----juris imprudent in comments.
Democrats should “stay home on Election Day… for the sake of the nation.”
"Good for you, you have a heart, you can be a liberal. Now, couple your heart with your brain, and you can be a conservative."
Friday, January 07, 2011
Voices "In My Head"
So, we'll try again, because ALL of you lamebrain lefties could really learn something if you would simply read it (repeatedly if necessary).
----juris imprudent in comments.
"Good for you, you have a heart, you can be a liberal. Now, couple your heart with your brain, and you can be a conservative."
----juris imprudent in comments.
"Good for you, you have a heart, you can be a liberal. Now, couple your heart with your brain, and you can be a conservative."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Do you even understand why we make fun of you for arguing with voices in your head? The quotes you put up here make me think that you don't.
No, he does not understand in the slightest. Which is really sadder than anything.
I do have to chuckle though that all he does is quote me, without discussing at all the link I provided or what it had to say. Or why what I said had any relation to the linked article.
As for the other quoted persons - has either of them actually ever commented here?
Home with a sick kid so I can respond earlier than usual..yea...
I understand why you make fun of me. You are under the impression that conservatives don't say the things they actually say or do they things they actually do...that I make it all up in my head. I'm going to spend a little while...maybe all year this year...putting up quote after quote and example after example of the "voices in my head."
BTW, these are nothing compared to what's coming.
You are under the impression that conservatives don't say the things they actually say
M, I am ridiculing you for not engaging with the people that actually post here. Perfect example, you quote me (rather free of context) and two people that to the best of my knowledge have never commented on your blog. I have no interest in 'defending' Hannity, Beck or any other dumbshit you listen to. That you listen to them at all isn't my problem either. They don't represent my opinion and yet since I don't agree with you, you automatically assume I must agree with them. I can hardly think of a more childish fucking viewpoint.
Now if you don't want to discuss anything with the real people, that are here on your blog, why don't you just say so - right up front. Your comments policy can state that you will not discuss whatever points are presented because you are only talking about what other people have to say about the topic. I could understand that, not that I would respect it much. I'd probably stop hanging out because the purpose would be clear and not of interest to me. But if that is what you want your blog to be, go for it. If you actually want a dialogue though, you have to stop making such asinine assumptions about the people that comment here.
BTW, these are nothing compared to what's coming.
Okay, so you want me to quote the ELF/ALF mouthpieces? How about the most radical teachers union bosses? I can troll Mother Jones and fling some of their poo here if that's what you really like. Actually I won't do any of that, I'll just stop reading you, and perhaps your little echo chamber will be a happier, less contentious place.
>You are under the impression that conservatives don't say the things they actually say or do they things they actually do..
Wrong. We make fun of you because you take things that we have actually said - real words that were written down in your comment sections, and change them into things that we haven't said in order to make them easier to argue against. Textbook strawman fallacy. Since when do I, or any other conservative, speak for all conservatives, and have to defend every single thing conservatives say?
You're simply intellectually dishonest when you do it. And you do it over, and over, and over..
Well, those are real words that juris said and it really is reflective of how conservatives in general look at liberals. The 6Kings quote from the other day is another example.
While I don't think you should defend every single thing that conservatives say nor do you speak for all conservatives, your general outlook on life and tactics are pretty much in line.
The point of these posts will be that there is no strawman. This is what you say. And what they say. Unless juris and 6Kings claim demonic possession, they think that lefties are lamebrained and Democrats sop up stupid. Where is the strawman?
Goddam blogger is more frustrating than M! Another comment eaten!
M, does Hannity or Beck comment here? No, but I do, as do a number of other people. You argue as though they or I give a shit what Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck or Rush have to say. If you didn't tell me what those guys say I wouldn't have a clue, because I pay absolutely no attention to them. But you keep discussing what they say as if it is supposed to be meaningful to me. Either you do this dishonestly, as I've told you repeatedly that I don't care what they say, or honestly because you are just too damn stupid to respond to what I have to say (instead you say "well so-and-so says"). That is exactly what I mean by arguing with the voices in your head - you aren't arguing with me, or the people that post here. You always run off to find some 'conservative' position to argue with as though you were arguing with us. It would be like if I quoted ELF/ALF and kept asking you why you support that?
This post is a perfect example. You do quote me, sans context of course, and then throw in two statements that have no relation to what I was saying or the link I gave you. You didn't go read the article, did you? I bet if I had copied the text and not told you where it came from you would've said I pulled it off Nation or Mother Jones.
Gawd forbid that you might actually learn something. I guess the Manzi stuff was just a fluke.
Mark, should we treat you as responsible for every idiocy uttered by a Democrat?
Presuming I even care what Beck or Hannity says is like me calling you an idiot because of this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHM_DhtiGIg
...or basing my points on the unquestioned premise that if Keith Olbermann or Ed Schultz ever said it, you presume it is incontrovertible fact. To be honest, I often think I wouldn't be far off the mark by taking that tack. After all, "your general outlook on life and tactics are pretty much in line."
