Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:

That's why I'm a lawyer, I enjoy making people miserable.

You seem to be quite good at it.

It is very sad that you enjoy that.

nectarprime wrote:It is very sad that you enjoy that.

Another successful case.

You can expect my bill to arrive promptly

biccat wrote:

nectarprime wrote:It is very sad that you enjoy that.

Another successful case.

You can expect my bill to arrive promptly

Nah, words on the internet don't affect me emotionally.

You can't back out of your financial obligations that easily. Shirking a lawyer bill is a dangerous thing.

Frazzled wrote:You can't back out of your financial obligations that easily. Shirking a lawyer bill is a dangerous thing.

"What are you gonna do? Sue me...oh. Damn."

biccat wrote:
I am more than willing to concede points when any of my points have been affirmatively refuted. But unfortunately there's a dearth of well-reasoned discourse from the left. That's not a failing of the dakka forum members, but rather a failing of left-wing arguments. Ultimately, progressivism (the modern left) is internally inconsistent and tyrannical.

The issue, of course, is that you tend to make unfalsifiable, or incredibly difficult to falsify by way of techne (note, this doesn't mean that the point is sound, it means it is analogous to sophistry), claims. If you say X is "inconsistent and tyrannical" we not only have to decide the boundaries of X, but further weed through the entirety of X in order to prove that it is both entirely consistent and non-tyrannical. That's the nature of sweeping rhetoric. It is designed to shut down honest debate in lieu of presenting statements that are satisfying to the speaker, or his target audience.

Not that the purpose of dakka is honest debate, but it bears remembering what is actually going on here, most of the time, before you talk about affirmative refutation.

In any case, the idea that any significant political movement in America is tyrannical indicates to me that you have no idea what tyranny means. Tyranny doesn't require a tyrant, but to claim that either the left or the right, as cumbersome as those terms are, is actually engaged in the arbitrary use of power is just nonsense. Both the left and the right wield power towards their political ends, which are generally related to their own interests. Neither side overtly dispenses state assets for no reason other than liking a person. In fact, if you want to see that sort of behavior en masse, at least in the last century, you would have to look to Africa or Southeast Asia.

I'm just going to cut out the parts where you accuse me of sophestry. It's humorously ironic, but not particularly relevant.

dogma wrote:Tyranny doesn't require a tyrant, but to claim that either the left or the right, as cumbersome as those terms are, is actually engaged in the arbitrary use of power is just nonsense.

A government that engages in the arbitrary use of power may be tyrannical, but a tyranny is not necessarily arbitrary. Rather, tyranny is a government where exercise of power is unchecked by law or justice (utilizing the term according to a formal legal meaning of equality before the law rather than the more abstract meaning generally attributed thereto of general equality).

That doesn't mean that the tyrannical ruler is unfocused or doesn't have objectives, simply that they are unchecked by a governing authority.

The political Right tends to have a dogmatic and stringent view of the Constitution, particularly as it is applied to government power. This suggests (although not necessarily in practice) that the political Right is more accepting of limitations on exercise of power. The political left seems to have no concern with these limits.

Certainly you could point to leftist support for certain freedoms, but this support is generally quite arbitrary upon closer examination.

Which is why I generally have respect for libertarian ideology, except for a few areas where they read more into Constitutional limitations than are really there (although, there are a couple cases from the early '70s that might support such an interpretation).

...snipped the rest as irrelevant as well.

biccat wrote:I'm just going to cut out the parts where you accuse me of sophestry. It's humorously ironic, but not particularly relevant.

Wait, are you saying that accusing someone of sophistry is an expression of sophist tendencies on my part? If that's the case, then that's false. I'm not using sophistry by accusing you of using it. In this context, as I'm referencing your tendencies relative to your statements to MGS I'm using legitimate ad hominem. In order for me to be using sophistry in the course of my accusation I would have to be somehow attempting to deceive, I'm not, I'm clearly stating that you use sophistry quite frequently.

biccat wrote:
A government that engages in the arbitrary use of power may be tyrannical, but a tyranny is not necessarily arbitrary. Rather, tyranny is a government where exercise of power is unchecked by law or justice (utilizing the term according to a formal legal meaning of equality before the law rather than the more abstract meaning generally attributed thereto of general equality).

