|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,575 Year: 2,832/9,624 Month: 677/1,588 Week: 83/229 Day: 55/28 Hour: 1/10 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 2574 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Open letter to conservatives | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2574 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Written by Russell King:
Category: Cafe - TPM – Talking Points Memo This strikes me as a complete total devastation of the conservative idiots in the Republican Party. On the other hand, it also can be construed as a sort of Gish Gallop, I suppose. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3281 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Xongsmith writes:
I don't think you understand how gish gallop works. It's more than just throwing a bunch of facts out there. In fact, there's nothing wrong with throwing a bunch of facts out there. On the other hand, it also can be construed as a sort of Gish Gallop, I suppose. In a formal face to face debate, gish gallop works by giving a bunch of inaccurate and complicated facts over a wide variety of topics knowing the opponent won't have enough time to debunk them all. In an online debate setting, gish gallop works by jumping from one topic to the next without addressing the criticisms of the previous topic. For example, the following conversation is an outline of what a gish gallop debate style looks like. I've seen quite a few of these on this forum alone. Person A: X is true because of Y. Person B: But Y has been proven to be false. Here is the evidence... A: Z is false because of X. B: Hang on a second. I just proved to you that Y is proven false, thus X is meaningless. How could you claim Z? A: Never mind that. Q is false because R was a hoax. B: Q never depended on R to be true. In fact, the people who supported Q proved that R was a hoax. It was never widely accepted anyway. A: R was the biggest hoax in history and scientists continue to use it to prove M. B: Damn it, I just proved to you that R was never big. It was a hoax and it was exposed right away by scientists. A: X is true because R is a hoax. B: What the hell? A: N is false therefore Y is true. B's head explodes. The reason that blog isn't a gish gallop is because the author provided a link to news articles that prove every point he made. They're not just random facts. They're compiled in a coherent manner that anyone can understand. Furthermore, his sources are reputable news sources, not some wacko's website.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9944 Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
These types of articles tend to backfire since you can find Democrats who are guilty of the same behavior. It is more an argument of degree than kind.
What the Republicans really need to be held accountable for is their refusal to govern. Yelling "No" at the top of your lungs is not governance. Even worse, it appears that Republicans are now going to run their campaigns based on what they DIDN'T do. They will actually be bragging to their constituents about laws that they didn't vote for, and that's it. This observation was driven home by Mitch McConnell (Senate minority leader) in an interview he did yesterday on CNN. He was asked about incumbent Republicans that were facing tough primary challenges, specifically about a congressman from Utah. Paraphrasing, McConnell stated that this congressman was a "solid conservative, and he is opposed to all of the same bills that his primary opponents are opposed to." That's it. Nothing about what this incumbent was FOR, only about what he was against. How long can a political party stay relevant when their only response to "What are you for?" is "not that"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
I think you and the writer of this article have confused Conservatives, with Neoconservatives, as they are quite different. It also fails to recognize the simple fact that there are a good many conservatives in the Democratic Party. Making this article nothing more than missguided anti-republican drivel.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I think you and the writer of this article have confused Conservatives, with Neoconservatives, as they are quite different. So which would you class yourself as? Which would you class GW Bush as? Palin? McCain? What about the tea party movement - Is that neo-con?
Making this article nothing more than missguided anti-republican drivel. Which significant figures in the Republican party would you say are not neo-cons? Just an interested outside observer......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
So which would you class yourself as? Libertarian -- socially liberal, fiscally conservative.
Which would you class GW Bush as? Palin? McCain? Neo-Cons.
What about the tea party movement - Is that neo-con? I think most of them are probably conservative, but many neo-cons have piggybacked off of them.
Which significant figures in the Republican party would you say are not neo-cons? Colin Powell and Ron Paul stick out. "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Colin Powell and Ron Paul stick out. With my admittedly limited knowledge of these individuals I am guessing that the 'open letter' in question wasn't really directed at either of these two people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
I am guessing that the 'open letter' in question wasn't really directed at either of these two people. I'm guessing by the tone and invective, it would apply to anyone who refers to themselves as a Republican in one regard or another. The problem is that the open letter generalizes and makes sweeping allegations. I think it would be more wise and conducive to productive conversation to narrow it down to specific people within the party instead of blaming the entire GOP. That way you can be an objective observer versus being a biased mouthpiece for the left. "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3281 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
Generalization and sweeping allegations? The author provided very specific examples and links to reputable news sources as evidence of these specific examples. Did you even read the article and the provided links?
The problem is that the open letter generalizes and makes sweeping allegations. I think it would be more wise and conducive to productive conversation to narrow it down to specific people within the party instead of blaming the entire GOP. That way you can be an objective observer versus being a biased mouthpiece for the left.