Do you really want to go there?
>The point of these posts will be that there is no strawman. This is what you say. And what they say. Unless juris and 6Kings claim demonic possession, they think that lefties are lamebrained and Democrats sop up stupid. Where is the strawman?
This doesn't even make sense. Do you even know what a strawman fallacy is? Can you explain it in your own words?
Holy shit DT, Hank Johnson actually makes Michelle Bachmann look intelligent.
I really didn't think that was possible.
Hey M are you concerned about Guam tipping over too? Or do you maybe - just a little - get the idea that this isn't the way to discuss things?
They may not post here, juris, but they are leaders in the conservative movement. So they are not voices inside my head nor a strawman argument.
DT-When someone like Dennis Kucinich says something stupid (which he does a lot), I say he's an idiot. Olbermann made fun of Johnson as well. You must have missed it. Clearly, Hank Johnson has lost his mind.
But when Palin says something stupid, you accuse me of being obsessed/putting up a strawman/voices in my head. See the difference? It's OK to rip liberals for being crazy but not the Right.
Something else to note here...Palin, Bachmann, Beck, Limbaugh....these folks are powerhouses in the conservative movement. Kucinich has no real power in Congress and even less now. I had never heard of Hank Johnson until this incident.
Haplo9-and we're back to the games again. This is the part where you get me to dance like a monkey, right?
You have asserted many times on here that conservatives or libertarians aren't actually saying what they say...that I am twisting what they say out of proportion into an argument I can easily win. I'm simply repeating back what they say and expressing my disgust. To you that must be a strawmen argument because no one in their right mind would ever say something that insane. Yet they do every day and it keeps getting worse.
So now we are going to track the things they say and have a nice collection of "voices in my head." This is going to go on for quite a while, folks. I'm certain you won't like it.
They may not post here, juris, but they are leaders in the conservative movement.
Again - so what. Why do you associate that with me? I guess Hank Johnson must be your idea of a great liberal Democrat - every word that pours from his mouth is just like what you think. You would think me awfully stupid to make that claim - wouldn't you?
But when Palin says something stupid
1) So what.
2) When Palin actually says something intelligent - that would be news and discussion worthy.
You have asserted many times on here that conservatives or libertarians aren't actually saying what they say
Wrong dumbfuck. What we (at least I) keep telling you is that we aren't saying what your "conservative powerhouses" are saying - and at least for me, I don't give a rat's rotting ass what they say. I really don't give a shit what dementia has gripped Hank Johnson - I don't put HIS words in YOUR mouth, now do I? And that is exactly what you do - take what someone else says and claim it is my words/position.
Can I possibly make that any clearer for you? Or is this just your stupid fucking game? Which I really am beginning to suspect it is. Either that, or great gods you are beyond mind-bogglingly stupid.
The Manzi incident really was a fluke. I trust we'll never see you do THAT again.
They may not post here, juris, but they are leaders in the conservative movement. So they are not voices inside my head nor a strawman argument.
Which is equivalent to us holding you accountable for Nancy Pelosi's "We have to pass it so we can find out what's in it" moron moment. Should we assume that you considered that to be a gem of wisdom? Your blog said nothing about it.
I say again, do you really want to go there? I'll happily take you to task for every stupid thing Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid et al have said and done that you've let pass.
When someone like Dennis Kucinich says something stupid (which he does a lot), I say he's an idiot.
Funny, somehow you saying it hardly ever makes it to your blog. I've said things critical of Beck, Limbaugh et al, in fact I have been critical of Limbaugh for years longer than I have commented here. But since I never said them in your hearing, you apparently blandly assume I agree with every word he utters. Should I treat you the same, or should I confine myself to opinions I have actually seen you claim to hold? No wait, that won't work, because that's "making personal remarks" and therefore off limits too, isn't it?
To be honest, I wonder why I bother in the first place. After all, it was barely a week after over half the conservatives here agreed that the repeal of DADT was a good thing when you claimed that we would all do ANYTHING rather than admit it was possible for a Democrat to be right.
>Haplo9-and we're back to the games again. This is the part where you get me to dance like a monkey, right?
No, this is the part where you explain what the hell you are talking about, because it doesn't make any sense. I ask if you know what a strawman fallacy is, because none of the quotes you put up have much of anything to do with strawman fallacies. They are certainly insults, but that isn't the same thing. What exactly do you think those quotes show?
What exactly do you think those quotes show?
That we're all un-American Nazi evilmongers, just like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi claim.
> What exactly do you think those quotes show?
That we think the left is full of idiots, just like they think the right is full of evilmongers.
At least that particular instance is generally correct. We do think the left is mostly full of idiots, something M and his Minions routinely give us reasons to believe.
And then Santa promptly provided a perfect example of arguing from a voice in his head, ruining Marxaphasia's protestation of innocence.
M, if you really want to disprove the "voices in your head" tactic, then respond to the specific strawman challenges WHEN THEY'RE MADE instead of ignoring them as you typically do. For example, what was Juris' point which included that comment?
Post a Comment