Bush lets out his inner asshole

[Sock Puppet]

Aw, I think I hurt his widdle feelings.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

ChuckF, what choice do I have?

And to think I was considering putting this (my own!) thread on ignore.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Watser?

All credit to liv. She saw my need and met it with an enema smiley.

[Nullifidian]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

All credit to liv. She saw my need and met it with an enema smiley.

Liv is the Invisible Hand!

[mickthinks]

Hello again viscousmemories

...you've failed to show that I've argued badly in any case,

Here's a good, as in bad, example;

mick (to livius):

The story may be an example of Bush being morally repugnant in your opinion, but that opinion, as in "he used to cover up his fratboy churlishness better than this" isn't evidence.

viscous:

Don't be silly [...] your conclusion that I'm blinded by prejudice (and your subsequent continued attempts at moralizing) completely miss the mark.[...]Your ad hominem arguments are getting as boring as your moralizing [...] These little passive aggressive greetings at the beginning of your little rants is adorable. [...]Just pointing out that you're being a silly twat before explaining why your argument fails isn't fallacious, it's just a courtesy.

I call that arguing badly, viscous. You didn't even make clear which point you were taking issue with, let alone offer a coherent counter-argument.

Mick

[Crumb]

Don't be silly, mick.

[mickthinks]

LOL! Of course there's no need to argue badly yourself, when you've got Crumb to do it for you!

[Crumb]

I think that should be my new sig.

[But]

...

[livius drusus]

This is the actual post in context, with a complete argument.

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Don't be silly. If you're going to hold forth on what qualifies as proof (nay, evidence) of "moral repugnance", then at least let us know what objective standard you're measuring the President's behavior against. So far all your comments have "proven" is that the President of the United States being callous and flippant in response to the enquiry of a young girl isn't evidence of moral repugnance to you. On the contrary, you're inclined to blame the media and/or the young girl herself for her reaction to his comment. This may be evidence of a lot of things, but only proves that your moral standards are different from mine.

Your excising of the argument he actually made -- that you have failed to provide any standard to measure Bush's putative "moral repugnance" -- and instead conflating single, context-less lines from multiple posts addressing various issues is not only poor argument, but is the sort of deliberate spin and deceptive misquoting you claim to decry in the media.

On a side note, how long do you intend to bump these threads to respond to months-old posts you've already responded to, mick?

[mickthinks]

Hello livius drusus

This is the actual post in context, with a complete argument. I thought someone might try to defend vm's honour by pointing to the stuff I didn't quote. I don't think it makes any difference, and here's why:

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

If you're going to hold forth on what qualifies as proof (nay, evidence) of "moral repugnance", then at least let us know what objective standard you're measuring the President's behavior against. So far all your comments have "proven" is that the President of the United States being callous and flippant in response to the enquiry of a young girl isn't evidence of moral repugnance to you. On the contrary, you're inclined to blame the media and/or the young girl herself for her reaction to his comment. This may be evidence of a lot of things, but only proves that your moral standards are different from mine.

None of that is an argument against anything I had said. Still less is it the argument in support of the "Don't be silly" ad hominem that vm later tried to claim it was.

If you're going to hold forth on what qualifies as proof (nay, evidence) of "moral repugnance", then at least let us know what objective standard you're measuring the President's behavior against. is a conditional request.

So far all your comments have "proven" is that the President of the United States being callous and flippant in response to the enquiry of a young girl isn't evidence of moral repugnance to you. is a description of some other stuff I said, as is;
On the contrary, you're inclined to blame the media and/or the young girl herself for her reaction to his comment.
and;
This may be evidence of a lot of things, but only proves that your moral standards are different from mine.

Which part of that even addresses my point about your opinion of Bush's personality not justifying moral judgements that are not supported by the evidence? And remember that vm was supposed to arguing that my point was silly. So it doesn't matter whether we include this extra verbiage, vm's 'argument' is still plainly and simply bad.

Mick

[livius drusus]

Then you should have quoted the argument he actually made and rebutted it instead of using ellipses to suggest those randomly chosen contextless lines were his response to your post. They were not. Instead, you misquoted him to present his argument in a false light, which is the kind of misrepresentation and spin you claim to decry in the media.

