Why Cloward-Piven Will Eat Itself

[shagdrum]

Why Cloward-Piven Will Eat Itself
By Hoss Varad

Long considered a tool for fomenting socialist revolution in America, the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" was a sociopolitical theory developed by left-wing ivory tower-dwellers Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. I'm sure the foil hat-wearing adherents of this line of thinking will complain here about my oversimplification of the plan and general lack of nuance, but basically, it seeks to undermine the (American) government by overloading said government with dependents needing welfare.

Apparently, this will force the government into recognizing that there are a lot of dependents out there (artificially created, no doubt), which would inevitably lead to the United States' government establishing a guaranteed national income or some such poppycock. You see, folks? This is what happens when you let sociologists from the Ivy League be taken seriously.

Sadly, many in the Democratic Party have adopted this strategy as a way to build their base and solidify their political power, believing that Cloward and Piven knew what the hell they were talking about and that, by some miracle, crashing the national economy by using welfare and other government payout programs as a tool would bring about even larger government.

This seems a clear-cut case of throwing the logical conclusion to the four breezes so we can focus on our much-wanted outcome: a socialist fantasy-land for all the little boys and girls everywhere across the land.

Now, I may not be an Ivy League professor or even a lowly graduate, but it seems to me that bloating government and overloading already burdened bureaucracies would totally crash them. As in: they're over. Kaput. No existen más.

If the demands on the state are so great that they force a breakdown of the existing bureaucracies, basically bankrupting the government, how in blazes is it then possible to further increase the size of government to provide everyone the same pay every year? It isn't.

First, adding people to the welfare rolls depletes the numbers of gainfully employed citizens, reducing revenues and increasing government costs. Second, with these new people now dependent on government, they are less likely to seek gainful employment (since getting money for free is fun and all). This will establish a larger permanent welfare class. Third, there will soon arise a situation where those who remain gainfully employed cannot work hard enough or long enough to generate the revenues needed to provide for the ever-increasing number of takers.

This cycle continues until all meaningful revenues dry up and the system essentially chokes on its own largesse and dies. Then, Cloward and Piven would have us believe, a new, bigger government/bureaucracy/candy store of others' labors will arise to make sure everything is fair for everyone forever. This leaves unresolved the question: Now that the government is broke and the productive sector is broke and/or gone, who's going to finance this?

No one. We have just entered a state of sociopolitical and economic upheaval. It will not, however, render a large, omni-providential state that will be able to assure everyone's equitable financial well-being in perpetuity. In fact, it won't even get off the ground.

What will likely happen instead is a brief state of chaos wherein the dependent drones of the government trudge zombie-like to collect their "benefits" and "entitlements." Then, seeing that those goodies can no longer be had, they probably turn like a spider monkey on their masters, who promised them these things would keep on coming. Then, desperate, some of these folks might move out into the suburbs and rural areas to pillage and plunder for those things they "need." After a few nasty encounters with the well-armed populace, this activity will shortly be curtailed, and some semblance of order will be restored in some areas.

This is what some might call a WTSHTF scenario (I'm not good with acronyms, but I think it means something bad), or an anarchy state whereby small regions will band together for common defense. Whether it be a rudimentary (albeit modern) version of feudalism or ancient Greek-style polis or small geographic regions that unite for survival -- it matters not. Small government will be achieved. And that would be the antithesis of what Cloward and Piven want.

In short, overloading the state will destroy the state, not make it bigger and better. Of course, once I get my degree from Yale, I may think differently. I'll keep you posted.

 

[FIND]

Speculation, red herrings and appeal to emotion.

I would have liked to see him back that article up with some scholarly papers or sources. Not entirely bad, but not really worth the time to read. For now it is just constructing a premise and asking you to accept bare assertions to justify a conclusion. Therefore it is a straw man. This is only a logical argumentation if the reader already shares the view of the article.

 

[shagdrum]

Speculation, red herrings and appeal to emotion.

