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.
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.
I proved him right because people they have no control over brought anti-beck/anti-conservative signs?
Sure, I guess you could put it that way.
Do you really think that the "Restoring Sanity" rally was not intended as a counterpoint to Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally? That it just happened to be at the same place, had a similar name, was around the same time and similarly promoted? While the stated intent may have been humor, the clearly expressed intent was a liberal counterpoint to Beck's rally.
Oh, and Beck actually advertised his as "nonpartisan." But we all know what he really meant, *wink*.
I don't think it was necessarily intended to be a liberal counterpoint, but a counterpoint indeed to the absurdness of a 'Restoring Honor' rally. I always enjoy labeling people 'liberal' and 'conservative' anyway, makes name-calling much easier if they are just a mouth-breather that I can look down upon.
Yea, Beck and nonpartisan are not allowed in the same sentence.
biccat wrote:
No, I'm not saying that at all. I just think that you accusing someone of sophestry is ironic. Humorously so, in fact.
Unless you're using some type of Alanis Morissette "irony" any accusation I make regarding sophistry can only be ironic in the way I described. Irony doesn't mean "What person X said made me think of something else." It means "What person X said expressed something in opposition to what their intended meaning was."
You could not mean anything other than what I described if you used the word correctly.
biccat wrote:
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.
Again, that's incorrect. Even the Greek definition of "tyrant" turns on cruelty and extremism, not the mere rule in the absence of law. In the ancient Greek cruelty and extremism distinguished tyranny from autocracy. This is basic Greek political philosophy, and is covered extensively in Plato's Republic. Note in particular that Plato was not intrinsically opposed to autocracy (in fact, his titular republic would have been considered an autocracy then), but used tyranny as a pejorative reference to a particular type of poorly managed autocracy.
I'm not changing any definitions. I merely know what these words mean, even in the archaic sense.
biccat wrote:
Fair enough. But rhetoric matters at least somewhat, especially where limits on legal authority are concerned.
I don't see why. There's no particular reason to assume that what someone says they believe regarding the limits of legal authority has anything to do with their propensity to, in action, respect that legal authority. In fact, you note this below.
biccat wrote:
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.
I'm confused, is rhetoric meaningless, or not?
Either way, as you noted in your earlier post, conservative adherence to the limits of government authority is a matter of constituionalist rhetoric. If it isn't, then its just an argument from preference, which is every bit as "arbitrary" as the progressive arguments you've been referencing for the past few pages.
biccat wrote:
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.
That's the ultimate basis, sure, but the argument was framed using the Constitution. The point being that both sides of the argument will use that document as a beat-stick when they feels its useful.
biccat wrote:
I think if you parsed the "freedom of religion" a bit more, you would find this to be mostly untrue.
Mostly, yes, but the point is that when you vaguely define a particular group, "leftists" for example, or a particular concept ("freedoms") its very easy to conceive of the support for only selected elements of that concept, by selected elements of that group as being somehow arbitrary, when they're in fact nothing of the sort. Arbitrary does not mean without a reason I accept, it means without reason.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
juraigamer wrote:Doesn't matter what he really meant. Anyone can advertise something, it doesn't mean they always adhear to it.
Yeah, that's kind of my point. Welcome to the conversation. Let me know if you're having trouble elsewhere and I can help you along.
juraigamer wrote:I mean, "Fair and balanced" is simply the same deal. False advertising. Tell me about the legal dangers of false advertising mr lawyer.
Depends, are you asking for legal advice? If so, you'll have to call my secretary and set up an appointment. I'll warn you, I'm not cheap. Send me a PM for details.
On the FNC front, it's a trademark, so deal with it.
@ dogma: now you're changing terms from one post to another. If you're not going to be consistent and continue to engage in borderline sophestry, I'm not sure the value of continuing this conversation.
juraigamer wrote:Doesn't matter what he really meant. Anyone can advertise something, it doesn't mean they always adhear to it.
Yeah, that's kind of my point. Welcome to the conversation. Let me know if you're having trouble elsewhere and I can help you along.
juraigamer wrote:I mean, "Fair and balanced" is simply the same deal. False advertising. Tell me about the legal dangers of false advertising mr lawyer.
