Skidding or Crashing?

[Mr Wiggl3s]

You're a liar. Period. I don't have to prove a negative. You, like Mike Tyson, just discovered a new word and are trying it out in a forum. Go screw yourself.

You seem to be ignoring any distinction between honesty and dishonesty...as usual.

The dishonesty in that post. Jesus. It must be saturated in it because i cant see it.

/troll

 

[foxpaws]

You talk about following the money, but you only follow it until your opinion is confirmed and stop. That is rather dishonest. Where did the wealth that the government used to fund the war effort come from? Taxes and bonds.

And shag, you only follow the money.. wait, you don’t follow the money at all.

So, how did those people pay their taxes and buy those bonds? Where did that money come from?

During WWII the government printed money – they used that money to create government contracts to build war machinery. After the people got that newly printed money they paid taxes with that money, and they bought bonds with that money. The money originated with the government, both printing it and awarding it through government contracts. That money that paid the taxes or bought the bonds did not exist until the government printed money and released it through government contracts.

The wealth was created by the private sector with the government as the client.

So, shag, if I buy an American made car, am I not creating the auto worker’s job? I am responsible for the wealth that he now has – because he has my money. He created the car, but without me, he wouldn’t get paid for that work. I ‘created’ that wealth that he gets for building that car.

Your second question implies that it was the buying of the goods (consumption) that created wealth. The truth is that wealth (and income) creates consumption. This article, shows why this idea is false:

So shag – what created the consumption of tanks and ships and planes? The war and the government. The government then created wealth to purchase those items – it printed money. No income created that money, a government printing press created that money to buy (consume) those items.

You are basing your view on the false premise that consumption drives economic growth, when, in fact, it is the opposite. You are putting the cart before the horse. Here is another article explaining your assumption is exceedingly ignorant of reality and even the theory it is based in.

So, shag – how in this case (the war effort in WWII) did the wealthy create economic growth? They weren’t putting their money into factories, they were using government money. Money that the government printed. The government didn’t get that first influx of money from taxes or bonds, they printed it.

To claim that government contracts created wealth is to ignore where government get's it's wealth. It is irrational.

The government got its wealth in the case of WWII (and many wars) by printing it. You are ignoring this fact shag. The coffers were pretty empty, tax revenue in the years proceeding the war weren’t at their highest levels – certainly not enough to sustain a world war. They rolled the presses.

Can you point to anytime in history where wealth has been created outside of the private sector?

Yep, look at WWII.

The government gave these contracts to the private sector. The private sector was then the mechanism that created the wealth (as it always has been). If the government had not given out contracts to fuel the war effort, the private sector would still have been able to create wealth. The big difference that allowed for the creation of massive amounts of wealth that later funded the post war boom, was the wartime economy; specifically coming on the heels of a decade of depression.

Really – you have proof of that – you can go back in time and alter things so the war doesn’t happen and the economy starts skipping right along because of private sector investment? You can’t shag, however, I can show where the government printing and spending money moved the economy. Yours is theory, mine is fact.

Your argument hinges on ignoring the fact that all government wealth ultimately comes from it's citizens. The citizens wealth is created in the private sector.

Well, in the best case scenario it does shag. But, when the government needs money – they just print it. That is what they do often in war time.

You keep wanting to talk about money, but money is not wealth. By itself, money is worthless. Only when wealth is attached to money does it have any value. The only mechanisms that the government has that can effect wealth can only decrease wealth through inflation (unless they want to stop printing and start removing money from the economy). If the government wants to create wealth, they have to "outsource" that job to the private sector. That is the only way that the government can create wealth; through the private sector. That is what they did in WWII.

Well, the government could have nationalized all business and still created wealth… they didn’t. Someone was going to get paid for welding a ship. They could have gotten that check directly from the government, however, they received it from private enterprise, which received a check directly from the government.

Shag – where did the money come from that paid the taxes and bought the war bonds? You still haven’t answered that question.

 

[foxpaws]

...then you have committed systematic error. To look at this forum as a microcosm is to look at is as having enough similarities to the whole (which in this case would be society) to draw a conclusion about the whole from the sample in the "microcosm".

Well, shag, if you want to get picky -

The right appears to be in control here - obviously that falls away from a microcosm based on today's society

But, as a sample of 'a' society - it doesn't have to be any particular society - it is a microcosm of 'a' society... All small groups are microcosms of something...

You are attempting to spin and distort as a means to smear fossten.

Foss can take care of himself Shag, he quite eloquently told me to go screw myself, and then labeled me as a lemming.

