The media and anonymous sources

Post Reply New Topic

No, my perception of reality--at least in this regard--is opposite to YOUR reality. I believe that there is no single reality; it's just snotty and self-righteous to say that there is. Everyone lives in a different world because everyone sees it differently, and what is rational to one person is irrational to another. Stop stating your vision of reality as the only true reality. And stop insulting me just because I don't see the world in the same way as you. It makes it quite difficult for me to take your arguement seriously.



Neither have you. Tell me, what would you consider adaquate proof, and how do you know that it's not out there? Would you consider it proof if CNN said it was true?

These are all things that have been debated about beforehand; as I said, there is proof for them, just not proof that the mainstream press reports on. And how many times has the mainstream press reported things with unverifyable evidence?



I never said that abortion was illegal, I said that the current administration's STANCE on it was influenced by the church. They haven't managed to overtune Roe Vs. Wade, no, but it's ridiculously ignorant to say that the Bush administration supports abortion. They've been quite open about their disapproval of it, and their supreme court justice nominations have shared this policy.



And evidently you missed what I've been saying all along: that the key is the illusion of a democracy. The Bush Administration may be incompetant, but it's not so stupid as to forget how to create an illusion. Yes, there have been some times when Supreme Court didn't do what the Bush Administration willed, but there has to be SOME of those times to make sure that the masses won't think that there's no separation of powers. Give me more examples; compare every ruling that the Supreme Court has done in the past few years. Furthermore, many of the ones that disagreed with the Bush Administration's will were likely before the deaths of two of its members last year. Right now a majority of the Court is comprised with Republicans and Conservative Democrats.



I can see what you mean there.



That's not my logic, that's just your understanding of my logic, which you hold because you disagree. That's a really inaccurate analogy--I mean, I can see what you're trying to say, but it just doesn't fit because this is so much more complex than that. But whatever, I'll play along for the sake of proving a point, despite its inaccuracy: if somebody gave me a good arguement as to why this duck wasn't a man in a duck suit, I might change my beliefs, but nobody has. It looks like a man in a duck suit to me, because it's way bigger than most ducks, and it doesn't smell as bad, there's a line separating the head from the body, etc. And these are things that have been well documented, that have been proven, but the proof just hasn't been shown on the mainstream media for reasons I've already explained.

Nothing you have said has jived with anything I believe, and I'm sure nothing I've said has jived with what you believe, either. See? Different perspectives on reality. With that in mind, how can either of us be so sure of anything? You talk about being skeptical, but one of the most important things to be skeptical of is your own beliefs.

I know it sounds hypocritical for me to say this, but believe me I have questioned my own beliefs. I just don't see anything that doesn't fit together, you know? I don't see what's so illogical about any of this, even when I look at it skeptically. For a majority of my statements which you say lack proof, I have seen videos which provide the closest thing to proof that could be allowed in that kind of situation. I don't see anything that doesn't make sense.



You haven't said so, no--I appologize sorry if I put words in your mouth there. What you said just seemed like you accept what the mainstream press says to be fact, and nothing else--in other words, what's seen to be fact by the masses. It is good to be skeptical, though. I'd be skeptical of some of my claims if I could think of a good reason to be.

I'm not nihilistic about the press--I think it's very important. I just think that a lot of it isn't concerned with actually reporting the news, or don't have the ability to report many things. This is a subject that has been well documented, by the way--I'm sure you'd be able to find many articles on it if you felt so inclined.



Red Herrings? Where? I never intentionally use Red Herrings in my arguements--I hate it when people put stuff in arguements intended to confuse me, so I show them the same respect. Perhaps you just misinterpreted them? Also, how weren't they good points?

In that part I was talking about posts like that one in the 9/11 thread, where I talked about how everyone said it looked like a controlled demolition, the whole Securicon thing, the physics, the steel collums, etc. etc. etc. and I talked about how even the mainstream press had reported these things initially but then suddenly quieted down, which in itself is as close to proof as someone like me (i.e. someone who ISN'T a reporter and doesn't have access to most places) can provide. And yet you just ignored that post even though it was by far my strongest post in the thread. However, there were other things--little bits and pieces of posts where I brought up a piece of the puzzle which you weren't able to refute. In my mind, each of those pieces are key. It's all a web, you know? So if one piece seems to be intact, then shouldn't that support a little bit more of the rest?



I'm sorry if I communicated this badly, but when I say "controlling" the press, I mean they have some control over the press, that they control certain things. Again, I'm not talking about totalitarianism. This is just certain things--certain true things don't get reported, certain false things do, and certain meaningless stories take precedence over more important ones. If that's closer to "influence" in your mind, okay, call it whatever you want. To me it still means the same thing: that the press isn't really free, that there's lots it ISN'T reporting, and that there's a lot of crap that it IS reporting. It's still control, regardless of what degree--and it's still not exactly a small amount of control.

And are you skeptical of my belief that there's a need to have an illusion of freedom?



Touche. Heh. Still, everything IS labled one notch more to the right for the most part.