Depends, are you asking for legal advice? If so, you'll have to call my secretary and set up an appointment. I'll warn you, I'm not cheap. Send me a PM for details.
On the FNC front, it's a trademark, so deal with it.
@ dogma: now you're changing terms from one post to another. If you're not going to be consistent and continue to engage in borderline sophestry, I'm not sure the value of continuing this conversation.
actually, welcome yourself to the conversation. we're (and have been)saying the same thing about Fox (lack of) news.
"But i'm more than just a little curious, how you're planning to go about making your amends, to the dead?" -The Noose-APC
"Little angel go away
Come again some other day
The devil has my ear today
I'll never hear a word you say" Weak and Powerless - APC
Your point about what? The daily show? Joh Stewart?
You stated that comedy isn't a defense of bias, I stated that fox news is consistently advertising false information. I don't know if you got off topic at some point, but the thread is about Jon on FNS, and what this means.
You say Stewart is bias. We say everyone is naturally bias.
biccat wrote: [the daily show]
It's not supposed to be taken seriously.
If you believe this, why are you up in arms defending the channel in this thread? You won't concede, your simply trolling in favor of fox news.
We cannot discuss this subject with you. You believe you are correct, and nothing anyone can say, show, prove or post can attempt to dissuade you. Another casualty of the ongoing lies of
And I'm done. This isn't worth my time and I wish I listened to the others in the tread who stated that. Talking to a brick wall is all well and good, but trying to get the wall to move that way... well it just doesn't work.
Desert Hunters of Vior'la The Purge Iron Hands Adepts of Pestilence Tallaran Desert Raiders Grey Knight Teleport Assault Force
Lt. Coldfire wrote:Seems to me that you should be refereeing and handing out red cards--like a boss.
Your point about what? The daily show? Joh Stewart?
No, my point that despite advertising the "Reclaiming Sanity" rally as neutral, it was intended as a left-wing response to Glen Beck's totally-not-right-wing rally.
juraigamer wrote:You stated that comedy isn't a defense of bias, I stated that fox news is consistently advertising false information. I don't know if you got off topic at some point, but the thread is about Jon on FNS, and what this means.
Um...what? The thread may have meandered somewhat, but the ultimate issue is whether Stewart is biased, as pointed out by Matthews. Fox can be biased, but that doesn't mean that their point is invalid. For example, Russia today just announced that it was raining in Moscow. Does that mean that it's sunny in Moscow, or can we take them at their word?
juraigamer wrote:You say Stewart is bias. We say everyone is naturally bias.
Which is irrelevant, especially since Stewart claims he's not biased. You're reinforcing the point, not rebutting it.
juraigamer wrote:
biccat wrote: [the daily show]
It's not supposed to be taken seriously.
If you believe this, why are you up in arms defending the channel in this thread? You won't concede, your simply trolling in favor of fox news.
What on earth does this have to do with anything? I accuse TDS of being biased, so I'm wrong for defending Fox? How does that follow?
juraigamer wrote:We cannot discuss this subject with you. You believe you are correct, and nothing anyone can say, show, prove or post can attempt to dissuade you. Another casualty of the ongoing lies of
Yes, linking to "crooksandliars.com" totally reinforces your point. Would you like me to link to FreeRepublic to reinforce my point that Fox isn't biased? Honestly, at least some degree of intellectual honesty would be appreciated.
juraigamer wrote:And I'm done. This isn't worth my time and I wish I listened to the others in the tread who stated that. Talking to a brick wall is all well and good, but trying to get the wall to move that way... well it just doesn't work.
You're trying to convince me by attacking my beliefs. Here's a hint: that doesn't work.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2011/06/25 21:58:38
Does anyone else wonder why Fox is so concerned about what a lowly comedian thinks or says?
could it be that exposing the truth about them, no matter where the exposure comes from, is dangerous to them?
Seems to me if he's "a nothing that doesn't matter" that they are elevating him by their focus on him.
