Moron owned

[Kilgamayan]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Moron owned

The stupidity of an opinion on an issue where there is no factual "right" (or at least no discernable one) is relative.

[User6773]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Moron owned

And c'mon, chardish, if Hannity's not far right I don't know what is.

Hannity's right, no doubt, but not far right. Far right-wingers are people who think we should carpet-bomb Iraq or mandate school prayer or stuff like that. Trust me, as a right-winger, I know what's right and what's far right, and Hannity's definitely not far right.

You want to hear far right on your radio dial? Turn on the Michael Savage show sometime. He makes Rush Limbaugh look like Howard Dean.

On that note...

Chardish please tell me you aren't a fan of rush limbaugh

I like Rush Limbaugh. As a conservative, it's entertaining to me to hear an outspoken conservative explain why liberals are wrong. I don't agree with everything Rush says (most recent example is the John Bolton affair), but that doesn't mean he's not entertaining to listen to. Rush has said hundreds of times on his program that he is an entertainer first and an informer second.

There were Iraqis and Afghans fighting us that believed themselves to be in the right and us to be in the wrong that likely also held these opinions (or at least similar ones).

Yes, but those are radical terrorists in countries where schoolchildren are taught to hate America. They are not American citizens in a public forum exercising their Constitutional right to free speech.

The stupidity of an opinion on an issue where there is no factual "right" (or at least no discernable one) is relative.

Straw man argument, as the assertion that there is no factual right on this issue is incorrect.

If the ideas of "right" and "wrong" are imposed on the universe by the individual, rather than on the individual by the universe, then all judgments of character, including your characterization of Mr. Hannity as "unprofessional," are utterly without meaning or significance.

[Kilgamayan]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Moron owned

Then what is the factual right on this issue?

[User6773]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Moron owned

[01:44] Evan: THE DEBATE RAGES
[01:44] Kilgamayan: Lovely.
[01:44] Kilgamayan: Can't wait to see Specforces response to my post.
[01:45] Evan: Ha
[01:45] Evan: I like this line. It's golden.
[01:45] Evan: "If the ideas of "right" and "wrong" are imposed on the universe by the individual, rather than on the individual by the universe, then all judgments of character, including your characterization of Mr. Hannity as "unprofessional," are utterly without meaning or significance."
[01:45] Kilgamayan: What the hell is the "straw man argument" anyway?
[01:46] Evan: It's a rhetorical fallacy. Arguing against a point that wasn't raised, in this case whether morality is relative or absolute.
[01:47] Kilgamayan: Sounds like a cop-out to me.
[01:47] Evan: The straw-man rhetorical technique is the practice of refuting weaker arguments than one's opponents actually offer. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to your opponent.

One can set up a straw man in several different ways:

1. Present only a portion of the opponent's arguments (often a weak one), refute it, and pretend that all of their arguments have been refuted.
2. Present the opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that the original has been refuted.
3. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
4. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute their arguments, and pretend that every argument for that position has been refuted.
5. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticised, and pretend that the person represents a group that the speaker is critical of.

