Reasons why the NeoCons aren't real Republicans

There's no topic approval process for coffee house threads because posting new threads in the coffee house is not restricted. Schraf's post was not "allowed" or approved; she simply posted it. You know, like you could have done.

Thank you for that. Perhaps that is what i will do. Nonetheless, that was an egregious abuse of power, and did, indeed, betray a personal reaction based on serious bias against me and conservatism.

I agree. Actually there are about a dozen standards for conservatives, and for creationists too I might add, to which the leftists and evolutionists need not conform. It's beyond me to sort them out. You kind of discover them as you go. I see that TrueCreation is raising a topic proposal to object to how "evidence" is construed against his points, which I had thought was unfair when I read through his thread, but there's no way to argue against all this effectively. It's odd but in this place where Reason is SUPPOSEDLY god, there's quite a bit of whimsy involved in the service of various biases.Somebody just said that the Coffee House is open for anybody to post in without going through the formal process of proposal. I didn't know that, but if true go post it over there. You'll be dealing with the same mentality of course, and a lot more of it all at once, but that's the breaks.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-19-2005 09:22 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 07-19-2005 09:24 PM

The problem is not that there are two standards (or a dozen), the standards are the same for all. However, the cons and creos seem to have great difficulty in understanding what evidence is.If only we lived in a world where circular reasoning was valid then cons and creos would have semi decent arguments. But, we live in a world where people need hard and fast facts to convince them that a particular argument has some merit. Unfortunately, neither cons or creos seem capable of constructing valid arguments. It's like the blind leading the blind and the dumb adding supportive somments to the equally dumb, I am surprised that adults cannot see ther errors.Keep plugging away, it is great entertainment.Brian.

That is simply another statement from the biased point of view. While there's a grain of truth in it, in that most of us creos and conservatives stumble in here with a much more casual experience of internet conversation behind us and find ourselves slapped with the requirements of PhD dissertations even in Coffee House conversations, it's only a grain as we have plenty of evidence that is simply cancelled out by bias, and the evidence on the other side is really pathetic a great deal of the time, and even nonexistent, as CS just pointed out.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-19-2005 09:34 PM

But it is only your bias that is making you imagine that the bias is there.You do know that you are equally entitled to ask for the same supporting evidence that others ask of you?Brian.

The difference is that YOUR bias is backed by the majority and by the Establishment here. You have no way of seeing how powerful a force that is.

I did post it again in Coffee House, along with a Manji article, where she, a prominent Muslim intellectual, supports our contention that the faith likely has something to do with islamism and its terror. I also posted a link to an Ijaz article where he challenges his fellow Muslims to confront the islamists and defeat them, rather than passively sitting back and letting non Muslims deal with the crisis. Obviously he agrees with me that they have allowed the Islamists in the west to become powerful, too powerful. I've also posted Taheri articles. But, of course, none of that will be sufficient evidence that my arguments are sound and fact based. It appears that here the definition of sound reasoning and solid evidence is agreement with the leftist majority.

My (or our) bias is actually backed by the basic rules of research.It isn't difficult.Anyway, I'm off to bed, sleep tight and have a peaceful night.Brian.

Yup. Anybody the Right produces is not acceptable evidence, nor any argument no matter how well argued with how many facts. Quoting a creationist the same. Our sources are biased by definition while theirs are accurate and neutral by definition. My first attempt here to argue along these lines about the terrorism inherent in Islam itself Islam does not hate Christianity got me soundly blasted as a "bigot" Message 319 after much argument.My sources are just bigoted by definition you know, no matter how scholarly. And I produced a list of 25 references at one point. Message 243 Admittedly I violated forum rules in not introducing each but I was new here at the time.That's also a thread that to my mind demonstrates the local difficulty with logic. But they're very aggressive about their misunderstanding of logic nevertheless.Forgive me if I sit back a bit and let you be the target this time. I'm sure I could be provoked to join in eventually.It's simple. If a writer believes terrorism is inherent in Islam, that's bigotry, period. There is NO reasonable argument for this position on this site. By definition. But since the poor things are simply blind to their own bias, I just shrug it off. It does have the effect of making me less than eager to track down evidence for them, and I'll admit my research has been sloppy at times. It's just not worth it. They'll scream if you do and scream if you don't.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-20-2005 03:09 AM

you know, we hear from the right about the leftist media bias. in fact, it's all i ever hear anymore. the media's left biased.it seems that since i keep hearing this over the media, it actually disproves itself. if the media were ACTUALLY left-biased, we probably wouldn't hear about how left-biased it was. and yet if we write that the lying is inherent in the right, we also get slammed, by people who insist we're just listening to sources on the left and saying the right isn't credible. such as, well, here.it's sort of the backwards logic of threat. before the hutus masacred the tutsis in rwanda, all you heard about was how much of a threat the tutsis were, and how they were the people in power and didn't deserve to be. but it was really the hutus in the power, and their distortions, that lead to the atrocity. when one party decries that the other is biased and controlling, it's usually just the opposite.it may well be bigotry to say that hatred and terrorism are inherent to islam, but that's because you forgot a few words. most muslims are pretty decent people. hatred and terrorism are inherent to radical fundamentalist islam, in the middle east. but the religion as a whole is probably not the blame ---- just the part that says we're a threat to them.