"But i'm more than just a little curious, how you're planning to go about making your amends, to the dead?" -The Noose-APC
"Little angel go away
Come again some other day
The devil has my ear today
I'll never hear a word you say" Weak and Powerless - APC
I find it quite humorous that there's so much regard for BBC in the world. Sure their bias is less than overt, but they control the narrative by suggesting that "solar panels are the future" and accept the notion that Climate change (or whatever the hell it is now) is man made. It's very subtle in its manipulation of people. There's no real debate, it's a nice, gentle filter to make you hardly notice. Same with most newspapers and news magazines. TIME is especially guilty as they had the "We're All Socialists Now" Cover two years ago. Not only did that prove they're completely in the tank for Obama, but it shows that they are also out of touch with most of the nation.
This is what I see from Fox, a channel that has high ratings because they actually get good interviews on their "news maker shows". One of their better shows is Fox Report with Brett Baier. That is one of the few shows where there can be one or two liberals and one or two conservatives talking about an issue and there's a decent debate with some pretty good dialogue. One of the worst is Bill O'Reilly, he is too damn narcissistic to ever let someone talk (his favorite tactic of saying "we know all that already" is very irritating) and he's only gotten worse in the past couple of years.
One thing I do notice about MSNBC is they're much like the BBC is narrative controlling. They accept the premise that "Separation of Church and State" is in the Constitution (it's not, the whole purpose of the Establishment clause was to prevent the Federal Government from creating state religion, while the individual states did have the right to. This clause didn't prevent God being in public buildings either, as most of our laws are based in ancient Judeo-Christian law, the clause is also very loose in it's definition of "religion" too), the Tenth Amendment doesn't matter anymore, that the Interstate Commerce Clause means the Federal Government has the right to regulate every kind of interstate commerce (or lack thereof in the case of Wickard v. Filborn, while the whole point of the Clause was to allow the Federal Government to oversee transactions between individual states the other countries, and to allow for universally accepted coinage to be used as to avoid more "almost civil wars" between Virginia and North Carolina), the Obamacare will save money (no, it gutted $500 billion from Medicare which is conveniently ignored all the time by the Left, and has a base cost of $1 Trillion dollars), that stimulus and Keyenesian economics is the only way to make economies grow (This is epic fail on a grand scale as this assumes "static economics" will continue. People adapt to changes in the short and long term. It was also avarice by rather large Unions, Left-Friendly Corporations [GE for Example] and large Democrat voting blocs, as soon as these groups got paid, the checks stopped flowing) That the only way to make the Debt go down is to raise taxes (This will cause contraction of an economy unseen in this country, more and more people with any kind of capital will sit on it, or better yet cease working so they don't have to pay more taxes, eventually people get tired of getting more and more of their money taken to feed the parasites of society.) The Second Amendment is for militias only (which is untrue) etc...etc...
The one thing all of the media were guilty of was accepting the idea that the Uprising in Egypt was about freedom, this is nonsense. 70,000 people have been arrested since the military took the government over and the Muslim Brotherhood is now the "Peace and Justice Party" of Egypt.
I could go one about the Media and narrative shifting. It's quite refreshing to watch a newscaster fumble over an obvious bias and then they push it as universally accepted truth.
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" - Put Away
1943-1944 Era 1250 point Großdeutchland Force - Bolt Action
"The best medicine for Wraithlords? Multilasers. The best way to kill an Avatar? Lasguns."
"Time to pour out some liquor for the pinkmisted Harlequins"
biccat wrote:Do you really think that the "Restoring Sanity" rally was not intended as a counterpoint to Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally? That it just happened to be at the same place, had a similar name, was around the same time and similarly promoted? While the stated intent may have been humor, the clearly expressed intent was a liberal counterpoint to Beck's rally.
Oh, and Beck actually advertised his as "nonpartisan." But we all know what he really meant, *wink*.
Of course Stewart's campaign was the counter to Beck's. Your mistake is in assuming that because Stewart is criticising Beck, it must be left vs right.
It's actually 'sensible, rational discussion' vs 'ludicrous, fantastical, fearmongering nonsense'.
Beck was at the time the most prominent example, so he's going to be the prime target. But Stewart also went after Olbermann, exactly to make the point that the most important thing is to bring sanity back to the debate, to get rid of the directly aligned pundits and their stupid nonsense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:I find it quite humorous that there's so much regard for BBC in the world. Sure their bias is less than overt, but they control the narrative by suggesting that "solar panels are the future" and accept the notion that Climate change (or whatever the hell it is now) is man made.
That isn't bias, that's a basic acceptance of reality.