More on 'right' groupthink...

overestimates its invulnerability or high moral stance...
God will judge you. But I can judge what you did, because I know the difference between right and wrong, and because I know that God's Word has already condemned what you did. I can tell you that what you did was abhorrent, wrong, and disgusting. You virtually admit to having no morals. You slaughter without conscience. What you did may be legal, but you'll answer for it.

collectively rationalizes the decisions it makes...
Well argued, Shag.
I would like to emphasize one of your points:
It is NOT the place of the government to legislate fairness.

demonizes or stereotypes out groups and their leaders...
You're really such a grossly dishonest person, it astounds me. You constantly speak out of both sides of your both. You're a propagandist, and I mean that in the worst possible way.

contains members who take it upon themselves to protect the group leader by keeping information, theirs or other group members', from the leader...

This thread pretty well shows the lengths to which your cheerleaders will go to defend you and your distortions and lies.

That doesn't address 'keeping information from the leader.' No one here is able to keep information from anyone else. That is why I stated that this one would be a stretch - it refers to keeping a leader in isolation. Many times that is done so that the leader doesn't hear criticism, obviously that doesn't happen here.

Even though the left doesn't have a monopoly on the media, it is still next to impossible to avoid leftist thought in today's society.

Here, on this forum the right does monopolize the posts. That is why I was using this forum as a microcosm... It is next to impossible to avoid 'rightist' thought in this forum.

Most liberals cannot even articulate an accurate conservative position on something, let alone knowingly, honestly and reasonably reject it.

And isn't it odd that Foss gave me a bad time for reading and trying to understand conservative viewpoint - Which I do Shag. I read conservative viewpoint - American Thinker, Cato... How often do you read Brookings Shag? How often to you go to NPR and listen to a broadcast? Check out the Urban Institute lately?

 

[foxpaws]

Not at all. But you fail to make your case for groupthink. You're just testing it as a theory, but it won't hold water. In fact, the lemmings that follow Obama's every word and swallow every lame talking point spewed by the TOTUS are as close to groupthink as any drones can be. And you're their leader. Congratulations.

Foss - there is no way I am a leader - you might have delusions of grandeur - but I don't.

 

[fossten]

Foss - there is no way I am a leader - you might have delusions of grandeur - but I don't.

Make up your mind...did I call you a lemming or their leader? You can't have it both ways.

You're nothing but a sniper. You never bring in any new threads, with any information from outside sources. You simply have no original ideas of your own. Your ostensible purpose here is to cut and shred the opinions of others with whom you disagree, and then cry and whine and play victim when others oppose your dishonest sniping.

I have yet to see you put your own neck on the block. So for you to say I am an example of groupthink is cowardly hypocrisy, considering you wouldn't know what it's like to put your own opinion out there for others to dissect. Let me know when you get up enough guts to do that. Until then, coward...

 

[foxpaws]

Make up your mind...did I call you a lemming or their leader? You can't have it both ways.

In fact, the lemmings that follow Obama's every word and swallow every lame talking point spewed by the TOTUS are as close to groupthink as any drones can be. And you're their leader. Congratulations.

Well, Foss, you called me leader of the lemmings – ergo – I must be both – a lemming and their esteemed leader. (I am neither). Lemmings will only follow another lemming…. Plus, I actually think the whole 'lemming' thing is a myth - Lemmings will NOT follow their leader over a cliff to their death - I might have seen it on Mythbusters, or read it on their site (that is something I do read.. )

You're nothing but a sniper. You never bring in any new threads, with any information from outside sources. You simply have no original ideas of your own. Your ostensible purpose here is to cut and shred the opinions of others with whom you disagree, and then cry and whine and play victim when others oppose your dishonest sniping.

I never bring in new threads – why? The last thing I started was about Steele/Rush and the 'leader of the Republican Party.' About a month ago. Maybe I just don't feel I need to post everything I read. I guess I could post an article from NPR, about a subject that I think is very important, and am following the case closely - I will - let's see what happens.... I start a thread about once a month - I guess it is time again...

Plus I don't post left wing nut crap, because I don't read it. Is that what you want me to post Foss - well, go out and get it for yourself...

I have yet to see you put your own neck on the block. So for you to say I am an example of groupthink is cowardly hypocrisy, considering you wouldn't know what it's like to put your own opinion out there for others to dissect. Let me know when you get up enough guts to do that. Until then, coward...

Putting my neck on the block? You are kidding. I constantly do. My opinion is out here all the time. People know exactly how I feel about abortion, gun control, the Patriot Act, heck, even when I think the recession will end and how low the Dow is going to go before we start seeing a real recovery, and more….

I know exactly how it is to have my opinion, along with my character shredded. Thank you.

Foss, you and the right hide behind your pundits and your articles, they aren't your written opinion - someone else wrote those.... You post them and then run away, watching from the sideline to see if someone on the left will bite. It is like a kid ringing a doorbell. Why? I think you read all this wing nut crap because you need constant affirmation that you are ‘right’. You also need someone to tell you how to think when a new subject or topic comes up, and why those thoughts are the ‘right’ thoughts. So you daily read Hot Air and WorldNetDaily or listen to Rush and Beck or peruse TownHall to find out how you should think on these subjects.