And that's exactly what the author of the article did. He was addressing individual conservatives, not the republican party as a whole. Again, did you read the article and the provided links or are you just taking the middle man approach for the sake of political correctness?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I'm guessing by the tone and invective, it would apply to anyone who refers to themselves as a Republican in one regard or another. Maybe more accurately it is aimed at all those who support the current actions and direction of the Republican party? Like I say - I dunno - I am an outsider to this. But that does seem to be how it could be construed.
The problem is that the open letter generalizes and makes sweeping allegations. In a party political system an open letter inevitably will. But open letters of this sort can be a powerful way to get a point across. Despite inviting that inevitable accusation.
I think it would be more wise and conducive to productive conversation to narrow it down to specific people within the party instead of blaming the entire GOP. I think that those it is aimed at are those who hold to or support a particular direction that the GOP appears to be moving in. From the letter:
Letter writes: I grew up in a profoundly Republican home, so I can remember when you wore a very different face than the one we see now. You've lost me and you've lost most of America. Because I believe having responsible choices is important to democracy, I'd like to give you some advice and an invitation. First, the invitation: Come back to us. That doesn't sound like a condemnation of all Republicans at all.
That way you can be an objective observer versus being a biased mouthpiece for the left. I don't think you can make this sort of point (whether you agree with it or not) by specifying individuals alone (although he does mention a fair few) When an established political party in any historically proud democracy lurches to what could be called an extreme these sort of comparisons are inevitable. And maybe even necessary. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Generalization and sweeping allegations? The author provided very specific examples and links to reputable news sources as evidence of these specific examples. Broad in the sense that he indicts the entire Republican party for what only some do or have done. Could a conservative publication point to Bill Clinton's philandering and conclude that the entire DNC agrees with it or acts as irresponsibly?
did you read the article and the provided links or are you just taking the middle man approach for the sake of political correctness? I abhor political correctness, so, no. We see publications like this all the time. It's a smear campaign, the same you could expect from Rush Limbaugh and Co. I'm simply judging the effectiveness of the column. I think most people, and soon as they read a few lines, are already tuning out. If you really want to be heard, I think there is a smarter way. "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
So which would you class yourself as? Conservative, like Barry Goldwater, I lean a bit to the libertarian side. I am not sure if its possible but I would say right-wing-libertarian, or libertarian-conservative.
Which would you class GW Bush as? Palin? McCain?
NeoCon, NeoCon, RINO (republican in name only), McCain is tricky because he flip-flops so much, and I am not sure McCain knows what he is.
What about the tea party movement - Is that neo-con? I don't think it started out that way, but I think as it got going many neocons "jumped on the bandwagon". I am not as involved as I used to be, Living in the Washington DC area has made me a little jaded, and I must say I do not know much about the tea party thing.
Which significant figures in the Republican party would you say are not neo-cons? the Pauls. I realize ppl may not think Ron Paul is significant, but I voted for him, so he is significant to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Conservative, like Barry Goldwater, I lean a bit to the libertarian side. I am not sure if its possible but I would say right-wing-libertarian, or libertarian-conservative. I don't know Barry Goldwater. So in what sense are you libertarian and in what sense right wing? What sort of issues do you vote on primarily for example?
I realize ppl may not think Ron Paul is significant, but I voted for him, so he is significant to me. Alas I don't know Ron Paul either. So my ignorance of your US political characters is not helping in this thread. I'll look them up on Wiki or something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3281 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
And that's exactly what he didn't do. This was an open letter to conservatives, not an open letter to the republican party. And in the "letter", he pointed out each individual case.
Broad in the sense that he indicts the entire Republican party for what only some do or have done. Could a conservative publication point to Bill Clinton's philandering and conclude that the entire DNC agrees with it or acts as irresponsibly?
Again, the author didn't condemn the whole republican party. He specifically pointed out specific cases. Did you read the article? What the author did was pointing out individual cases that, after a while, formed a pattern for hypocrisy. Case in point, you can't condemn homosexuality during the day and hire a rent boy during the night.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4218 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
I don't know Barry Goldwater. So in what sense are you libertarian and in what sense right wing? What sort of issues do you vote on primarily for example? I think wikipedia does an okay job: Barry Goldwater - Wikipedia how so libertarian?I don't like to mind anyone's business but my own. a fan of states-rights, less centralized federal government. how is it any of my business what people in California or Alaksa want to do in thier states? why should I have a say in it? I could give a shit if you are gay, or muslim, or athiest, and want to marry each other in CA, because I don't nor ever will live there. You want to murder your foetus, go ahead its none of my business. What issue do I vote on?Taxes, less government intrusion, 2nd amendment rights, State Rights, civil liberties, legalizing marijuana, Edited by Artemis Entreri, : i had to add some more garbage Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024