That doesn't mean that the tyrannical ruler is unfocused or doesn't have objectives, simply that they are unchecked by a governing authority.

No, that's authoritarianism. Tyranny is a particular type of authoritarianism which deals in the arbitrary abuse of the populace without any necessary political end in mind. There have been very few truly tyrannical states in history, and those that have existed haven't lasted long.

biccat wrote:
The political Right tends to have a dogmatic and stringent view of the Constitution, particularly as it is applied to government power. This suggests (although not necessarily in practice) that the political Right is more accepting of limitations on exercise of power. The political left seems to have no concern with these limits.

Well, no, it only suggests that the political right has chosen to adopt constitutionalist rhetoric.

Either way, given that, as you note, the right has played fast and loose with constitution when it has found it expedient to do so, and that the left has done the same, arguing that the left somehow shows no concern for it (despite protesting the Patriot Act on those grounds) is just incorrect. They might show less concern, but they certainly show more than none. And, really, I would argue that there are certain elements on both the right, and left that are generally unconcerned with the Constitution, just as there are certain elements of each side that concern themselves with it a great deal (or at least the expedient parts of it).

Not explicitly including a thing in your list of political positions and concerns does not mean you have no concern for it, or that you endorse an opposing position, it simply means that other matters of are of greater relative importance to either you, or you audience.

biccat wrote:
Certainly you could point to leftist support for certain freedoms, but this support is generally quite arbitrary upon closer examination.

I could just a easily point to self-identified conservatives who support the freedom of religion so long as the religion is "Christian".

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:I'm just going to cut out the parts where you accuse me of sophestry. It's humorously ironic, but not particularly relevant.

Wait, are you saying that accusing someone of sophistry is an expression of sophist tendencies on my part? If that's the case, then that's false. I'm not using sophistry by accusing you of using it. In this context, as I'm referencing your tendencies relative to your statements to MGS I'm using legitimate ad hominem. In order for me to be using sophistry in the course of my accusation I would have to be somehow attempting to deceive, I'm not, I'm clearly stating that you use sophistry quite frequently.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I just think that you accusing someone of sophestry is ironic. Humorously so, in fact.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
A government that engages in the arbitrary use of power may be tyrannical, but a tyranny is not necessarily arbitrary. Rather, tyranny is a government where exercise of power is unchecked by law or justice (utilizing the term according to a formal legal meaning of equality before the law rather than the more abstract meaning generally attributed thereto of general equality).

That doesn't mean that the tyrannical ruler is unfocused or doesn't have objectives, simply that they are unchecked by a governing authority.

No, that's authoritarianism. Tyranny is a particular type of authoritarianism which deals in the arbitrary abuse of the populace without any necessary political end in mind. There have been very few truly tyrannical states in history, and those that have existed haven't lasted long.

Well, if you divorce the meaning of Tyranny from it's origin "tyrant" (tyrannos), you could arrive at this conclusion. However, given the (relative) success of tyrants in early Greece, I would say you're changing the definition of the word. Possibly for deceptive reasons, although I'll leave that to the reader.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
The political Right tends to have a dogmatic and stringent view of the Constitution, particularly as it is applied to government power. This suggests (although not necessarily in practice) that the political Right is more accepting of limitations on exercise of power. The political left seems to have no concern with these limits.

Well, no, it only suggests that the political right has chosen to adopt constitutionalist rhetoric.