God forbid you actually think something through for yourself – it is so much easier to let someone else do your thinking for you.

Here – Cal posted an opinion by a magician. Would I post what Tom Hanks felt about something – ah no.

Need I say more.

 

[shagdrum]

Well, shag, if you want to get picky -

The right appears to be in control here - obviously that falls away from a microcosm based on today's society

But, as a sample of 'a' society - it doesn't have to be any particular society - it is a microcosm of 'a' society... All small groups are microcosms of something...

Here is the definition of microcosm:

A small, representative system having analogies to a larger system in constitution, configuration, or development:​

A "microcosm" only has meaning as a representation of a larger whole. The larger whole is what gives it meaning. The only substantive larger whole is American society. If you are referring to some vague, hypothetical, "other" society, then your microcosm is meaningless because it doesn't represent anything substantive.

When you start drawing conclusions based on any type of sample, you are doing a statistical analysis. So you are subject to the basic rules of statistical analysis. Your sample (microcosm) needs to be representative of the whole. If American society is your whole, then your microcosm is not at all representative of American society (especially in how you have presented the microcosm). It is making systematic error and any finding from your analysis are meaningless. If your whole is more vague, then your whole premise is meaningless because it is unclear what you are comparing it to.

More on 'right' groupthink...

Unless you can give a likely (and realistic) cause for that group think, your argument is baseless speculation.

This forum is not a source of group think unless it is the primary source of information for fossten. Given fossten's actions, that is highly unlikely. In lew of this being the primary source, you need to show that conservative sources are the overwhelming source of information and little to no information is gleaned by non-conservative sources.

With the political bias of media and a number of other cultural institution, and the fact that this in not the primary source of information, that is next to impossible to prove.

Here, on this forum the right does monopolize the posts. That is why I was using this forum as a microcosm... It is next to impossible to avoid 'rightist' thought in this forum.

And it serves as a nice counter for the overwhelming leftist thought represented in most every other aspect of american society. You cannot ignore that fact.

And isn't it odd that Foss gave me a bad time for reading and trying to understand conservative viewpoint - Which I do Shag. I read conservative viewpoint - American Thinker, Cato... How often do you read Brookings Shag? How often to you go to NPR and listen to a broadcast? Check out the Urban Institute lately?

If you want to get into a pissing contest of who consumes more opposing thought; I have 3 conservative freinds (2 in Texas), everyone else is either uninterested in Politics or liberal. I am a sci-fi nut; science fiction is dominated by leftists. I go to college, which is dominated by leftist students and professors. I have even had an out and out socialist econ professor. Since I am a political science major, I have to read a lot of leftist political thought and regurgitate it or get graded down. I am a bit of a movie buff; the entertainment industry is dominated by leftists.

The big issue here isn't so much who is or isn't exposed to more opposing thought, but if you actually consider it and logically reject it. Going into college, I knew colleges were leftist and had a nice chip on my shoulder early on because of it. I would try to find any excuse to dismiss the view without first understanding it. I had a prejudice against liberalism at the time. It cost me in school. I have since changed and actively tried to first understand the point of view and then applied critical analysis after I understand it. That way, I don't cut myself off from learning what someone with more information and knowledge knows, but I have a guard against being indoctrinated with their bias.

While you may actually read conservative thought, you clearly don't understand it. This is not because you are intellectually incapable, but, IMO, because you are unwilling to. Reading conservative thought for you is only a method to find more clever ways to spin and counter the argument. There is no honesty there. You have a chip on your shoulder and reject the argument before you even read it. Of course, you will deny this, but your actions in this forum are consistent with that. Your stubborn rejection of my explanation of substantive rights stemming from substantive due process is just one example. You dismissed a view out of hand as bias when you clearly didn't know anything about the view. That is not intellectually honest, that is prejudice.

You have even said that you read conservative thought as a means to "know your enemy". If that is all you use it for, then you are simply using it as a means to re-enforce your prejudice.

 

[foxpaws]

Here is the definition of microcosm:

A small, representative system having analogies to a larger system in constitution, configuration, or development:​

A "microcosm" only has meaning as a representation of a larger whole. The larger whole is what gives it meaning. The only substantive larger whole is American society. If you are referring to some vague, hypothetical, "other" society, then your microcosm is meaningless because it doesn't represent anything substantive.

This forum has plenty of analogies to the ‘larger’ whole. Just because some are diametric rather than corollary doesn’t change the fact that it is a microcosm. A microcosm is a miniature model of something else. Here, on this forum we have a small society. We gather information and share it. Society gathers information and shares it.

I even gave you an example of a shared information analogy – you stated that out in society it was difficult to remove leftist thought in today’s society – I used the diametric viewpoint when drawing my comparisons to the microcosm of this site… that it is difficult to remove rightist thought in this society (which is defined by the forum).