I would have liked to see him back that article up with some scholarly papers or sources. Not entirely bad, but not really worth the time to read. For now it is just constructing a premise and asking you to accept bare assertions to justify a conclusion. Therefore it is a straw man. This is only a logical argumentation if the reader already shares the view of the article.

Actually there are a lot of facts to back this up that the audience of the author is generally familiar with. In fact, an earlier article on the Cloward-Piven strategy is a sticky in this forum.

 

[FIND]

Actually there are a lot of facts to back this up that the audience of the author is generally familiar with. In fact, an earlier article on the Cloward-Piven strategy is a sticky in this forum.

Facts..... well, I suppose if you share the same views or opinions of the author. I mean, there is a little bit of factual basis in the premise.... As I said before, would have been nice if he had some scholarly sources, examples, or evidence to back things up, and if he had justified some of his statements better. As the article sits currently, I stand by my original assessment. Honestly, the article is preaching to the converted. This article is nothing more than someone typing out the opinions of the people who are going to read it. If someone reads it that does not share that opinion, they will just see it as speculation, red herrings and appeal to emotion built on an imaginary premise, even if they are someone who is prepared to be swayed by reading that article. It shouldn't be hard to find some scholarly sources to back up some of the things he said, I mean he claims to be in Yale after all.... If he has even taken a 100 level English class or anything like that, he should know how to do it.

Without that stuff, the article is nothing more than posturing. There is little enough factual citation in it that I wouldn't even call it an editorial. Besides, the article starts out with ad hominem attacks on Cloward and Piven just to gain credibility. Nearly half of the article is ad hominem attacks even.... If he had taken that out, added evidence, citation and example, it may have been a good article.

And yes, I have read that other quite slanted article as well.

How about some real objective stuff next time? Not the Fox News kind of fair and balanced, or objective stuff either. It isn't THAT hard to find objective analysis of things if you look hard enough.... Really, if I wanted to read right-wing blogs or articles, I would frequent more right wing sites. This is an automotive enthusiast site. I appreciate the healthy political "discussion" here, but there is no reason this site should only be a right-wing soapbox. The speed and ferocity at which some of you descend to gang up on, insult, and misrepresent anyone who does not share your views on this site is astounding. Honestly, at times I wonder what you guys are putting in your coffee in the morning.

 

[shagdrum]

If someone reads it that does not share that opinion, they will just see it as speculation, red herrings and appeal to emotion built on an imaginary premise, even if they are someone who is prepared to be swayed by reading that article.

Or, someone might demonstrate some intellectual integrity, show an honest interest in understanding an unfamiliar point of view and do some research to understand the rationale and evidence behind the view. It is intellectually lazy and intellectually bankrupt to to simply write this off as mere" speculation" and "opinion" without that understanding.

Also, define "scholarly sources". I have seen you simply write off scholarly sources as "speculation" and/or "opinion" numerous times on this forum.

 

[FIND]

Or, someone might demonstrate some intellectual integrity, show an honest interest in understanding an unfamiliar point of view and do some research to understand the rationale and evidence behind the view. It is intellectually lazy and intellectually bankrupt to to simply write this off as mere" speculation" and "opinion" without that understanding.

Also, define "scholarly sources". I have seen you simply write off scholarly sources as "speculation" and/or "opinion" numerous times on this forum.

One can show intellectual integrity and an honest interest, and still not come to the same conclusion as that article. That article is still based almost entirely on speculation, red herring, and a manufactured premise. Nearly the whole article is an appeal to emotion, and more than half of the lines in the article is ad hominem argumentation. If the article had been written in a more objective manner, or at least in a manner that was not made to insult any readers of the article that don't already share that opinion, then it might be worth a reader doing more research after reading.