How long do you intend to bump these threads to respond to months-old posts you've already responded to, mick?

[mickthinks]

how long do you intend to bump these threads to respond to months-old posts you've already responded to?
Do bad arguments improve with age? As long as vm dodges the issue and his less than honest attempts to cover it up, I'd like to keep on raising it.

[livius drusus]

Your insistence of revisiting months-old posts, replying over and over again to the same snippets of sentences, is called thread necromancy and it is poor netiquette. You will not achieve your ends by behaving with total disregard for forum courtesy, no matter how important you think your cause is.

[mickthinks]

Then you should have quoted the argument he actually made and rebutted it ...
I did quote and repudiate the points he raised (here).

...instead of using ellipses to suggest those randomly chosen contextless lines were his response to your post. The quotes aren't randomly chosen. They are examples of bad argument. If you think any of them can be rescued by considering it in its original context, then by all means show me.

[livius drusus]

I'm not interested. My point is simple: your use of ellipses to suggest those disparate lines came from a single response is the sort of misrepresentation and spin you claim to decry in the media.

[mickthinks]

Your insistence of revisiting months-old posts, replying over and over again to the same snippets of sentences, is called thread necromancy and it is poor netiquette.


My insistence that unanswered points are still worth addressing is the only defence against thread derailments I've come up with. If you know of a better one, please tell me.

[livius drusus]

I'm quite sure the topic of this thread was not the quality of vm's arguments, so your constant revisiting of this bête noir is the only derailment I'm aware of here.

Your persistent bumps are not defenses of any kind. They are attacks on the natural life cycle of a thread, trying to force it to play host organism to the parasite of your obsession with vm when any actual discussion has long since breathed its last.

[mickthinks]

your use of ellipses to suggest those disparate lines came from a single response
I used the ellipses to suggest that they all belong to same bad argument. I didn't intend to suggest anything more than that. I'm not sure why you're readin anything more into it.

As I said, if you can find any post in which you think vm made a good argument against me which I haven't given him due credit for, please point me to it.

[livius drusus]

They did not belong to the same argument, obviously -- they came from different posts addressing different issues -- and if you've ever made a citation in a paper, you know full well that your use of ellipses to suggest those disparate lines were a single response to your "moral repugnance" post is the kind of misrepresentation and spin you claim to decry in the media.

[mickthinks]

...the natural life cycle of a thread...
Sorry livius, you are making threads sound like endangered species in need of laws (and moderators) to give them protection. I know you don't believe that!

...when any actual discussion has long since breathed its last.
Discussions aren't organisms either. I think the whole nature metaphor is misleading.

[mickthinks]

[mickthinks]

they came from different posts addressing different issues
Different posts, yes, but addressing what for me is the same issue.

your use of ellipses to suggest those disparate lines were a single response...
Sorry livius, but I think I explained that I used them to suggest a multiple response.

If you can find any post in which you think vm made a good argument against me which I haven't given him due credit for, please point me to it.

[livius drusus]

As I said above, I'm not interested. My point is simple: your use of ellipses misrepresented vm's response to your "moral repugnance" claim, which is the sort of spin you claim to decry. That you are now backtracking and say you did not intend to suggest those disparate lines addressing multiple issues were his reply to your "moral repugnance" post does not alter the spin and misrepresentation.

Since I've made my point, I will now practice what I preach and cease to contribute to your derailment of this thread.

[mickthinks]

your use of ellipses misrepresented vm's response to your "moral repugnance" claim
I don't think they misrepresented how bad vm's arguments were in response to my 'prejudice' claim.

That you are now backtracking...
The term 'backtracking' is almost always used to apply spin. I am not backtracking, I am flatly denying that I used ellipses to misrepresent vm's arguments.

I will now practice what I preach and cease to contribute to your derailment of this thread.
Having attacked, on purely technical grounds, my example of vm's bad arguments without being able to offer a counter-example of a single good one. Hmmmm...

Goodnight livius!

Mick