When you start drawing conclusions based on any type of sample, you are doing a statistical analysis. So you are subject to the basic rules of statistical analysis. Your sample (microcosm) needs to be representative of the whole. If American society is your whole, then your microcosm is not at all representative of American society (especially in how you have presented the microcosm). It is making systematic error and any finding from your analysis are meaningless. If your whole is more vague, then your whole premise is meaningless because it is unclear what you are comparing it to.

The microcosm here reflects society, however, regarding information gathering it is diametric of society as a whole. It is still a ‘small model’ of society, a microcosm doesn’t have to be a duplicate – the analogies don’t have to be exact – they need to have points that are similar – but can have differing results. In our case the microcosm has changed the information gathering results. Rather then its ‘media’ (the threads, or information in this instance) being left leaning, as in society, they are right leaning. Our microcosm is altered. I am comparing it to society as a whole – it is easy to see what I am comparing it to Shag.

It doesn’t make it any less a miniature model of society. It is, with a right wing skew. Sort of like saying – what would have happened if aliens did land on the earth? You take a microcosm, add the ‘fact’ that aliens are real and live among us, and see what happens. The microcosm remains. Altered, or different, but still a microcosm of the original society.

Unless you can give a likely (and realistic) cause for that group think, your argument is baseless speculation.

This forum is not a source of group think unless it is the primary source of information for fossten. Given fossten's actions, that is highly unlikely. In lew of this being the primary source, you need to show that conservative sources are the overwhelming source of information and little to no information is gleaned by non-conservative sources.

I have given cause for ‘groupthink’. That the right accepts (and therefore posts like crazy) information garnered from right wing sources. This happens because they are in a ‘groupthink’ mode. It helps collectively rationalize their decisions.

It doesn’t have to be the primary source of information – it just has to help collectively rationalize your decision. You collect the source – and then you post it, so others in your ‘groupthink’ can further rationalize their decisions (in this case ‘viewpoint’). Here is the opportunity for you to further the ‘rightness’ of your groupthing point of view. Sheer volume of ‘like thinking’ must prove that your groupthink is ‘right’ as well.

This forum also gives you an opportunity to demonize and stereotype the ‘outgroup’. In this case the left. As a part of groupthink it is important that you belittle and marginalize people who aren’t part of your groupthink. This forum gives the perfect opportunity to do that.

Your stubborn rejection of my explanation of substantive rights stemming from substantive due process is just one example. You dismissed a view out of hand as bias when you clearly didn't know anything about the view. That is not intellectually honest, that is prejudice.

I may have dismissed it shag – I actually have an extremely good friend who is a district federal appeals court judge – and I have ‘reviewed’ that subject quite a bit with him – I may have treated it as ‘old news’. Sorry- was it about procedural vs substantive due process – how (14th amendment) rather than why (5th amendment) the law is just? I really don’t remember…

Know your enemy – a phrase I used – find out what others are saying about a subject… I can usually guess what the ‘left’ viewpoint will be on something, since it probably will be close to what I feel about that subject. I don’t need it read the right to reinforce anything – I need it to find out the ‘whole’ story… If I would just read left source, part the ‘story’ would be left out. If I read the other side, I get to review other points that the left may have removed or delete to reinforce their POV. I try to create a balance, as well as find out where there are errors or 'deletions' in the 'rights' POV.

 

[shagdrum]

This forum has plenty of analogies to the ‘larger’ whole. Just because some are diametric rather than corollary doesn’t change the fact that it is a microcosm. A microcosm is a miniature model of something else. Here, on this forum we have a small society. We gather information and share it. Society gathers information and shares it.

A microcosm has a very specific meaning; in a nutshell, it means a small portion that is representative of a larger whole. If you are going to call this forum a "microcosm", then you have to specifically point out what the "whole" is that it is supposed to be representative of. You can't claim some vague and undefined hypothetical (as you tried to do in post #53), otherwise that microcosm is not representative of anything and is meaningless. The only presumable "whole" was American society. If there is another "whole" you had in mind, then you need to state it. Otherwise, your whole claim is without relevance and, thus, without substance.

So, what is the specific "whole" of which the "microcosm" of this forum is representative of?

I even gave you an example of a shared information analogy – you stated that out in society it was difficult to remove leftist thought in today’s society – I used the diametric viewpoint when drawing my comparisons to the microcosm of this site… that it is difficult to remove rightist thought in this society (which is defined by the forum).

The two are not the same. There is a large difference in scale and pervasiveness of the two. The conservative thought on this forum is confined to this forum. The liberal thought throughout society pervades the society, of which this forum is a part.

The only way to claim group think on someone's part here is to claim that the only information they get is from this forum. That is clearly not the case as the post's in this forum are made up (mostly) of news stories from outside sources. So all the conservatives here are drawing information from outside sources. This is basically a repository of what a number of conservatives on this forum find relevant.