---

אָרַח

You AREN'T hearing it over the media, you are referring to the conservative talk shows I'm sure. They aren't "the media." The media are the journalists, the reporters, the news reports and the commentators within their bailiwicks. It happens to be true. You don't argue your case, you simply repeat the same old leftist line. You call the right bigots and liars based on your own bigoted viewpoint and will not even try to follow the argument. You don't even know what the argument is, as is clear from your next statement (after the tutsis/hutus). That is true, and it describes what is going on here on the part of the left, which is what you guys will never see. There is no willingness whatever to even think through the reasonable arguments on the right so sure are they of their rightness. You insist on your own bias, that's all that's going on here, and absolutely refuse to understand the arguments that support the view being discussed. You just regurgitate the same old leftist swill that distinguishes bbetween "radical fundamentalist islam" and all the decent Muslims without the slightest recognition that that is taken into account and answered by the argument you are trashing. I don't think you've bothered to read any of it you are so sure of the rightness of your viewpoint, which is EXACTLY what CS and I are agreeing is the typical kind of thinking around here. Do you even know what the term "bigotry" means? It fits your argument here to a t. It means having a viewpoint that will not yield to any amount of reasonable correction.This message has been edited by Faith, 07-20-2005 04:15 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 07-20-2005 04:17 AM

i'm hearing it anytime a conservative pundit opens their mouth on the media. you simply repeat the same old rightist line. now, i called them spin doctors because they are calling other people liars and bigots, when often it seems to be that they're the liars. it doesn't take a genius to spot a spin campaign, and that's what this is. all spin, no facts. something bad comes out abotu the republicans? no, that's not what really happened! it really happened the other way! the leftist media is showing their bias! whine whine whine. ....what reasonable arguments? from what i see, the right is pretty pre-occupied with telling us how left-biased the media is. nobody even seems to care about actual politics anymore, we're just sitting here duking it over who actually said what to whom first, and how none of the facts actually matter and they all happened the other way around.and the left is not innocent either. the left are cowards, and need to grow a pair. how about this. i know muslims. and they're not trying to kill me.

quote:

---

Main Entry: bigot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun

​

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

---

"terrorism is inherent to islam" would be a prejudice that paints the picture of all muslims being violent criminals with no respect for life. that *IS* bigotry, because it is a pre-judgement of muslim people you have never met, and misrepresents the majority of the islamic citizens of the world. so i'm a bigot for claiming that a majority group in power asserting the minority poses a threat to it is spin? but you're not a bigot for claiming all muslims are terrorists? then reasonably correct me, faith. where is your proof of the liberal media bias?

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

This is getting too long, and we're starting to go in circles. So I'll be brief, and let you have the last word.

---

Too bad.I disagree that things were starting to go in circles.What it looked like to me was that you got backed into a corner and now you are giving up.What I'd really like you to address, though, is what role do you think Affirmative Action had in allowing women and blacks the access to better education opportunities which, in turn, enabled them to get better paying employment which, in turn, made them a market that GM and other large companies would seek to cater to and not offend?Oh, and I'd also like to know, when you take a child to the emergency room and she is treated by a white male doctor, if you wonder if he only got in to medical school because he's a legacy, or because he's white? Do you wonder if the white male had to repeat the certification exam to become a doctor? Do you wonder if he was at the bottom of his class? Do you wonder if he was given special consideration because he was from a disadvantaged, rural area with bad schools and lots of drug use and teen pregnancy?This message has been edited by AdminSchraf, 07-20-2005 07:49 AM

quote:

---

While your assessment of the motives involved may possibly be right, I should tell you that one thing you have to get used to around here is the incessant demand for "evidence" beyond what I and apparently you normally feel obliged to produce in a discussion.

---

The interesting thing to note in my discussion with Canadian Steve has been the abundance of links and references I have supplied WRT discrimination to support my factual claims, and the dearth of evidence supplied by Canadian Steve to support his.In addition, I only demanded evidence from him when he made the factual claim that the quality of medical doctors has declined since Affirmative Action was instituted.That is a factual claim that must be based in some kind of evidence that we can see for ourselves if he wants anyone to accept it.If he refuses to present any evidence to support this factual claim, then why should anyone believe it? Just because he says so?