Fair enough. But rhetoric matters at least somewhat, especially where limits on legal authority are concerned.

dogma wrote:Either way, given that, as you note, the right has played fast and loose with constitution when it has found it expedient to do so, and that the left has done the same, arguing that the left somehow shows no concern for it (despite protesting the Patriot Act on those grounds) is just incorrect. They might show less concern, but they certainly show more than none. And, really, I would argue that there are certain elements on both the right, and left that are generally unconcerned with the Constitution, just as there are certain elements of each side that concern themselves with it a great deal (or at least the expedient parts of it).

I didn't say they were unconcerned with the Constitution, I said they were unconcerned with Constitutional limits of government power. Shouting "THE CONSTITUTION" is a great rabble-rousing talking point, but if you fail to adhere to the limits expressed therein, the words are meaningless.

Also, most opposition to the Patriot Act isn't actually based on the problems with the Patriot Act. Most people (supporters and opponents) don't understand how it actually changed the law. Most of the stuff people complained about had been on the books for more than a few years.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
Certainly you could point to leftist support for certain freedoms, but this support is generally quite arbitrary upon closer examination.

I could just a easily point to self-identified conservatives who support the freedom of religion so long as the religion is "Christian".

I think if you parsed the "freedom of religion" a bit more, you would find this to be mostly untrue.

frgsinwntr wrote:http://youtu.be/97Zi9va5BY4

Heres some fox news bias

here is some more....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0kYzTkFY_A

And some more...

http://youtu.be/PO2Hhs3DeG8

eh... here is the whole play list for fox news bias...

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_632428

And to end my "link rant"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFvT_qEZJf8&feature=related

biccat, Please tell us if Fox is so wonderful and fair, why aren't you defending any of the above mentioned links? ^

biccat wrote:That doesn't mean that the tyrannical ruler is unfocused or doesn't have objectives, simply that they are unchecked by a governing authority.

The political Right tends to have a dogmatic and stringent view of the Constitution, particularly as it is applied to government power. This suggests (although not necessarily in practice) that the political Right is more accepting of limitations on exercise of power. The political left seems to have no concern with these limits.

This is just piffle, and completely useless as a descriptor of how the world actually works.

Any effort to describe the world through the lens of two incredibly broad political factions will fail. That mistake is a big part of what made communism fail, it's a big part of what makes libertarianism so silly. It's a big part of why, despite your obvious interest and reading on the subject, your political views are woefully silly.

alarmingrick wrote:

frgsinwntr wrote:http://youtu.be/97Zi9va5BY4

Heres some fox news bias

here is some more....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0kYzTkFY_A

And some more...

http://youtu.be/PO2Hhs3DeG8

eh... here is the whole play list for fox news bias...

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D&feature=iv&annotation_id=annotation_632428

And to end my "link rant"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFvT_qEZJf8&feature=related

biccat, Please tell us if Fox is so wonderful and fair, why aren't you defending any of the above mentioned links? ^

Following the tenets of fox news, only choose to reply to the questions that help your cause, and ignore anything that might undermine it.

While truthfully I disliked how the poster of the videos named themselves, as it only gives ammo to those that wish to try to dismiss it, the videos were quite valid. I would have personally interrupted the interviewer if I saw them dodging the other side like was shown.

I always tell myself to stay away from the off topic forum and always fail. You are all far too interesting.

As a moderate with conservative leanings who lives in Hollywood, CA (one of the liberal capitals of the U.S.), I have heard many parts of these arguments before, and I have to say that a lot of the left likes to throw out the word "silly" and insult the intelligence of conservatives.

Conservatives like to claim that leftists are supportive of tyrannical governments and are willfully biased.

I hate that so much name calling is thrown in since, frankly, most of your other comments are so interesting and intelligent. Even the comments I disagree with are interesting.

I'm not a Jon Stewart fan because I hate Smugness, just hate it. Which also has put me off of Fox News because they are rocking the Smugness too.

But I must agree with those who say the "I'm only a commedian" is a cop out.

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:I always tell myself to stay away from the off topic forum and always fail. You are all far too interesting.

As a moderate with conservative leanings who lives in Hollywood, CA (one of the liberal capitals of the U.S.), I have heard many parts of these arguments before, and I have to say that a lot of the left likes to throw out the word "silly" and insult the intelligence of conservatives.