The microcosm here reflects society, however, regarding information gathering it is diametric of society as a whole. It is still a ‘small model’ of society, a microcosm doesn’t have to be a duplicate – the analogies don’t have to be exact – they need to have points that are similar – but can have differing results.

They cannot be exact, but that doesn't mean that they don't have to be similar. The fact is that they do have to be similar to be able to draw any conclusions about the whole from the sample. The less similar they are, then the more systematic error is introduced. After a point, the sample becomes meaningless because of the amount of systematic error in it. This is because the more systematic error introduced, the more the likelihood is that any findings could come about by chance.

When you use the term "microcosm", it rejects any comparison between two diametrically opposed things, because the term microcosm means a sample that is representative of a larger whole. If the sample is diametrically opposed to that larger whole, then it can not be a microcosm of that larger whole.

When you try to claim that this forum, being " diametric of society as a whole" is somehow a microcosm of that whole, you are effectively equivocating the definition of "microcosm". To anyone who knows the definition of "microcosm", you are contradicting yourself. Once again, here is the definition:

A small, representative system having analogies to a larger system in constitution, configuration, or development​

It this forum is "diametric of society as a whole" then it can not, by definition, be a microcosm of that society.

What you are doing is making a false analogy to smear fossten and conservatives on this forum.

False analogy is an informal fallacy applying to inductive arguments. It is often mistakenly considered to be a formal fallacy, but it is not, because a false analogy consists of an error in the substance of an argument (the content of the analogy itself), not an error in the logical structure of the argument.

In an analogy, two concepts, objects, or events proposed to be similar in nature (A and B) are shown to have some common relationship with another property. The premise is that A has property X, and thus B must also have property X (due to the assumed similarity of A and B). In false analogies, though A and B may be similar in one respect (such as color) they may not both share property X (e.g. size). Thus, even if bananas and the sun appear yellow, one could not conclude that they are the same size. One who makes an invalid analogy or comparison is often said to be "comparing apples and oranges".​

I have given cause for ‘groupthink’. That the right accepts (and therefore posts like crazy) information garnered from right wing sources. This happens because they are in a ‘groupthink’ mode. It helps collectively rationalize their decisions.

It doesn’t have to be the primary source of information – it just has to help collectively rationalize your decision. You collect the source – and then you post it, so others in your ‘group think’ can further rationalize their decisions (in this case ‘viewpoint’). Here is the opportunity for you to further the ‘rightness’ of your group think point of view. Sheer volume of ‘like thinking’ must prove that your group think is ‘right’ as well.

But, again, the right is not functioning in a vacuum here. We are functioning in american society that is pervaded by leftist thought and sentiment. Group think censors ideas that deviate from the apparent group consensus. However, we are all exposed to those ideas because we have been gleaning information from the larger whole, which has, if anything, more leftist thought then conservative thought. For this forum to be an example of groupthink, it would need to be the sole (or at least primary) source of information. Otherwise it is simply a repository of information.

As to it being a means of collective rationalization; rationalization is a very specific mental process. Here is an explanation of what rationalization is:

rationalization is the process of constructing a logical justification for a belief, decision, action or lack thereof that was originally arrived at through a different mental process​

While rationalization is something everyone does to some degree, rationalization is not the norm on the right. As I have shown, most conservatives used to be liberals. Thomas Sowell was at one time a Marxist. Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat as well. The way they came to be conservatives involved rejecting a point of view they had previously strongly believed in. That usually involves the reverse of rationalization; logic and reason leading to belief and/or opinion.

However, rationalization is all to common on the left. Remember that all policy stems from philosophy. Two of the current golden boys of modern leftist political philosophy (egalitarianizm) and Rawls and Dworkin. Their philosophy is based, ultimately, in absurd assumptions in the goodness of human nature, that equality is an overriding value above other values, that all humans have equal worth, etc. etc. You read their writings and they ultimately hold a number of these views as a matter of faith. Their writings are spent trying to rationalize them in various ways, or in demonizing those who criticize their views. These techniques can be found throughout leftist argument.

A very good indicator of rationalization is in making or perpetuating specious arguments; arguments that sound reasonable on the surface, but, upon closer examination, are irrational. Fallacious arguments, as has been shown on this forum, are a very typical means of rationalizing on the left.

It does come back the differences between conservatism and modern liberalism at the philosophical level. Conservatism is, by it's very nature, skeptical. Therefore, it is less prone to rationalize as it is effectively defending traditions that have no need for rationalization because they have withstood the test of time; it effectively defends against rationalization in most debates. Conservatism looks to defend what works, attempts to be pragmatic and guard against reckless idealism.