It is a vitally important role of the media to recognise that beyond all the political bs there are basic, undeniable realities. One of the biggest problems with US media is that they simply aren't willing to do that, and it's produced this horribly artificial world of political reporting, where they just show a quote from one side, a quote from the other, and never bother to tell anyone if one side or the other is actually saying anything that's true.
This is what I see from Fox, a channel that has high ratings because they actually get good interviews on their "news maker shows".
They get high ratings compared to other cable news channels. Which is like being the most successful stand up in Spokeville, Illinois.
They get this because there is simply a market for 'tune in and be outraged by the world' rightwing media, that doesn't exist on the same level on the rightwing. It's the same market that so many talkback radio channels tap into.
The relative success of these stations only measures the popularity of the message, it doesn't measure the accuracy or the quality of it's sender.
as most of our laws are based in ancient Judeo-Christian law, the clause is also very loose in it's definition of "religion" too
Go look up the 10 Commandments. See how many are actually illegal under US law. Then consider any historic state that didn't also have those same commandment in law.
Then understand Christianity is a guide to your personal life, it is not a call to build a state and hold everyone to your morals. Then go look up Greek, Roman and Byzantine principles of government, and see their heritage in modern societies.
Then realise your claim that your laws are based in ancient Judeo-Christian law is complete nonsense.
the Obamacare will save money (no, it gutted $500 billion from Medicare which is conveniently ignored all the time by the Left, and has a base cost of $1 Trillion dollars
The difference betwen projecting a saving and having no mechanism to enforce cuts if the savings do not eventuate, and 'gutting' a program is vast.
that stimulus and Keyenesian economics is the only way to make economies grow
Keynesian economics argues no such thing. That's simply absurd. It is a useful tool to maintain aggregate demand in the short to medium term, during a period of economic decline.
It has nothing to do with long term growth.
People adapt to changes in the short and long term.
That vague little truism has no relevance to the fundamental debate over why stimulus spending can be a good thing - the idea that Say's Law doesn't hold, and that there is a business cycle in which aggregate demand ebbs and flows over time.
That the only way to make the Debt go down is to raise taxes (This will cause contraction of an economy unseen in this country, more and more people with any kind of capital will sit on it, or better yet cease working so they don't have to pay more taxes, eventually people get tired of getting more and more of their money taken to feed the parasites of society.)
That's an entirely fictional claim, with no evidence in observed or projected econometrics.
Really, your whole summary is just terrible. All you've done is show how harmful the glut of lies and gibberish spewed by the media is to viewers. Instead of becoming grounded in basic fundamentals of economics (or simply being presented with the actual level of debate between economists and leaving the detail in the background) you've been fed ludicrous fantasies driven by political agendas, that question the most basic elements of accepted economics, and champion long discredited nonsense. The result is that you've come to base your political views on incoherent gibberish, and in turn the politicians in your country have followed you and 300 million other ill-informed people to build policies around that incoherent gibberish.
Then you all wonder why government policy isn't working like you thought it would.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/28 03:04:31
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
People who criticize Stewart or Colbert always seem to ignore the fact that they also criticize the president and liberals, and always seem to miss their generally nonpartisan ripping of incompetent news organizations and reporters, whether Fox or MSNBC or whoever. The restore sanity thing was ripping on hysteria and sensationalism and fearmongering in our media, which is all over the political spectrum. Beck was a prominent example, and a total ass.
Adepticon 2015: Team Tourney Best Imperial Team- Team Ironguts, Adepticon 2014: Team Tourney 6th/120, Best Imperial Team- Cold Steel Mercs 2, 40k Championship Qualifier ~25/226
More2010-2014 GT/Major RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 78-20-9 // SW: 8-1-2 (Golden Ticket with SW), BA: 29-9-4 6th Ed GT & RTT Record (W/L/D) -- CSM: 36-12-2 // BA: 11-4-1 // SW: 1-1-1
DT:70S++++G(FAQ)M++B++I+Pw40k99#+D+++A+++/sWD105R+++T(T)DM+++++ A better way to score Sportsmanship in tournaments The 40K Rulebook & Codex FAQs. You should have these bookmarked if you play this game.
The Dakka Dakka Forum Rules You agreed to abide by these when you signed up.