Some logic textbooks define the straw-man fallacy only as a misrepresented argument. It is now common, however, to use the term to refer to all of these tactics. The straw-man technique is also used as a form of media manipulation.
[01:48] Evan: And the straw man isn't a cop-out?
[01:48] Kilgamayan: If you're saying my statement is a straw-man argument, then not at all.
[01:49] Kilgamayan: Guido called an opinion stupid.
[01:49] Kilgamayan: I told him that the stupidity on an opinion is relative.
[01:49] Kilgamayan: I fail to see how that's a cop-out.
[01:50] Kilgamayan: And the only reason I included that line about the issue not having a factual "right" was because I knew one of you was going to pull the bullshit "I think the sky is yellow" counter.
[01:50] Evan: # Person A has position X.
# Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
# Person B attacks position Y.
# Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Guido has position X: "Opinion is stupid."
Kilga presents position Y: "Stupidity is absolute."
Kilga attacks position Y.
Therefore X is flawed.
[01:51] Evan: That's essentially what happened, only in a condensed form. You didn't defend against Guido's attack, you just declared his attack to be null and void, as if that makes it null and void.
[01:51] Kilgamayan: So how else would you like me to refute the idea that an opinion being stupid is incorrect?
[01:51] Kilgamayan: I mean.
[01:52] Kilgamayan: How else would you like me to refute the idea that an opinion is stupid?
[01:52] Evan: Your only real option would be to defend the opinion itself by showing that it is based in reason and intelligence.
[01:52] Evan: In other words, Guido has made it harder for you to get much farther into this without making it appear like you agree with Mr. Crook.
[01:53] Kilgamayan: Lovely.
[01:53] Kilgamayan: What a ***.
[01:53] Evan: Hahahahaha
[01:54] Kilgamayan: Actually, why am I debating that point at all?
[01:54] Kilgamayan: It's irrelevant to the idea that whatshisface conducted himself unprofessionally.
[01:54] Kilgamayan: Screw it then.
[01:55] Evan: *light bulb illuminates*
[01:55] Evan: Good job. : )
[01:55] Kilgamayan: God, I hate you CT types.
[01:55] Kilgamayan: You all make me so fucking sick.
[01:55] Kilgamayan: -_-
[01:56] Kilgamayan: I'm outta this until Specforces responds because I KNOW I caught him.
[01:56] Evan: Mind if I post this log?
[01:56] Kilgamayan: Go right ahead.
[01:56] Kilgamayan: Up to this line, even.

[Kilgamayan]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Moron owned

Also relevant:

bjstrattonIM: And to think I was once actually good at debating.
bjstrattonIM: Incidentally, that was back when I was pretty new at the internet.
bjstrattonIM: How times change.
This Is Chardish: I believe it. Especially based on reading your TWG posts.
This Is Chardish: I sucked at debating when I first got on the Internet, when I was about 10. (This was before COPPA.)
bjstrattonIM: TWG is special, because I think I've simply stopped caring about it.
bjstrattonIM: Not just FFR, but as a whole.
bjstrattonIM: Which makes me sad.
bjstrattonIM: So I play on.
This Is Chardish: I still care about the game. I've just stopped caring about the outcome.
bjstrattonIM: It's a death spiral.
bjstrattonIM: I'm too competitive to not care about the outcome.
bjstrattonIM: This is a really aggravating position to be in.
This Is Chardish: So in other words, you're fiercely competitive about a game you don't really care about but aren't in any position to stop playing.
bjstrattonIM: Smart enough to understand a CTer's arguments but not quite smart enough to refute them while being a competitive ass.
bjstrattonIM: It's a deadly combination.
bjstrattonIM: Yeah, pretty much.

In summary, *angst*

ps <3 u andy

[Specforces]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Moron owned

I love Micheal Savage, Mike Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, and Glen Beck.

[jewpinthethird]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Moron owned

Michael Crook is a terrible person. He is ignorant, and stupid. But for Hannity to say that is very unprofessional. Come on, what is this? The 8th grade? Name calling isnt even tolerated in High School debates.

Obviously Hannity was upset, and righty so, but to stoop to name-calling? Seriously, Michael Crook, being the terrible person he is, never once personally attacked Hannity...at least he has that going for him.

Aside from that, DID ANYONE ELSE NOTICE THE SIZE OF HIS FOREHEAD? JESUS CHRIST! YOU COULD LAND A 747 ON THAT THING.

[Cenright]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Moron owned

This video wasn't about a Right Wing or Left Wing issue. We all saw that the guy has a problem with the pay structure. OK. That is his opinion, let us just take that for a second.

He says that they are stupid to go into the army, and should pay their own injury stuff, and that if they die, their family should have to pay for their body to be returned. Did he ever think, that maybe those benefits are a few reasons why some people will volunteer? If those things didn't exist, do you think that that many people would still volunteer? I don't. All jobs get health benefits. The military is no different. In hazardous jobs, the company also has to have death compensation.


