Political Threads

[chri'stina 190]

Now, I was just kidding about all my credentials. I am not a trillionaire. I know, you all really thought I was.

I am just a lowly stay at home mom with a Bachelor's degree in Sociology.

I am a genius though! (no...not that either.)

[HAL 9000 96]

Now, I was just kidding about all my credentials. I am not a trillionaire. I know, you all really thought I was.

I am just a lowly stay at home mom with a Bachelor's degree in Sociology.

I am a genius though! (no...not that either. )

You have a heart of gold. That makes you a trillionaire in itself.

[chri'stina 190]

Now, I was just kidding about all my credentials. I am not a trillionaire. I know, you all really thought I was.

I am just a lowly stay at home mom with a Bachelor's degree in Sociology.

I am a genius though! (no...not that either. )

You have a heart of gold. That makes you a trillionaire in itself.

Aww, how cheesy nice. Thanks.

[Peikko 1,575]

I would like to know how we are supposed to determine the validity of someone's views and posts when their background, experience, position, pay scale, experience etc etc is not important.

So if a poster continuously claim another other is stupid, how should they resolve this if the above is out of bounds. Or should the poster being called stupid simply sit there and take it.

It is ironic that the person who makes the claim is not doing anything wrong but when I defend my self my with actual experience, situation, background etc, then I am so idiot boasting or embellishing myself. So this a no win situation. A case of once the resident posters hate you, you have to simply take it or leave.

Either the argument a person presents is rational, coherent and logical or it is not. If I present an argument that is full of holes it's full of holes, no matter if I have a masters in political science or I am the local street sweeper. I am sorry you require all the background information in order to judge the merits of a post, but really, that is your problem, not that of the other people posting here.

[Heracles 417]

Now, I was just kidding about all my credentials. I am not a trillionaire. I know, you all really thought I was.

I am just a lowly stay at home mom with a Bachelor's degree in Sociology.

I am a genius though! (no...not that either.)

I have never boasted hey look at me for no reason. There comes a point when people are trying to make you out to look like an idiot where enough is enough. This is usually met with ridicule. It happens to absolutely everyone with conservative views who is not willing to back down.

As long as someone with conservative views is willing to back down and basically go away they are happy. Anyone else is attacked. You want recent proof, look at how hard Virtual Wife was attacked yesterday.

[HAL 9000 96]

Now, I was just kidding about all my credentials. I am not a trillionaire. I know, you all really thought I was.

I am just a lowly stay at home mom with a Bachelor's degree in Sociology.

I am a genius though! (no...not that either. )

You have a heart of gold. That makes you a trillionaire in itself.

Aww, how cheesy nice. Thanks.

I would like to know how we are supposed to determine the validity of someone's views and posts when their background, experience, position, pay scale, experience etc etc is not important.

So if a poster continuously claim another other is stupid, how should they resolve this if the above is out of bounds. Or should the poster being called stupid simply sit there and take it.

It is ironic that the person who makes the claim is not doing anything wrong but when I defend my self my with actual experience, situation, background etc, then I am so idiot boasting or embellishing myself. So this a no win situation. A case of once the resident posters hate you, you have to simply take it or leave.

Either the argument a person presents is rational, coherent and logical or it is not. If I present an argument that is full of holes it's full of holes, no matter if I have a masters in political science or I am the local street sweeper. I am sorry you require all the background information in order to judge the merits of a post, but really, that is your problem, not that of the other people posting here.

Lets remember that unfortunately in some cases, thought is most definitely is in the head of the thinker.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Background matters when one is calling upon ones expertise to make a statement. For example, if I were to recommend one browser over another - that would mean more coming from someone who works with browsers for a living versus some guy who works at your neighborhood Target. However, if the statement being made is logical or consists of facts backed up by external evidence supplied by other experts, then one need not be an expert in the subject matter himself. JMHO.

[Peikko 1,575]

Now, I was just kidding about all my credentials. I am not a trillionaire. I know, you all really thought I was.

I am just a lowly stay at home mom with a Bachelor's degree in Sociology.

I am a genius though! (no...not that either. )

I have never boasted hey look at me for no reason. There comes a point when people are trying to make you out to look like an idiot where enough is enough. This is usually met with ridicule. It happens to absolutely everyone with conservative views who is not willing to back down.

As long as someone with conservative views is willing to back down and basically go away they are happy. Anyone else is attacked. You want recent proof, look at how hard Virtual Wife was attacked yesterday.

GEG wasn't attacked, but the lack of logic and coherence in her posting was challenged. She found that difficult to deal with but that doesn't make it wrong or an attack based on ideological differences. However, some people seem to find this a difficult concept to understand.