Stormrider wrote:I find it quite humorous that there's so much regard for BBC in the world. Sure their bias is less than overt, but they control the narrative by suggesting that "solar panels are the future" and accept the notion that Climate change (or whatever the hell it is now) is man made. It's very subtle in its manipulation of people. There's no real debate, it's a nice, gentle filter to make you hardly notice.
That's what debate is.
For some reason many people, and Americans especially so, seem to have debate enshrined as this thing which is devoid of coercion, manipulation, or emotional appeals. It isn't. In fact those tactics are encouraged. If you watch any competitive debate you will be guaranteed to see all of those tactics employed.
Stormrider wrote:
Same with most newspapers and news magazines. TIME is especially guilty as they had the "We're All Socialists Now" Cover two years ago. Not only did that prove they're completely in the tank for Obama, but it shows that they are also out of touch with most of the nation.
Well, no, not really. Every person in the developed world lives in a socialist system, and most of them benefit from it. The only issue is that, in the United States, the word socialist is a pejorative.
The sign "keep your government hands off my medicare" exemplifies this stupidity.
Stormrider wrote:
One thing I do notice about MSNBC is they're much like the BBC is narrative controlling. They accept the premise that "Separation of Church and State" is in the Constitution (it's not, the whole purpose of the Establishment clause was to prevent the Federal Government from creating state religion, while the individual states did have the right to.
They don't anymore, not after the Bill of Rights was extrapolated to state law.
Additionally, in the context of the federal government, the 1st amendment is a de facto separation of Church and state.
Stormrider wrote:
This clause didn't prevent God being in public buildings either, as most of our laws are based in ancient Judeo-Christian law, the clause is also very loose in it's definition of "religion" too.
It doesn't define religion at all, that is left to those interpreting it.
Stormrider wrote:
The one thing all of the media were guilty of was accepting the idea that the Uprising in Egypt was about freedom, this is nonsense. 70,000 people have been arrested since the military took the government over and the Muslim Brotherhood is now the "Peace and Justice Party" of Egypt.
I don't even know where to begin berating you for what is wrong with this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:Which is like being the most successful stand up in Spokeville, Illinois.
Hey now, Spokeville is in Wisconsin, don't lump us in with them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2011/06/28 04:19:06
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
For some reason many people, and Americans especially so, seem to have debate enshrined as this thing which is devoid of coercion, manipulation, or emotional appeals. It isn't. In fact those tactics are encouraged. If you watch any competitive debate you will be guaranteed to see all of those tactics employed.
At some point shouting 'bias!' became this way of being able to immediately dismiss whatever the other person was saying. It didn't have to be wrong, just biased.
Really weird times we're living in.
Hey now, Spokeville is in Wisconsin, don't lump us in with them.
And Spokeville, Wisconsin would have sounded better too. feth.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
So Jon Stewart is standing around yelling that the Emperor has no clothes on, and Fox News is trying to claim that he's naked too. Except, if he is naked, who cares? He's not the Emperor.
themocaw wrote:So Jon Stewart is standing around yelling that the Emperor has no clothes on, and Fox News is trying to claim that he's naked too. Except, if he is naked, who cares? He's not the Emperor.
biccat wrote:
No, I'm not saying that at all. I just think that you accusing someone of sophestry is ironic. Humorously so, in fact.
Unless you're using some type of Alanis Morissette "irony" any accusation I make regarding sophistry can only be ironic in the way I described. Irony doesn't mean "What person X said made me think of something else." It means "What person X said expressed something in opposition to what their intended meaning was."
You could not mean anything other than what I described if you used the word correctly.
biccat wrote:
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.
Again, that's incorrect. Even the Greek definition of "tyrant" turns on cruelty and extremism, not the mere rule in the absence of law. In the ancient Greek cruelty and extremism distinguished tyranny from autocracy. This is basic Greek political philosophy, and is covered extensively in Plato's Republic. Note in particular that Plato was not intrinsically opposed to autocracy (in fact, his titular republic would have been considered an autocracy then), but used tyranny as a pejorative reference to a particular type of poorly managed autocracy.
I'm not changing any definitions. I merely know what these words mean, even in the archaic sense.
biccat wrote:
Fair enough. But rhetoric matters at least somewhat, especially where limits on legal authority are concerned.