It is lazy, pure and simple, to write something, and then expect the reader to research and justify your opinion. As for this article, most of the information you will find in support of the article are other conservative blogs, which reference other conservative blogs for support. What you are arguing for this article is a lot like a standard teleological fallacy. You are stating that the article exists for a purpose, and that since it has a purpose it must be true. Therefore, anyone who does not believe it is true is intellectually bankrupt. (Love how often you use that to describe anyone who disagrees with that slanted view of reality)

Now, why don't you tell me ONE scholarly source I have written off as speculation or opinion? As far as what a scholarly source is, why don't you just read the first page I came up with when I put it in my search bar... http://www.calvin.edu/academic/rit/webBook/chapter4/Sec5/ssource.html Click the box labeled example for a good description. Though, you claim to have graduated, so you should have learned what they were when you were in school. Though, to be fair, I will give you an easier definition to follow. A scholarly source is a highly researched source that backs its statements with research and will stand up to the scrutiny of experts in its field. NOT an opinion someone writes that people with the same opinion will agree with that may in some long and twisted way be related to a fact or two. I can appreciate alternative interpretations of facts, but there needs to be reasoning attached to interpretation.

More ad hominem argumentation I see though.... For someone who claims to be such a scholar in political science, you sure resort to that a lot instead of addressing the issues. How old are you exactly?

 

[shagdrum]

One can show intellectual integrity and an honest interest, and still not come to the same conclusion as that article.

Very true, but that is not what you are doing and you know it. If you were approaching this with intellectual integrity, you first reaction would be to make an attempt to understand the argument, by either asking questions or doing independent research of the ideas on your own. The fact that you jump right to dismissing the article is very revealing.

You have consistently shown not simply a healthy skepticism to opposing views on this forum, but a downright hostility to them. You have consistently written off logical proof as "speculation" or "opinion" and have thrown out accusations of fallacies that you can not demonstrate, and made any number of other excuses dismiss opposing views. It is both personally insulting when you do this as well as frustrating to any honest discussion on this forum.

You could take an interest in understanding and exploring unfamiliar/opposing views or you can simply write off those views. You could approach this as an attempt to better yourself and your understanding of both opposing/unfamiliar views as well as your own views, or you can look at it as a means of self-expression.

 

[FIND]

Very true, but that is not what you are doing and you know it. If you were approaching this with intellectual integrity, you first reaction would be to make an attempt to understand the argument, by either asking questions or doing independent research of the ideas on your own. The fact that you jump right to dismissing the article is very revealing.

I read the article, gave it due consideration, then pointed out the flaws in it. I don't believe I have ever said how I feel personally about the article or if I disagree with it.

You have consistently shown not simply a healthy skepticism to opposing views on this forum, but a downright hostility to them. You have consistently written off logical proof as "speculation" or "opinion" and have thrown out accusations of fallacies that you can not demonstrate, and made any number of other excuses dismiss opposing views. It is both personally insulting when you do this as well as frustrating to any honest discussion on this forum.

Once again, I would love to see your justification for these statements. Seriously, go right ahead. Not that I haven't said this to you repeatedly. As usual, you seem to want to make these statements ad nauseum until you have proof by assertion. Come on, since you would rather engage in ad hominem argumentation instead of addressing the issues in my statements since you apparently are too weak minded to counter them, and realize that you really don't have a leg to stand on to disagree with them. Go right ahead, let's see your big proof.

You could take an interest in understanding and exploring unfamiliar/opposing views or you can simply write off those views. You could approach this as an attempt to better yourself and your understanding of both opposing/unfamiliar views as well as your own views, or you can look at it as a means of self-expression.

If I didn't have any interest in it, I wouldn't have read it. All I have stated was the flaws in it.

Of course, you don't care about any of that, you would rather just enter your standard ad hominem argumentation to justify your position.

 

[Calabrio]

What's your problem with the opinion, Find?
It's not a scholarly article, it the authors observation and what he foreshadows to come, he then provides his logic.
I don't think he fully understand how the strategy has evolved and is currently being applied. While I'd agree with him that the results of it being implemented ultimately will be negative and the unintended consequences will be awful, that goes without saying. Revolutionaries are always good at tearing down systems, managing and running the new government always seems to be the problem.

But what are you taking issue with?
You seem invested in just disrupting threads in a rather ineffective effort to make yourself seem thoughtful and smart. The effort appears to be betraying you, you're just coming across as difficult, defensive, and petty.