Conservatives like to claim that leftists are supportive of tyrannical governments and are willfully biased.

I hate that so much name calling is thrown in since, frankly, most of your other comments are so interesting and intelligent. Even the comments I disagree with are interesting.

I'm not a Jon Stewart fan because I hate Smugness, just hate it. Which also has put me off of Fox News because they are rocking the Smugness too.

But I must agree with those who say the "I'm only a commedian" is a cop out.

I can't help but agree that it's impossible to communicate when all that's heard is name calling, labeling, and just yelling in general. i would much
rather discuss the differences.

but i don't understand how "i'm a comic" is a cop out? He's a freakin' comedian! I think saying he's copping out is a cop out for those who don't
agree with his humor.

"but i don't understand how "i'm a comic" is a cop out? He's a freakin' comedian! I think saying he's copping out is a cop out for those who don't
agree with his humor. "

Maybe it's because I don't get his humor . . . but I do feel like his approach to political humor is a little lopsided when, let's face, most of our politicians are clowns at least once in their tenure. . .

But heck, I'm a clown even before the drinks show up . . .

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:"but i don't understand how "i'm a comic" is a cop out? He's a freakin' comedian! I think saying he's copping out is a cop out for those who don't
agree with his humor. "

Maybe it's because I don't get his humor . . . but I do feel like his approach to political humor is a little lopsided when, let's face, most of our politicians are clowns at least once in their tenure. . .

But heck, I'm a clown even before the drinks show up . . .

It just feels to me like somebody bashing El Rush for not picking on the right when he makes his parodies. he's free to do what he does, which i can't stand, so why not Jon Stewart?

The problem is, the Daily Show is a news satire program that does a better job of making a fair and balanced presentation of the news than ACTUAL news programs, and so this leaves people like Fox viewers befuddled and confused. They think that if a comedy show does a better job of telling the news than their own favorite channel, then it needs to treated like a news program, and not a comedy show.

That was pretty much the core of Wallace's failure in that interview, especially when he showed the Pam Anderson roast clip. He was attacking like the Daily Show was a rival news show, and not a comedy that just happens to do a better job of telling the news than anything his network can muster.

Bookwrack wrote:The problem is, the Daily Show is a news satire program that does a better job of making a fair and balanced presentation of the news than ACTUAL news programs, and so this leaves people like Fox viewers befuddled and confused. They think that if a comedy show does a better job of telling the news than their own favorite channel, then it needs to treated like a news program, and not a comedy show.

That was pretty much the core of Wallace's failure in that interview, especially when he showed the Pam Anderson roast clip. He was attacking like the Daily Show was a rival news show, and not a comedy that just happens to do a better job of telling the news than anything his network can muster.

I think they were reaching for anything to try to discredit him. Just it's hard to grab something that's not there.

Wow all the sudden the thread took a turn for the better!

I don't see being a comedian as being a cop out for why stewart says what he says, he does work for comedy central after all...

But I do see how he could be seen as lopsided in his presentation. Be it personal bias or not, what stewart says about fox does carry weight, not all of it perhaps.

As to the show always targeting a certain group, it doesn't. Obama has be hit with a great deal by the show, as has quite a few other non-fox affiliates (weiner ring a bell?).

The issue I see is what material is available when the show is getting written, and odds are something fox news has shown/done/said is prime material for a joke, simply because they deliver the material so consistently.

This isn't true of just fox though. I forget which channel it was, but when they changed their motto to "Learn forward" and in their ad showed only one person leaning backwards... well...

Most of the material writes itself. When someone states something one day, and the next tries to state the didn't (when it was filmed, see mccain and Mexicans/illegals starting the wildfires in arizona) boom, instant joke.

Sadly, this is a common thing from out representatives, whom I must say are either not representing properly, or can't hold themselves to higher standards. Is it too much to take a stand and keep it rather than flopping around?