That aside, what do the troops have to do with the pay system? The pay system is made in the government. The troops did not set that policy, the employer (the government) set up that policy. Troops know what benefits there are, and what hazards there are when they sign their contract. So they aren't actually stupid. That man is just selfish and egotistical. He sees things his way, and feels that everyone around him should have the EXACT SAME OPINION.


The guy mixes his arguments, and it ruins his debate. He is egotistical. He thinks he knows everything, and has seen all he needs to see. Anyone else just doesn't have his superior insight on the matter, and so they all are there to screw him up. Nothing will change him, nothing will teach him otherwise. Even if someone sat down and tried to show him other insights, without trying to debate it, he would try to shut you down, because he feels he already has the superior information, and you just don't understand it. This is the problem with morons who think they know everything.

[User6773]

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Moron owned

I'm tired and I don't have time to address all Cenright's points.

P.S. Jewpin, I love your post. Your flair for subtle, comedic irony is unsurpassed by any on these forums.

[GuidoHunter]

[01:52] Evan: In other words, Guido has made it harder for you to get much farther into this without making it appear like you agree with Mr. Crook.
[01:53] Kilgamayan: Lovely.
[01:53] Kilgamayan: What a ***.

I'm still LOLing about this.

And okay, yes, I admit that Hannity isn't that far right, but whatever.

I like to listen to Rush because he is an entertainer. I think he does spin issues at times, so I don't take his word as truth all the time, but he's still cool. My mom says I should listen to Savage more, but I have a hard enough time listening to Mark Davis as is.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[talisman]

I would love to see jon stewart go on all these guys' show and own them like he did tucker carlson... it would make me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

[Mindfields]

I watch FOX News just to get a good laugh every now and then.

Otherwise I never have taken it seriously, considering it's only entertainment.

Exactly.
If it weren't for 24 and House, the whole channel is just a bunch of people trying to act serious AND funny. Now, House, at some times, is funny. Everything on FOX is a horrible show because I think they're a bunch of crap-for-brains who are trying to keep up with the modern generation. This said, I now don't respect House half as much as I used to.
Damn. I liked that show.

[GuidoHunter]

I watch FOX News just to get a good laugh every now and then.

Otherwise I never have taken it seriously, considering it's only entertainment.

Exactly.
If it weren't for 24 and House, the whole channel is just a bunch of people trying to act serious AND funny.

::slaps forehead:: SIIIIIIIIIIGH. Way to make a fool of yourself, Mind.

For the record (and the slow): FOX News =/= FOX

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[AlbinoLime]

Can somebody please explain to me what the soldiers in Iraq are defending me from?

[Matthew4444]

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Moron owned

The guy mixes his arguments, and it ruins his debate. He is egotistical. He thinks he knows everything, and has seen all he needs to see. Anyone else just doesn't have his superior insight on the matter, and so they all are there to screw him up. Nothing will change him, nothing will teach him otherwise. Even if someone sat down and tried to show him other insights, without trying to debate it, he would try to shut you down, because he feels he already has the superior information, and you just don't understand it. This is the problem with morons who think they know everything.

I know you were referring to Michael Crook, but this clip portrays Hannity the exact same way. Hannity seemed to think that Crook didn't have any sound logic to back up his opinions, so he didn't even give Crook time to speak. The irony is though that without being given any substancial pieces of evidence, many viewers have probably already formed their own logic to justify Crook's opinions.

I can sort of see the logic behind Crook's arguement. Since the troops volunteer, they know the benefits they are receiving when they sign up. Since these benefits don't seem to be sufficient, people should pretty much boycott the military so that these benefits are raised to a much better level. His nastier arguements are basically saying that it's the soldiers' fault for being so stupid, so they should suffer for their own stupidity.

While I don't agree with that logic, I really couldn't help forming ideas like that.