It's not like they tore down Independence Hall and put up a laundromat … but what used to be Joe Frazier's Gym on North Broad Street … is now a furniture store … and it makes me sad.
But this discussion isn't about "Smokin' Joe," it's about something he said and the fact that for Joe Frazier, it was generally prophetic.
I think that holds for most of us, and for some of us, more than others.
For good or bad, I like confrontation … not for its own sake, but for the sake of "setting the record straight" and letting it be known that if, metaphorically, someone throws the first "punch" at me, specifically, if that punch is a low blow, I'm going to punch back and keep punching until there's some form of capitulation from the instigator of the "fight."
Applying that to a discussion forum like The NewsTalkers, it goes like this: if a discussion or comment is blatantly false, intentionally misrepresentative of the facts, or, an allegation-generality that casts an aspersion upon me or those who tend to view things as I do … if it can't be backed by anything substantive … that constitutes the "first punch" and, a "punch below the belt" at that.
Stuff "comin' at me" in that manner … I'll do what I can to stop it … usually with a one counter-punch fact in rebuttal … which ought to be enough of a blow for the fight to be called.
But often it's not … more punches from the same arm slot with the same liniment-thumb-tainted-glove poking my eye to blind me and all in the arena so as to keep the facts out of sight.
Analogy made, point made. Double-down on that which has been discredited, insult me personally for daring to question and correct the record … i will keep coming at you … fact, fact, fact, fact … pop-pop-pop-pop … truth spoken to the disingenuous. Oh! the recalcitrant will call it "copy-and-paste" and go to their favorite non-rebuttal-rebuttal … THE DISMISSIVE "ARGUMENT" … we've all seen it …
A dismissive statement, that is any statement which negates the value of an opposing argument without actually addressing any of its substance.
Although it is not actually a valid form of argument, it is frequently phrased in such a way that it might be mistaken for one; this usage is a form of rhetorical deception.
Argument by collective dismissal is an especially severe form of this, in which multiple points are dismissed as a group without any of them being addressed.
Types
•
argument from irrelevance: "I don't see how that's relevant." when the original argument has specifically named one or more points of relevance
•
argument from unimportance: "There are more important things to worry about."
•
argument by contradiction: "No, you're wrong." "I don't accept that hypothesis."
•
argument from overabundance: "You have too many points, I can't address them all." -- so I'm not going to address any of them.
•
argument from subjectivity: "This is a matter regarding which there is no objective resolution, therefore any conclusions you might reach by objective reasoning from this statement are invalid, regardless of how much evidence you might present to support it."
Real-World Usage
• "We don't find any persuasive, affirmative evidence that this is true.", when in fact evidence has been presented.
Here's what I'm saying; if someone is comin' at me (at the board) with unsubstantiated, editorialized, flawed or intentionally misrepresented stuff -- a lie -- crap being run out as "fact," as "real news," and/or as the conclusive/(alleged) last word" -- my reaction will be to stop it.
From my perspective, crap being run out as "fact" includes "selective indignation" (a.k.a.) "the pot calling the kettle black…
"an idiom used to claim that a person is guilty of the very thing of which they accuse another …"
… doing that will almost always cause me to post a shit load of examples of the "pot's" hypocrisy … a SHIT LOAD! And when the shit load addresses a hypocritical position … the reactive tactic (when it's not valid) of calling it "off topic" without nailing the "calling-of-the-kettle-by-the-pot" for what it is … that too is hypocritical. No question that some comments are in fact, off-topic (another subject for another discussion).
For the record, there is no one on The NewsTalkers I dislike … I don't care what your politics are, or, for that matter, your ideology (as long as it's not illegal). Feel free to disagree with me, rebut my positions and have a butt-kickin' dialogue; but don't insult me or posit logical-fallacies regarding my background or my abilities.
Take a position, defend it with alacrity and when a debate has been clearly won, lost … or has ended in an impasse … leave it in the past and know that I only try to "stop what's comin' at me" … not who is bringin' it.
Sorry for the formatting … some days it's just quirky.
I don't think one is required to accept the premise that Bush was a war criminal before one can criticize Hillary Clinton, and vice versa. I think it is better to take each case on it's own merit.
George Bush (the ex - President of the United States) was never going to be prosecuted in the US for war crimes. It has never happened in the US and probably never will. You can say the same for his closest aides and advisers relating to the "crime". There is little appetite for it among the American people. Such a trial would very likely have very negative effect on the electability of whoever brought the charges. Certainly in a national election.
Once you prosecute someone like Bush, you then get into who else must we call for the prosecution of, among our allies, such as a Netanyahu. It would cause turmoil in US foreign relations. It's just not going to happen. Therefore, I don't know the worth of 'demanding' that people cede to the idea of prosecuting Bush or their other criticisms are invalid. It just seems counter productive to me.
JR,
I'm not sure everyone will understand how your comment fits in this discussion since it references another discussion … one which of course relates generally to the premise of this one.
For those who don't see the connection, in a discussion from yesterday (summarizing here), a comment was made to the effect that liberals seemed to have no problem with crimes/indiscretions perpetrated by Democrats. My response was to note that a Republican and his administration while possibly guilty of war crimes and misfeasance in office, managed to get elected and re-elected with no apparent indignation from Republican voters.
Some took exception to my repudiation of Bush and I did what I always do when challenged … provide a shit load of documentation to back my position.
My response was to note that a Republican and his administration while possibly guilty of war crimes and misfeasance in office, managed to get elected and re-elected with no apparent indignation from Republican voters.
Some took exception to my repudiation of Bush and I did what I always do when challenged … provide a shit load of documentation to back my position.
I agree with that.
Reformatted … still has some quirks but it's easier to read than the first post.
I couldn't read all of it, after a bit, the red bothered me... No matter, that will get better!
How do you come up with all this stuff? It was well-written and makes a lot of sense! Thank you!
Thanks Dowser … I will change the red text to blue … after dinner this evening.
You're right, all along the line.
The problem for some people, though, is that they cannot distinguish reality from fantasy. Even when you put evidence before them -- evidence that they cannot refute -- they will continue to believe as before. "Reality" is whatever they desire it to be.
So if you, or anyone, repeatedly demonstrate that their "reality" is fantasy, they must attack you. Their vehemence in favor of their fantasies is the measure of their belief. They cannot actually defend their fantasies precisely because they are fantasies. So there's no option but to shoot the messenger.