The American Thinker actually has a really great series of articles on Cloward & Piven in it written by James Simpson. I'm not familiar with this author, it appears to be his first essay in the American Thinker, he normally posts on the blog
http://junkpanic.com/jpblog/

While the article is largely speculation, clearly, I'm not seeing the red herrings and appeal to emotion.

And what do you mean, you "disagree with Cloward Piven?"
You don't think that the theory will work?
You don't think that it's the proper way to achieve your desired political ends?
Or you don't think it really exists, or that it has ever, nor will it ever, be attempted?

 

[hrmwrm]

While the article is largely speculation, clearly, I'm not seeing the red herrings and appeal to emotion.

i think find fielded that one.

This is only a logical argumentation if the reader already shares the view of the article.

 

[Calabrio]

i think find fielded that one.

No, that would be neither a red herring or an appeal to emotion.

The essay isn't written with the intention of arguing and detailing why he thinks that the political class in Washington, DC is suspected of having embraced the Cloward Piven Strategy.

But it's reasonable to disagree with that premise and, in doing so, a discussion or conversation could be had.

He's starting the essay with that presumption and making an observation based upon that. You're free to disagree with his conclusion.

While I'm critical of the author, I don't think Find's defensive, basically knee-jerk responses, reflect well upon him.

Frankly, a few of the members here, Find being one of them, remind me of an old Mony Python sketch.

YouTube- Monty Python - Argument Clinic

 

[cammerfe]

From now on, I believe that a simple 'MP' should suffice to deal with what we've seen here!
KS

 

[FIND]

What's your problem with the opinion, Find?
It's not a scholarly article, it the authors observation and what he foreshadows to come, he then provides his logic.
I don't think he fully understand how the strategy has evolved and is currently being applied. While I'd agree with him that the results of it being implemented ultimately will be negative and the unintended consequences will be awful, that goes without saying. Revolutionaries are always good at tearing down systems, managing and running the new government always seems to be the problem.

My problem with the article is as I stated. It starts on a manufactured premise and is poised as a personal attack on people. The paper could have been fairly well written if instead it focused on evidence and citation, instead of just attacking whose minds they want changed. You cannot have effective political discussion if it is just going to be childish insults. The article was written in such a way that only people who share the opinions of the author would want to read it, and would follow its "logic".

But what are you taking issue with?
You seem invested in just disrupting threads in a rather ineffective effort to make yourself seem thoughtful and smart. The effort appears to be betraying you, you're just coming across as difficult, defensive, and petty.

Really? Somehow I am viewing this accusation as further effort of people like shag and yourself to discredit me on this forum.

The American Thinker actually has a really great series of articles on Cloward & Piven in it written by James Simpson. I'm not familiar with this author, it appears to be his first essay in the American Thinker, he normally posts on the blog
http://junkpanic.com/jpblog/

I don't read the american thinker or many forums like it. I tend to want to avoid things that are SO slanted politically, especially ones that attempt to disguise that fact by saying they are objective, fair, balanced, or thoughtful.

While the article is largely speculation, clearly, I'm not seeing the red herrings and appeal to emotion.

aside from the example hrmwrm pointed out in what I said:

I'm sure the foil hat-wearing adherents of this line of thinking will complain here about my oversimplification of the plan and general lack of nuance, but basically, it seeks to undermine the (American) government by overloading said government with dependents needing welfare.

First he argues that adherents to this policy will oversimplify the policy into a more base form of socialism.

Apparently, this will force the government into recognizing that there are a lot of dependents out there (artificially created, no doubt), which would inevitably lead to the United States' government establishing a guaranteed national income or some such poppycock.

Then he argues that the government will manufacture dependants.

Sadly, many in the Democratic Party have adopted this strategy as a way to build their base and solidify their political power, believing that Cloward and Piven knew what the hell they were talking about and that, by some miracle, crashing the national economy by using welfare and other government payout programs as a tool would bring about even larger government.