However, modern liberalism is focused on change, to a reckless extent in many instances. Those changes stem from philosophical views that are based not in reason and historical precedent, but in an optimistic faith, wishful think, and ultimately, a Utopian outlook that ignores contradicting facts. Egalitarian liberalism looks to use political theory and, thus, policy to promote and ideal. Those unrealistic and idealistic views have to be rationalized to defend them.

What you are doing here is attempting to spin and distort to make the template of group think fit conservatives here so you can demonize and stereotype them. The specious arguments you are having to use to accomplish that goal contradict your argument. You are using specious arguments to rationalize a view you already hold (that the conservatives here are engaging in group think), thus suggesting that you might be engaged in group think in some fashion yourself.

Know your enemy

You need to do more then that, you need to understand the argument they are making and how it lines up with their views. If you come into a debate being able to articulate their viewpoint as accurately as (if not better then) them and can still rationally disprove it, then you have the upper hand. If you come having only read but not understood the viewpoint, then you are at a disadvantage and will be resorting to fallacy real quick.

Most anyone reading an opposing viewpoint is going to be somewhat hostile to it and prone to dismissing it. Therefore, you have to safeguard against that. If you don't allow yourself to dismiss an argument except through honest, logical means, then you provide a safeguard against dismissing it due to specious rationalizing. Any dismissing will be done through logical means and not need to be rationalized later on.

 

[Calabrio]

Here – Cal posted an opinion by a magician. Would I post what Tom Hanks felt about something – ah no.

Need I say more.

You could if the purpose doing so was to stimulate discussion.
In this case, about three pages worth.

Is there a reason that Penn Jillette, someone who frequently writes for magazines and organization like Reason, should be dismissed simply because they earn most of their money through entertaining?

This is something I've seen you do routinely. Not simply respond to the argument, or challenge the logic of the argument, but you attempt to destroy and dismiss the author because you have arbitrarily decided that they don't have the academic standing to discuss such a thing.

As I type this, I'm reminded of how you conveniently and dishonestly tried to dismiss and discredit the journalist and author Amity Shales in one of your efforts to defend the failures of FDR.

And in this case, an article that is 100% non-partisan, basically using common sense and conventional wisdom to reflect upon the decisions being made in Washington, you dismiss and marginalize the author. It's not as though you simply decided to refrain from posting in this thread because you thought it frivolous. But you initially participated by simply attacking the author, not what he said. You didn't even address what he said while attacking him.

Ridicule and personalize the attack, right?

 

[foxpaws]

Shag – I stated ‘society’ for the starting point of my microcosm. Our little group is a microcosm of society. Within this forum I don’t have to bear the scrutiny of academia – you have to shag, for school – but I left that a while ago – I can place into argument that we are a microcosm of ‘society’, but, heck, lets go with 'American' society.

Using this forum as a tiny microcosm of ‘American’ society means that the various parts of the forum represent various parts of society… There is a Vendor section – our shopping mall. We have a Chapter section – our ties to ‘home sweet home’. About The Cars – a forum where we ‘work’. For Sale – our own ‘craigslist.’ Site basics – the government. And the community forums – where we interact with other members of our society on a more personal level. Anything goes – jokes, rants, exchanging photos, our 'bar'. Welcome – hi, how are you, come on in. Politics and current events – our general ‘news media’ center.

All parts of our little microcosm. All have counterparts within the larger societal group.

And I didn’t say the whole microcosm was diametric – just one tiny section. We have a news/media section – just as society does – our microcosm is the same there. We share news, political viewpoints, etc. However, where our microcosm is different from society is that our media center has a right bent. We still have the newsroom, just like the ‘big society does’ so we fit the same model, however, our room is painted red instead of blue.

Your definition of microcosm

A small, representative system having analogies to a larger system in constitution, configuration, or development​

So our group has to have analogies to the larger group – shag, do you know the definition of ‘analogy’?

Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.​

So, our newsroom can be similar ‘in some respects’ to society’s – but the fact that it isn’t just exactly the same doesn’t destroy the microcosm.

And there is no requirement for our microcosm to function in a vacuum – The basis for our microcosm, American society (or any society), has outside influences too.

So it follows that our right leaning members in our microcosm do not have to follow a template for society as a whole. We have a right wing group – that is how we are similar to society. Our right wing group perhaps is dissimilar to American society in how closely it seems to follow groupthink patterns.

I also stated that the left follows groupthink here as well (post 35). I don’t think it is as easily apparent though because of the ‘right leanings’ of the forum. You see more of the ‘reinforcing’ of right wing thought because of the tendency of this group to start right leaning threads.

However, because we are a microcosm, I think we might have a tendency as a whole to groupthink. Lincoln lovers on this site reinforce and congratulate each other on the natural superiority of their vehicle. If there were more Cadillac owners on this site we would do the same thing. All the while smirking just a bit towards the other groups' choice...