I don't see why. There's no particular reason to assume that what someone says they believe regarding the limits of legal authority has anything to do with their propensity to, in action, respect that legal authority. In fact, you note this below.
biccat wrote:
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.
I'm confused, is rhetoric meaningless, or not?
Either way, as you noted in your earlier post, conservative adherence to the limits of government authority is a matter of constituionalist rhetoric. If it isn't, then its just an argument from preference, which is every bit as "arbitrary" as the progressive arguments you've been referencing for the past few pages.
biccat wrote:
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.
That's the ultimate basis, sure, but the argument was framed using the Constitution. The point being that both sides of the argument will use that document as a beat-stick when they feels its useful.
biccat wrote:
I think if you parsed the "freedom of religion" a bit more, you would find this to be mostly untrue.
Mostly, yes, but the point is that when you vaguely define a particular group, "leftists" for example, or a particular concept ("freedoms") its very easy to conceive of the support for only selected elements of that concept, by selected elements of that group as being somehow arbitrary, when they're in fact nothing of the sort. Arbitrary does not mean without a reason I accept, it means without reason.
*popcorn*
They should have you two hash it out in a national debate that is viewed, live, in schools across the USA.
The Academic v The Lawyer
MikZor wrote:
We can't help that american D&D is pretty much daily life for us (Aussies)
Walking to shops, "i'll take a short cut through this bush", random encounter! Lizard with no legs.....
I kid Since i avoid bushlands that is But we're not that bad... are we?
biccat wrote:
No, I'm not saying that at all. I just think that you accusing someone of sophestry is ironic. Humorously so, in fact.
Unless you're using some type of Alanis Morissette "irony" any accusation I make regarding sophistry can only be ironic in the way I described. Irony doesn't mean "What person X said made me think of something else." It means "What person X said expressed something in opposition to what their intended meaning was."
You could not mean anything other than what I described if you used the word correctly.
biccat wrote:
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.
Again, that's incorrect. Even the Greek definition of "tyrant" turns on cruelty and extremism, not the mere rule in the absence of law. In the ancient Greek cruelty and extremism distinguished tyranny from autocracy. This is basic Greek political philosophy, and is covered extensively in Plato's Republic. Note in particular that Plato was not intrinsically opposed to autocracy (in fact, his titular republic would have been considered an autocracy then), but used tyranny as a pejorative reference to a particular type of poorly managed autocracy.
I'm not changing any definitions. I merely know what these words mean, even in the archaic sense.
biccat wrote:
Fair enough. But rhetoric matters at least somewhat, especially where limits on legal authority are concerned.
I don't see why. There's no particular reason to assume that what someone says they believe regarding the limits of legal authority has anything to do with their propensity to, in action, respect that legal authority. In fact, you note this below.
biccat wrote:
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.
I'm confused, is rhetoric meaningless, or not?
Either way, as you noted in your earlier post, conservative adherence to the limits of government authority is a matter of constituionalist rhetoric. If it isn't, then its just an argument from preference, which is every bit as "arbitrary" as the progressive arguments you've been referencing for the past few pages.
biccat wrote:
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.
That's the ultimate basis, sure, but the argument was framed using the Constitution. The point being that both sides of the argument will use that document as a beat-stick when they feels its useful.
biccat wrote:
I think if you parsed the "freedom of religion" a bit more, you would find this to be mostly untrue.
Mostly, yes, but the point is that when you vaguely define a particular group, "leftists" for example, or a particular concept ("freedoms") its very easy to conceive of the support for only selected elements of that concept, by selected elements of that group as being somehow arbitrary, when they're in fact nothing of the sort. Arbitrary does not mean without a reason I accept, it means without reason.
*popcorn*
They should have you two hash it out in a national debate that is viewed, live, in schools across the USA.
The Academic v The Lawyer
I'd watch with loads of Popcorn myself!
"But i'm more than just a little curious, how you're planning to go about making your amends, to the dead?" -The Noose-APC
"Little angel go away
Come again some other day
The devil has my ear today
I'll never hear a word you say" Weak and Powerless - APC
Desert Hunters of Vior'la 
The Purge 
Iron Hands 
Adepts of Pestilence 
Tallaran Desert Raiders 
Grey Knight Teleport Assault Force
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" 