Then he uses homunculus to create an impression that we are already being run by a majority that wants to implement socialism.
​

just to start naming the red herrings being created....

Appeal to emotion.... That should be obvious. He is appealing to the anti-socialism sentiments among the right, as well as appealing to the hatred of the left through his insults and personal attacks.

And what do you mean, you "disagree with Cloward Piven?"
You don't think that the theory will work?
You don't think that it's the proper way to achieve your desired political ends?
Or you don't think it really exists, or that it has ever, nor will it ever, be attempted?

I don't think the theory would work. I already know too many people in the "welfare class" and therefore have enough empirical evidence to satisfy me to determine that many Americans would never elevate themselves above that level, no matter how much opportunity they are given. Too many people are always arguing they have this disadvantage or another and that is why they cannot do anything even given the opportunity. Well, sympathy is one thing I am lacking for anyone in that situation, as I am putting myself back through college at my age as a single father of three young boys.

 

[FIND]

No, that would be neither a red herring or an appeal to emotion.

The essay isn't written with the intention of arguing and detailing why he thinks that the political class in Washington, DC is suspected of having embraced the Cloward Piven Strategy.

But it's reasonable to disagree with that premise and, in doing so, a discussion or conversation could be had.

He's starting the essay with that presumption and making an observation based upon that. You're free to disagree with his conclusion.

While I'm critical of the author, I don't think Find's defensive, basically knee-jerk responses, reflect well upon him.

Frankly, a few of the members here, Find being one of them, remind me of an old Mony Python sketch.

YouTube- Monty Python - Argument Clinic

Are you going to continue to attack me just because you are a Mod? Really, I would have expected better than this. I always provide justification for my statements, and I address the points people make, unless they are horribly off topic or slanderous remarks. Just because you guys want to deny that, or ignore the validity of my responses, doesn't really mean anything. Your knee-jerk ad hominem response reflects poorly on you. The irony in you posting this Monty python sketch, and many of the quotes others post I find astounding.

If you want a political discussion forum, perhaps you and others should spend less time on the personal attacks and ad hominem argumentation, and focus more on the points. I respect your effort in your earlier post to respond to the points I was making, but you have too much of a tendency to make things personal, and this post ^^^ reflects this.

 

[shagdrum]

My problem with the article is as I stated. It starts on a manufactured premise and is poised as a personal attack on people. The paper could have been fairly well written if instead it focused on evidence and citation, instead of just attacking whose minds they want changed. You cannot have effective political discussion if it is just going to be childish insults. The article was written in such a way that only people who share the opinions of the author would want to read it, and would follow its "logic".

If you ignore the audience the article was written for (which you are doing) then you are taking the article out of context.

Appeal to emotion.... That should be obvious. He is appealing to the anti-socialism sentiments among the right, as well as appealing to the hatred of the left through his insults and personal attacks.

How is this at all an appeal to emotion? Only if you first assumed that appealing to anti-socialist sentiments is an appeal to emotion does this claim even make sense. However, that would be circular reasoning then.

You cannot have effective political discussion if it is just going to be childish insults

Very true. You also cannot have effective political discussion if one side simply dismisses any opposing and/or unfamiliar viewpoints. In fact, that is arguable even more destructive to political discourse.

Do you not view anti-socialist sentiments as being genuine and/or rooted in reason?

 

[FIND]

If you ignore the audience the article was written for (which you are doing) then you are taking the article out of context.

That is my very problem with this paper. It is little more than masturbation.

How is this at all an appeal to emotion? Only if you first assumed that appealing to anti-socialist sentiments is an appeal to emotion does this claim even make sense. However, that would be circular reasoning then.

Centering on right wing hatred of the left and socialism.... If you cannot see that as an appeal to emotion, then you have gotten your opinions way to confused with facts. Now, why don't you go ahead and illustrate how appealing to anti-socialism sentiments is only an appeal to emotion if you use circular reasoning. Since you seem to be unaware of what circular reasoning means, circular reasoning implies that the conclusion is the justification for the reasoning. In other words, it is like saying A means B and because of B, A. You on the other hand are guilty of circular reasoning. You are stating that because socialism is wrong, the right-wing is right and this is not a simple appeal to emotion, and, since the right wing is right and this is not just an appeal to emotion, socialism must be wrong.