 

[fossten]

Foss, you and the right hide behind your pundits and your articles, they aren't your written opinion - someone else wrote those.... You post them and then run away, watching from the sideline to see if someone on the left will bite. It is like a kid ringing a doorbell. Why? I think you read all this wing nut crap because you need constant affirmation that you are ‘right’. You also need someone to tell you how to think when a new subject or topic comes up, and why those thoughts are the ‘right’ thoughts. So you daily read Hot Air and WorldNetDaily or listen to Rush and Beck or peruse TownHall to find out how you should think on these subjects.

God forbid you actually think something through for yourself – it is so much easier to let someone else do your thinking for you.

Here – Cal posted an opinion by a magician. Would I post what Tom Hanks felt about something – ah no.

Need I say more.

Complete excrement. That's what your post is.

You're trying to make the case that because I post somebody else's words (which may reflect what I already think) that I have no original thoughts of my own. You refuse to consider that I may like what they've written, find it thought provoking, and deem it worthy of discussion. That has nothing to do with the accusation that I have no original thoughts. It's a causation fallacy. Furthermore, your silly, unfounded, and easily disprovable accusation that I "post them and run away" is absurd and quite sophomoric on your part, considering that I often respond within 24 hours to any post that is left by one of you drones. The fact that I can't respond within 5 minutes is a result of the fact that I have to WORK, something that I'm sure you would be respectful of if you weren't too busy trying to be a demagogue.

Isn't it interesting that you try to use ad hominem and attack the source instead of answering the argument on the merits. But that's the new liberal tactic, right? "SHUT UP!"

Now, you can continue this silly, amateurish line of attack if you want to, but I have no desire to continue it with you, as a) I have nothing to prove to a drone such as you and b) I don't have time to sit here and answer baseless, moronic allegations that are designed to (YET AGAIN!) distract and deflect from the topic at hand.

Do you believe that the United States can spend its way out of debt? Yes or no?

 

[foxpaws]

Is there a reason that Penn Jillette, someone who frequently writes for magazines and organization like Reason, should be dismissed simply because they earn most of their money through entertaining?

So, I could just post something by Sean Penn and you wouldn't dismiss it because he was an actor? He often writes for the LA Times...

but you attempt to destroy and dismiss the author because you have arbitrarily decided that they don't have the academic standing to discuss such a thing

Oh, Cal – you dismiss people too – most recently by stereotyping Anderson Cooper…

As I type this, I'm reminded of how you conveniently and dishonestly tried to dismiss and discredit the journalist and author Amity Shales in one of your efforts to defend the failures of FDR.

I read Amity Shales book on FDR – it was painful. I discredited her by quoting her peers and pulling peer review. I was also able to discuss parts of her book that were obviously misleading and ‘contrived.’ You might not have agreed with the examples I used to discredit her - but, I had viable, peer related source.

It's not as though you simply decided to refrain from posting in this thread because you thought it frivolous. But you initially participated by simply attacking the author, not what he said. You didn't even address what he said while attacking him.

My first (initial) post…

I actually don't really pay a lot of attention to Penn. Teller seems to be the smarter of the two...

I do think Ray is smarter – however that could be because he is the only one I have met – my opinion on Penn is based on his public persona. I suppose not paying attention to someone is an attack - of sorts -

Also from my first (initial) post…

But, you know, it seems like most people here claimed it took WWII before Roosevelt got out of the depression. What was WWII's contribution? Spending on a huge scale, literally throwing billions and billions at the economy by the government. According to people like Cal, the spending that Roosevelt did previous to the onset of the war didn't help at all, perhaps hindered. What did it take to turn the economy according to him - the War. What happened during the war, massive spending.

This was my response drawn from statements within Penn’s article

Obama tells us that we can spend our way out of debt.​

and

Maybe the United States borrowing more money than I could imagine in a billion years with a billion computers and a billion monkeys typing on them, will get us out of financial trouble.​

I was addressing points that he made within his article. My paragraph addressed what he said. I believe the government can spend its way out of debt.

 

[Calabrio]

Let me take your post out of order:

I read Amity Shales book on FDR – it was painful. I discredited her by quoting her peers and pulling peer review.

You're revising history, much like those peers you cite do when defending the failed legacy of FDR.

Your initial attacks on here were based on the fact she was a just a journalist and her lack of a higher degree in economics meant that her research and arguments weren't worth acknowledging. It was only after I pressed the issue that you began referencing "peer review" which were little more than hit pieces designed to defend the disaster that was the FDR legacy.

We can disagree on that, but you began your attack on Shales on the basis of her credentials, not her arguments. And, frankly, the so-called peer reviews of Shales had similar personal attack tones to them.

The book, The Forgotten Man, is an excellent, though it's not a very dynamic, read. Such is often the case regarding books dealing with economics and not personalities.

So, I could just post something by Sean Penn and you wouldn't dismiss it because he was an actor? He often writes for the LA Times...