Bookwrack wrote:The problem is, the Daily Show is a news satire program that does a better job of making a fair and balanced presentation of the news than ACTUAL news programs, and so this leaves people like Fox viewers befuddled and confused. They think that if a comedy show does a better job of telling the news than their own favorite channel, then it needs to treated like a news program, and not a comedy show.

That was pretty much the core of Wallace's failure in that interview, especially when he showed the Pam Anderson roast clip. He was attacking like the Daily Show was a rival news show, and not a comedy that just happens to do a better job of telling the news than anything his network can muster.

Also the rallies he and Colbert had at the capital muddied the issue.

alarmingrick wrote:biccat, Please tell us if Fox is so wonderful and fair, why aren't you defending any of the above mentioned links? ^

Several reasons:

1) I'm not going to watch 30 minutes + of youtube videos that are pieced together to show a supposed Fox bias.

2) Anyone can assemble a list of instances that "proves" bias. The allegation against Fox isn't that they're biased at certain points, it's that they're systematically biased, which must be shown by more than a collection of instances. Put briefly, the plural of anecdote is not data.

3) I'm assuming a lot of those are from Fox's opinion segments (Hannity, O'Reilly) rather than their news segments. It's important to distinguish the two.

4) I don't have the time or interest to respond to everyone who raises an issue. When that issue is raised as merely a collection of links to some guy's video blog, I have even less interest in responding.

biccat wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:biccat, Please tell us if Fox is so wonderful and fair, why aren't you defending any of the above mentioned links? ^

Several reasons:

1) I'm not going to watch 30 minutes + of youtube videos that are pieced together to show a supposed Fox bias.

2) Anyone can assemble a list of instances that "proves" bias. The allegation against Fox isn't that they're biased at certain points, it's that they're systematically biased, which must be shown by more than a collection of instances. Put briefly, the plural of anecdote is not data.

3) I'm assuming a lot of those are from Fox's opinion segments (Hannity, O'Reilly) rather than their news segments. It's important to distinguish the two.

4) I don't have the time or interest to respond to everyone who raises an issue. When that issue is raised as merely a collection of links to some guy's video blog, I have even less interest in responding.

The first piece is a reporter, not a talking head mentioned.
hard to waive their flag and say 'they rock' if you aren't willing to see, or even try, the whole picture.

Frazzled wrote:

Also the rallies he and Colbert had at the capital muddied the issue.

Appealing to Reasonable-ness, an impossible goal!

I think the OTT calmed down for like a week, then everyone in the media forgot.

Some people can't tell the difference between Fox's news programs and their opinion programs, probably all of their viewers actually.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Also the rallies he and Colbert had at the capital muddied the issue.

Appealing to Reasonable-ness, an impossible goal!

I think the OTT calmed down for like a week, then everyone in the media forgot.

Some people can't tell the difference between Fox's news programs and their opinion programs, probably all of their viewers actually.

Really? You thought thats what it was?

That's what it was supposed to be.

Tone down the rhetoric-thon.

What did you think it was? An obviously-bias-left-wing-palooza?

daedalus-templarius wrote:That's what it was supposed to be.

Tone down the rhetoric-thon.

What did you think it was? An obviously-bias-left-wing-palooza?

Totally not an obviously-bias-left-wing-palooza.

Zomg opposite signs, I'm totally surprised! And totally hadn't already seen them.

Well, I guess all those people that attended felt they had to balance Beck's rally out.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Zomg opposite signs, I'm totally surprised! And totally hadn't already seen them.

Well, I guess all those people that attended felt they had to balance Beck's rally out.

Could be. But that doesn't make them unbiased.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Zomg opposite signs, I'm totally surprised! And totally hadn't already seen them.

Well, I guess all those people that attended felt they had to balance Beck's rally out.

Beck's rally was self expressedly conservative. You just proved Biccat's case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides the Colbert KEEP FEAR ALIVE extravaganza was way better.