Very true. You also cannot have effective political discussion if one side simply dismisses any opposing and/or unfamiliar viewpoints. In fact, that is arguable even more destructive to political discourse.

Yeah yeah, keep throwing those baseless accusations out there.

Do you not view anti-socialist sentiments as being genuine and/or rooted in reason?

No. Socialism in and of itself is not bad. Through certain reasoning you can logically reach the conclusion that it is bad, but it is not inherently bad or wrong.

 

[shagdrum]

That is my very problem with this paper. It is little more than masturbation.

Is that meant to be insightful? a relevant point?

Centering on right wing hatred of the left and socialism.... If you cannot see that as an appeal to emotion, then you have gotten your opinions way to confused with facts.

...or, instead of simply rejecting the notion out of hand and looking for an excuse to justify that rejection, I took the time to research the claims of socialism and found something credible in them. Your argument only makes sense if you assume there is nothing credible to the claims of socialism.

However, as you have demonstrated numerous times on this forum, you refuse to consider and are hostile to those claims.

Now, why don't you go ahead and illustrate how appealing to anti-socialism sentiments is only an appeal to emotion if you use circular reasoning.

Actually, I have shown, in this thread, how this is circular. Twice, now.

Only if you first assumed that appealing to anti-socialist sentiments is an appeal to emotion does this claim even make sense. However, that would be circular reasoning then.

Your argument only makes sense if you assume there is nothing credible to the claims of socialism.

Ignoring those points is dishonest. However, ignoring points like that is a pattern you exhibit rather consistently on this forum, unfortunately.

This is a problem you often have. You treat something as a self-evident truth and cite it in such a way that it is circular reasoning. However, if anyone else were to do something like this you would simply write off their views as mere "speculation" or "opinion".

Making excuses and dismissing opposing/unfamiliar viewpoints is not a substitute for objective, critical thought. It is pretty clear that your demonstrated hostility to certain ideas prevent you from considering them.

 

[FIND]

Is that meant to be insightful? a relevant point?

This was my point to begin with and what you have been arguing against since the beginning. You have been trying to argue that this article is somehow more than just something that is meant only for those who share that opinion and somehow more than just logic only for people that use the same reasoning.

...or, instead of simply rejecting the notion out of hand and looking for an excuse to justify that rejection, I took the time to research the claims of socialism and found something credible in them. Your argument only makes sense if you assume there is nothing credible to the claims of socialism.

The claim that Cloward-Piven represents a socialist view is credible. I never denied that. The claim that most liberals are socialists is sketchy at best. Quit trying to construct a straw man. If you disagree with my assessment, why not show me why it is wrong, instead of misrepresenting my statements to justify your opinion.

However, as you have demonstrated numerous times on this forum, you refuse to consider and are hostile to those claims.

Actually, I have shown, in this thread, how this is circular. Twice, now.

Ignoring those points is dishonest. However, ignoring points like that is a pattern you exhibit rather consistently on this forum, unfortunately.

This is not an example of circular reasoning. I tried explaining to you what circular reasoning is and you do not apparently understand this. What you are trying to cite is false premise, but that doesn't even work in this case, because you are asking for those statements to be accepted until negative proof is given otherwise. For it to be circular reasoning, the conclusion needs to justify the reasoning. What you are trying to say is that the conclusion only works if you assume a certain reasoning. The conclusion I have made in no way justifies the reasoning.

Now, why don't you show me how anti-socialist sentiments is not an appeal to emotion, as I have clearly demonstrated how they are. You are trying to dismiss and ignore logical reasoning by means of bare assumption. This is incredibly intellectually dishonest of you, and a huge impediment to honest discussion. But then again, I am not surprised, since this is what you do in nearly every post where you cannot argue something on its merit and are looking for a different tactic than your usual ad hominem.