[Heracles 417]

Either the argument a person presents is rational, coherent and logical or it is not. If I present an argument that is full of holes it's full of holes, no matter if I have a masters in political science or I am the local street sweeper. I am sorry you require all the background information in order to judge the merits of a post, but really, that is your problem, not that of the other people posting here.

Can you show me though where you guys have stated how while you disagree with someone you have a history of not seeing eye to eye with, you believe their argument was logical?

Quite the contrary actually. Absolutely every single conservative who is willing to stand up to those with left wing views here has been ridiculed, mocked and insulted by other members here some time or another.

This is why the OT section of VJ should have a disclaimer of "conservatives need not bother, as you will be attacked". Attacked by people who just so happen to state they are neutral, yet never ever apparently seem to attack those with left wing views.

[HAL 9000 96]

What was that study about the American conservative mindset being more statistically prone to fear mongering as a means to an electoral end versus the American liberal mindset? I wonder if the same can be said for paranoia in rationalizing the politics of logical though and critical thinking. I wish we could say that statistically, both conditions would be nonexistent on either side of the spectrum.

[Heracles 417]

GEG wasn't attacked, but the lack of logic and coherence in her posting was challenged. She found that difficult to deal with but that doesn't make it wrong or an attack based on ideological differences. However, some people seem to find this a difficult concept to understand.

And alienchild, Gary, CarolsMarc, Myself, Smoke etc. Interesting how all of us are not coherent or logical while you guys are.

Every single person above has had their logic, intelligence and coherence attack one time or another.

Edited September 22, 2008 by Aficionado

[HAL 9000 96]

Either the argument a person presents is rational, coherent and logical or it is not. If I present an argument that is full of holes it's full of holes, no matter if I have a masters in political science or I am the local street sweeper. I am sorry you require all the background information in order to judge the merits of a post, but really, that is your problem, not that of the other people posting here.

Can you show me though where you guys have stated how while you disagree with someone you have a history of not seeing eye to eye with, you believe their argument was logical?

Quite the contrary actually. Absolutely every single conservative who is willing to stand up to those with left wing views here has been ridiculed, mocked and insulted by other members here some time or another.

This is why the OT section of VJ should have a disclaimer of "conservatives need not bother, as you will be attacked". Attacked by people who just so happen to state they are neutral, yet never ever apparently seem to attack those with left wing views.

I fell your pain, BY.

I think it falls in the realm of being able to dissociate what is a rational argument and what is an irrational one. I for one, have had disagreements with plenty of conservatives and done so respectfully. Not all conservatives here act out like arrogant, petty brats and not all have to troll the message board for self gratification.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

BY - you are not representative of the "Conservative mindset" - though once again you seem unable to accept the possibility the objection to you and some of your postings has more to do with you than with what you think you represent.

The "Conservatives don't bother" stuff is just disingenuous rubbish.

[HAL 9000 96]

GEG wasn't attacked, but the lack of logic and coherence in her posting was challenged. She found that difficult to deal with but that doesn't make it wrong or an attack based on ideological differences. However, some people seem to find this a difficult concept to understand.

And alienchild, Gary, CarolsMarc, Myself, Smoke etc. Interesting how all of us are not coherent or logical while you guys are.

ALC has his points. Gary has very coherent posts and many a times has EXCELLENT points to make. Smoke is coherent enough for me to separate him from making tangents out of nothing. Besides that, I do not feel the need to discuss other posters when they're not around.

[Heracles 417]

Background matters when one is calling upon ones expertise to make a statement. For example, if I were to recommend one browser over another - that would mean more coming from someone who works with browsers for a living versus some guy who works at your neighborhood Target. However, if the statement being made is logical or consists of facts backed up by external evidence supplied by other experts, then one need not be an expert in the subject matter himself. JMHO.

Based on your example, lets consider that someone is insisting that x browser is better and claims the other person, who suggests otherwise, is an incoherent illogical idiot. Then yes the person defending themselves should have the right to find out the background and experienc of the person making the accusation. If this person making the claim has a background as a writer of fictional novels, then yes the person being insulted should be able to use this as a point.

What we have here, in OT, is a case of you are right and I am wrong. Where anyone with conservative views is stereotyped as a fool. Yet we are then lectured on how nametags and stereotypes are ignorant and just wrong.

I fell your pain, BY.

I think it falls in the realm of being able to dissociate what is a rational argument and what is an irrational one. I for one, have had disagreements with plenty of conservatives and done so respectfully. Not all conservatives here act out like arrogant, petty brats and not all have to troll the message board for self gratification.

Yet all conservatives willing to speak up have battled with one of you guys at some point or another.