argument for which that source is being used. In fact, I don't even comment on the issue for which that source is being cited. I was very careful to simply let the person using that site know about it's lack of credibility. That is a very important distinction.

If I was using the "lack of credibility" as a means to dismiss the argument (as Johnny and you are doing) then that would be a fallacious ad hominem claim. However, that is decidedly NOT what I am doing.

Also, if you will notice, I give very specific reasons as to why media matters has no credibility; specifically concerning their past. All you give as explanation why wiki is "not credible" is gross exaggeration and distortion of a claim by the founder of the site . You don't cite any past actions by Wikipedia.

You are comparing apples to oranges; a red herring.

Wikipedia is a very valid source in many area, at least in gaining a basic, general understanding on certain issues/ideas. The areas where it tends to consistently show a compromising bias is in the editing of certain highly politically charged issues (like the Obama birth certificate issue, Darwinism vs. ID, etc.)

Plus, your source, the two links that 'reveal' how MediaMatters "distorts and uses deceptive methodology" are very conservative sites... The sources that I used to debunk Wiki are the founder and owner of Wiki and Wiki itself.

Actually, wiki is a liberal site. And weather or not a source is a "liberal" or "conservative" site only matters to you. You have yet to show any logical reason at all why that alone should in any way effect the credibility of a source. However, you are implying that it does. More ad hominem reasoning.

If that is your standard then you can cherry pick all your sources and reject any other sources because you can usually find some reason to suggest a bias in ANY source. Everything becomes purely arbitrary at that point. You are promoting and re-enforcing a flawed, fallacious standard that makes any and every source ultimately meaningless.

The critique you give by the creator of the site only says that people shouldn't use wikipedia for, "class projects or serious research". In other words, in academic projects. That is hardly what is going on here. In essence, what you are doing is dishonestly moving the goalposts on the standards for sources on this forum. The only reasonable standard on sources on this forum is if they are credible in regards to the specific claims they are making or the specific issues they are being cited as an authority on.

You then break the standard you just laid out (that Wikipedia is not a generally credible source) and actually cite Wikipedia which you quote as saying, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide". Wikipedia IS an online encyclopedia (which is how I was using it) and for the purposes of this forum, is generally a perfectly fine source. However, double checking facts on certain politically charged issues is not a bad idea, as they do have a liberal bias which has been shown to compromise their integrity on those issues. But that doesn't mean that wikipedia is not credible on ANY issue.

Also, if you look at the Wikipedia page from which you cite the line, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide", it is simply making a distinction between an encyclopedia and a dictionary. It even has a chart showing the differences between the two. In no way, is it claiming that the encyclopedia site cannot be used as a dictionary, as you are claiming. So, you are quoting out of context there.

In fact, if you look at the first table comparing Wikipedia to a Wiktionary, it seems, in looking for an explanation of the term "race baiting", an encyclopedia is the better source to use then a dictionary because the articles in Wikipedia are about, "a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote" and an article in Wiktionary is about, "the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote".

You are taking certain direct, specific claims and making broad, irrational generalizations off of them that only distort the original claim. You are clearly attempting to impose arbitrary, irrational standards on this forum; precisely what you are essentially accusing me of doing. Why the double standard?

Now, what other distortion are you going to make, what disinformation are you going to present, that I am expected to waste time correcting?

 

[foxpaws]

Shag - I can't believe you would continue to use a site for source when the actual owner and creator of the site says 'don't use it'.

You are backed into a corner and you will create any excuse to try to rationalize the use of Wiki as source.

I was very careful to simply let the person using that site know about it's lack of credibility. That is a very important distinction.

If I was using the "lack of credibility" as a means to dismiss the argument (as Johnny and you are doing) then that would be a fallacious ad hominem claim. However, that is decidedly NOT what I am doing.

I am only attacking the source here - I don't really care about the definition of 'race baiting', but people have to know that Wiki is a terrible source for any serious discussion. You have mis-characterized my reason for entering the discussion. Just as you attacked MediaMatters as what appears to be a 'public service' I am doing the same so people know that Wiki isn't great source material.

Wikipedia is a very valid source in many area, at least in gaining a basic, general understanding on certain issues/ideas. The areas where it tends to consistently show a compromising bias is in the editing of certain highly politically charged issues (like the Obama birth certificate issue, Darwinism vs. ID, etc.)

And don't you think that the entries for 'race baiting' are 'politically charged', as you put it, right now? They probably have been changed dozen of times in the last couple of weeks. Just as any article in Wiki can be changed.

Actually, wiki is a liberal site.

Oh, out of curiosity, why would you label wiki as liberal? Sort of an aside...

Wiki is terrible source. You have attacked it's entries in the past, and you were correct in doing so. What it is good for is to use it as a jumping off point. As the founder said you could find some very general information about the Battle of the Bulge on the site, but don't use it as source, go out and read a history book.

You then break the standard you just laid out (that Wikipedia is not a generally credible source) and actually cite Wikipedia which you quote as saying, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide".

Oh, the whole dictionary thing - Wiki does state that it's encyclopedia 'side' shouldn't be used as a dictionary. It does refer you to their version of a dictionary, and I believe that is one of the places that Johnny used as source for defining race baiting. So Wiki, who very specifically states 'don't use this site as a dictionary' refers people to one of the sources that Johnny used for his argument... If you believe in Wiki, then shouldn't you take their advice and go to their dictionary side if you want word definitions, like Johnny did? I used wiki as source in this case because obviously you believe in wiki... So, if you believe wiki, shouldn't you follow wiki advice?

Why is this so hard to let go of? I don't use MediaMatters as source - it would be silly, just as it is silly to use Wiki as source. In both cases they are jumping off points - a quick reference so you can find resources to dig further. Use their footnotes and their references to original articles to discover far more accurate material.

You are taking certain direct, specific claims and making broad, irrational generalizations off of them that only distort the original claim. You are clearly attempting to impose arbitrary, irrational standards on this forum; precisely what you are essentially accusing me of doing. Why the double standard?

You are the one creating a double standard, not me. It is OK for you to blanket-ly discredit source, but not me. It is OK for you to use Wiki if it matches your POV, but if anyone else uses it against you, well then it is bad source, and is biased.

Perhaps you should look up 'double standard' on wiki and make sure you understand its meaning shag...

 

[fossten]

Because I reserve the very special title of 'big poopy head' for really special people foss...

But your whining is indiscriminate. :bowrofl: Keep it up, foxpaws, it's amusing.

 

[shagdrum]

blah, blah, blah

I was going to spend time actually responding substantively to your post. But, as always, it is a colossal waste of time and energy. Your history on this forum shows how this will go. I will correct your lies and distortions and you will ignore those arguments or distort those arguments while continuing to inject more and more false premises, distortions, lies, catty personal attacks, etc. to see what sticks. There is absolutely no chance for any civil discussion with you here.

I am not going to continue to engage in this pointless back and forth with you again. When you want to actually demonstrate some intellectual honest and integrity, good faith in discussing issues, civility, ect.; basically, when you want to show some character, then we can talk.

 

[lincolnx2]

Have you all heard about the cop or ex-cop, who compared Gates to a "jungle monkey"?