This is a problem you often have. You treat something as a self-evident truth and cite it in such a way that it is circular reasoning. However, if anyone else were to do something like this you would simply write off their views as mere "speculation" or "opinion".

Why not show me where I have done this, as I have asked you 9 times now? I give reasoning for my opinions.

Making excuses and dismissing opposing/unfamiliar viewpoints is not a substitute for objective, critical thought. It is pretty clear that your demonstrated hostility to certain ideas prevent you from considering them.

Still you are trying to make an ad hominem argument to cover up where you are wrong and to set up a straw man to justify your position so that you don't have to discuss this on the points I have made. Let me know when you are prepared to address the issues.

My point stands. This article could have been much better, but instead it is just mud-slinging and a straw man created to massage the ego and rhetoric of the right-wing while justifying and rationalizing their hatred of "the other side" by polarizing the opposition and misrepresenting it.

 

[shagdrum]

FIND, instead of simply noting that there is a difference in viewpoint and looking to delegitimize that different viewpoint, why not focus on why there is a difference in viewpoint. The former is a cancer to honest, productive discussion. The latter is the heart of productive, honest discussion.

Of course, focusing on "why" necessitates a degree of intellectual humility and maturity; honesty, objectivity and a willingness to take the time to examine both your own views as well as opposing views more in depth then you probably have. When you jump to simply dismissing opposing views, writing it off as mere "opinion" or making whatever other excuse to ignore it, you make it abundantly clear that you are not interested in discovering specifically why and specifically where (in the rationales) those differences lie.

Deceit is in haste, but honesty can wait a fair leisure

 

[FIND]

FIND, instead of simply noting that there is a difference in viewpoint and looking to delegitimize that different viewpoint, why not focus on why there is a difference in viewpoint. The former is a cancer to honest, productive discussion. The latter is the heart of productive, honest discussion.

I see, attempting to redirect. Now then, I have not attempted to delegitimize this viewpoint. In fact, in some ways I share it. I have also noted why there was a different in veiwpoints for this particular article.

Of course, focusing on "why" necessitates a degree of intellectual humility and maturity; honesty, objectivity and a willingness to take the time to examine both your own views as well as opposing views more in depth then you probably have. When you jump to simply dismissing opposing views, writing it off as mere "opinion" or making whatever other excuse to ignore it, you make it abundantly clear that you are not interested in discovering specifically why and specifically where (in the rationales) those differences lie.

blah blah blah ad hominem.

All I have ever said about opinion is that it needs to be justified by some sort of reasoning. If you are just presenting an opinion on the merit of that opinion it is worthless. It is not the responsibility of the person you are having the discussion with to find and state the justification for an opinion.

If you want to have honest discussion, it requires more than just stating your opinion and then insulting the other party for not wanting to convert their beliefs to your own, or for not researching in depth the reasoning behind your opinion. If you want to have honest discussion, you should put forth your opinion, then you should put forth your reasoning for said opinion. I have tried and tried to tell you this numerous times in the past, but you continue to misrepresent this statement and construct a straw man argument.

Now then, why don't you try and point out one place on this forum where you have considered the other sides point of view or opinion without immediately jumping to say that it was unjustified or wrong? Why don't you show me one place on this forum where you have EVER stopped to consider the merits of one persons opinion without immediately attacking them or the opinion they gave and immediately wrote it off. Keep running from the issues all you want, but no amount of verbosity or insistence is going to hide the facts. You can insist as often as you like that I am dismissing opinions, but I will continue to correct your straw man and challenge you to justify your childish accusations.

Deceit is in haste, but honesty can wait a fair leisure

More of that beautiful irony.

 

[hrmwrm]

all i have ever said about opinion is that it needs to be justified by some sort of reasoning. If you are just presenting an opinion on the merit of that opinion it is worthless. It is not the responsibility of the person you are having the discussion with to find and state the justification for an opinion.