No, I'd respond to it and explain how ridiculous and ignorant he is- NOT because he's a talented actor, but because he's a fool. I'd base that on what he said, , possibly refer to past foolish comments he's made on similiar subjects, the historical mistakes he makes, and the ridiculous conclusions he's arrived at. I'd also refer to his associations and fondness and willing to be duped by Communist and dictators.

This is similar to what I'd do if you posted Paul Krugman, a "nobel prize winning economist" who, I'd also argue, is also a fool.

I don't think academia or government have any special insight or monopoly on intelligence, wisdom or common sense. Increasingly, I think the opposite.

Oh, Cal – you dismiss people too – most recently by stereotyping Anderson Cooper…

First, I'm not sure what you're referring to? But according to my Saul Alinsky RULES FOR RADICALS clift notes, this would be you trying to applying Rule 4: "Make the enemy live up to his own rules." The only thing I remember saying about Anderson Cooper had to do with making a joke about "Teabagging" and Anderson Cooper talking with his mouth full.

Second, are you making a "...you do it too argument?"
If that's the case, whether I do or not, you're acknowledging everything I said in my post. You're saying that is what YOU do. Thanks for establishing that.

 

[fossten]

So, I could just post something by Sean Penn and you wouldn't dismiss it because he was an actor? He often writes for the LA Times...

I'll bet you're a big fan of his 'intellectual writings.'

 

[foxpaws]

Your initial attacks on here were based on the fact she was a just a journalist and her lack of a higher degree in economist meant that her research and arguments weren't worth acknowledging. It was only after I pressed the issue that you began referencing "peer review" which were little more than hit pieces designed to defend the disaster that was the FDR legacy.

Cal –
I stated what she does, so anyone out there who actually reads this stuff has an idea of who the two people were in the article you posted. Often people read an article without paying much attention to the author.

The first post I had in the notorious Shlaes thread…
I said this about her..

Just in case, Krugman is an actual economist (phd in economics - MIT)... and that little prize he won was the NOBEL PRIZE IN ECONOMICS... Shlaes is an economic reporter - with a bachelors in english from Yale (she did graduate magna cum laude however)​

In that very same post I presented my first peer review, I have not revised history Cal - in my very first post I referred to a peer critique, you didn't have to press the issue at all…

In my 2nd post, in response to your 'I don't like your critique source' I referenced 3 additional peer critiques - David Warsh, Eric Rauchway and John Updike

Once again, you might not agree with them, but to state that I conveniently and dishonestly tried to dismiss or discredit her is really not true. I stated what she did- her 'job', her education background, and posted published critiques of the specific work referred to in the article. None of that was dishonest, and it certainly wasn't convenient.

No, I'd respond to it and explain how ridiculous and ignorant he is- NOT because he's a talented actor, but because he's a fool. I'd base that on what he said, , possibly refer to past foolish comments he's made on similiar subjects, the historical mistakes he makes, and the ridiculous conclusions he's arrived at. I'd also refer to his associations and fondness and willing to be duped by Communist and dictators.

And you are assuming I would post a political article from Sean Penn - I wouldn't. I would however post an article regarding acting skills by him. He is not ignorant, ridiculous or a 'fool' when it comes to acting. His creds in his chosen field are impeccable, and from your statement that he is a 'talented actor' you might feel the same way.

And yes Foss, I adore 'Fast Times at Ridgemont High'

Cal- you don't weigh opinion on credentials - I do to some extent - often it depends on what the subject is. The Allante has acquired an irritating tiny oil leak - I believe Lance, my mechanic's opinion, when he tells me that my oil pan seal needs to be replaced - I doubt if I would give as much credence to my plumber. However, if my toilet exploded, I wouldn't call Lance...

I do differ from you Cal - I do look at expertise when it comes to opinion. I look beyond 'book learning' as well, to real world experience. But I rather like my doctor to have the right credentials, my accountant, my cat's vet. It gives me a 'base'. When Foss criticizes my occasional (well, often) bad writing habits, I believe him - his written word is basically flawless. If Shag critiqued it - I might ask for other opinions. Here I am going by real world experience, I have no idea of what their individual educational backgrounds are, but I do know what I read.

So yes, it does color my viewing of posted opinion here. I give Thomas Sowell a lot of cred - he is a very smart, intelligent man, with a wealth of varied experience. I might not agree with him all the time, but I certainly give his articles a very close perusal (Shag, don't be too surprised, but there have been times I have changed my mind about a subject because of something I read by Sowell). However, Shlaes has never shown me anything. Read her latest article about the convention business in Vegas - it was also painful to read...

 

[fossten]

And yes Foss, I adore 'Fast Times at Ridgemont High'

That's not what I said. Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you naturally dense?

 

[Mr Wiggl3s]

I think someone just watched the Shawshank redemption and learned a new word

 

[Calabrio]

YouTube - Penn Says: Counter Intuitive