If you want to have honest discussion, it requires more than just stating your opinion and then insulting the other party for not wanting to convert their beliefs to your own, or for not researching in depth the reasoning behind your opinion. If you want to have honest discussion, you should put forth your opinion, then you should put forth your reasoning for said opinion. I have tried and tried to tell you this numerous times in the past, but you continue to misrepresent this statement and construct a straw man argument.

Now then, why don't you try and point out one place on this forum where you have considered the other sides point of view or opinion without immediately jumping to say that it was unjustified or wrong? Why don't you show me one place on this forum where you have ever stopped to consider the merits of one persons opinion without immediately attacking them or the opinion they gave and immediately wrote it off. Keep running from the issues all you want, but no amount of verbosity or insistence is going to hide the facts. You can insist as often as you like that i am dismissing opinions, but i will continue to correct your straw man and challenge you to justify your childish accusations.

+1

 

[fossten]

I don't see any contribution by FIND to this thread. He's only trying to disrupt or discredit. It's not enough to attempt to point out flaws in reasoning - if you want credibility you have to take a position on something - which Jeremy never does. It appears his only purpose here is to nitpick everybody else's posts. That's why he has no credibility - he doesn't stand for anything. To this day nobody really knows what his political views are. That's very telling. Even foxpaws admits she's a liberal through and through.

How must it feel to have less credibility than the proven liar foxpaws.

Example: Post a negative thread about something Obama does, and he leaps in and accuses you of being a hater. But he never stakes out a position on Obama. He also never starts a thread about anything political - he just waits like a jackal for somebody else to walk by and then he gnaws on their ankles. Of course, if you point this out to him, he whines like a little beatch and plays victim and accuses everyone of personal attacks.

Let's see - are there any other similes I could use - yeah, he's like the peanut gallery. Nothing substantive. He's like the monkeys in the trees throwing coconuts down on the lions. He won't bother to jump down on the ground, so he stays in the branches and hurls taunts like Billy Badass. And before you get all butt hurt, Jeremy, I'm not callling you a monkey - I'm comparing your tactics. So you don't get to cry about personal attacks.

Not to mention that every single one of his discrediting posts is an attempt to move the goalposts. Jeremy, is every opinion piece posted here going to be littered with "ZOMG you need scholarly paperz or you are teh suck!!!!ONE11!!ELEVENTY1!!!!" from now on?

 

[shagdrum]

Sorry, I missed this post.

All I have ever said about opinion is that it needs to be justified by some sort of reasoning.

The reasoning behind a position is what makes an opinion. The rationale (or lack thereof) is what defines an opinion. Otherwise, you are simply stating a position.

Unfortunately, you never take the time to actually understand unfamiliar opinions; instead jumping right to demonizing them.

If you want to have honest discussion, you should put forth your opinion, then you should put forth your reasoning for said opinion.

Again, the reasoning is what defines the opinion. Not that you will notice but when a person states a position, outside of special cases, I tend to first ask why they think that. If you would have actually started engaging me in a civil manner on this forum (which you did not do), I would have given you that courtesy and consideration as well.

Have you ever heard of the Socratic Method?

Now then, why don't you try and point out one place on this forum where you have considered the other sides point of view or opinion without immediately jumping to say that it was unjustified or wrong? Why don't you show me one place on this forum where you have EVER stopped to consider the merits of one persons opinion without immediately attacking them or the opinion they gave and immediately wrote it off.

Right under your nose, though you clearly missed it and likely will find some way to dimiss it.

 

[fossten]

Now then, why don't you try and point out one place on this forum where you have considered the other sides point of view or opinion without immediately jumping to say that it was unjustified or wrong? Why don't you show me one place on this forum where you have EVER stopped to consider the merits of one persons opinion without immediately attacking them or the opinion they gave and immediately wrote it off. Keep running from the issues all you want, but no amount of verbosity or insistence is going to hide the facts. You can insist as often as you like that I am dismissing opinions, but I will continue to correct your straw man and challenge you to justify your childish accusations.




More of that beautiful irony.

Post #2 is a classic example of what you just described. How ironic.