The Democrats do support taking away guns, yes, but I was talking about the current administration, which is Republican, not Democrat. Oh, of course they are as guilty--as far as I'm concerned the two parties are pretty much the same in most ways. (With exceptions, like in this regard, and in some other domestic policies. Also Republicans, despite being sneakier (watergate, etc.), have more of a backbone, while the Democrats just kinda accept defeat waaaay too easily. Bear in mind I'm talking about modern Republicans and Democrats, not past ones.) I find it interesting that you bring this up because it, in a way, could be an arguement against your own statement that we have the right to bear arms. I would have brought it up myself in my last post, but I didn't think it mattered because, again, we were talking about the current, Republican, administration, not what the Democrats want to do.



Oh, please, don't put words in my mouth. I'm not saying all protests are broken up, but some definately are. Plus, not a lot of them get adaquately reported on. Most of the ones I've seen on TV focused on pissed-off looking cops.



I don't gamble (especially not on the internet), but if it amuses you then go ahead. Either way, I don't think it's a point that's all that relevent--I mean, like I said, the illusion of freedom is still necessary, so not all rights are going to be taken away. Furthermore I'm not even sure that the administration has the power to make suing the government illegal. And yes, I DO believe there's things that they can't get away with. Even though Bush himself has said, "The constitution is a piece of paper!", which, when combined with some of their other plans that never got off the ground, indicate that there's plenty they'd LIKE to get a way with, there's still some opposition. I mean, there may not be a lot of separation of powers but there's still definately some people on the Supreme Court and in Congress who don't support the Bush Administration's plans. I just think that in many cases they're unable to do enough because they're in the minority.




It's difficult to tell on the internet, because you can't tell HOW someone is saying something. And the smilies aren't a good way of showing that you're joking when you're saying somethign like that, because they could also easily indicate that you're making fun of them. Plus, people often insult others for having different beliefs than them. So don't call me a "dolt" for not being able to tell when someone is "just kidding" when we're in the middle of a lengthly, convoluted debate--see, you just insulted me again. It's getting harder and harder for me to take your arguement seriously--it's all about respect, man.



Another inaccurate analogy. For one thing, this country has a history of being a democracy (or at least a republic)--people are inclinded to believe it's still the same way, especially when the idea is beaten into their heads every day. For another, whether or not you can hit a home run is a physical, tangible thing. The style of a country's government is not so much, or at least not until it gets really extreme. You can see the effects, but all of these lables are still ideological constructs, and therefore something that's much more difficult to disprove. Furthermore, this is WAY more complex than whether or not you can hit a home run. And then there's that thing called hope. People are hopeful; many believe things they hope to be the case, as long as it seems possible to them. It definately seems possible (even to me) that this country is what it says. (Just to me it's very very unlikely.) Don't you think most people would like to think that they live in a democracy? How many Americans would hope that they live in a dictatorship? This is also another thing that's inaccurate about the analogy; I don't think anybody enough about your batting average to have hope blind them into believing you, and those that do would want to see it for themselves, just for reassurance. But you wouldn't be able to give them that, because you're just one person. But the government can give reassurance, with many of the points you've brought up--things that, again, aren't as physical or tangible. It's not hard to create misinformation.



I'm not sure I'd want to--I don't like Cuban cooking, and I'd hate the hot weather. Furthermore, I don't have the financial or personal ability to move at the moment. I was just stating that dictatorships don't always have every single quality you brought up, because not all dictatorships are totalitarian.

Oh isn't this just lovely, you chop up my comment to make it appear that this is My oppinion alone. This is a deceptive tactic!! ! I'll be generous and allow you the chance to retract your statement here!! !





As I've said before the mainstream press has a peer review process. You nihlisticly dismissed this process (similar to the peer review process in science) as "Govenment Controlled". The more you say "govenment controlled" the more it sounds like "4 feet good, 2 feet bad".




Quit trying to change the subject here! I gave as proof legal abortion in the face of Bush's opposition that they did'nt have the power to overtun Roe vs Wade. THIS WAS A RED HERRING!!





This was no illusion. The Bush adm. lost an attempted power grab!!





I'm guessing you don't know the difference between a dictatorship ans an oligarchy





I'm beginning to see your logic more and more. You think like a Dogmatic religious person except you're not a christian. Same mentality though.



This is'nt scepticism, What you just said is almost the exact definition of nihlisim.


What are you refering to here??







you're using the same tactic that cristians use against science. Because science (the press) makes mistakes, then nothing they say is true.




Well, I pointed to one red herring. (I can point to more) plus you've denied making comments that you clearly posted. Last, took my statements out of context. Thats THREE deceptive tactics on your part.


You also said that because Bush rigged the elections, that proved he had the capacity to stage the 9/11 attacks. That does'nt even come CLOSE to proving a "Pattern of Behavior"





And Again!! this is another piece of proof that Bush does'nt have the necessary grip on power to establish a dictatorship.


No, but only in the context of an "Oligarchy pretending to be a Republic"









Democrat vs Republican was'nt my point. The fact is , if you're going to "oppress people you must first disarm them". I do belive Machiavelli said that!





Yet another hole in your argument of "dictatorship"




Yet another admition that Bush does'nt have a "dictatorship" Veresae, aren't you getting the point yet?? To have a "dictatorship" you must have certian government institutions under your ABSOLUTE CONTROLL!! Every time I point to the fact that Bush is far from controlling the necessary factors to establish a dominate position in government, you just say "They do this to create an illusuion". This is the same reasoning Christians use to cover up the fact that god is clearly NOT Omnipotent in biblical stories. The more I debate you the more you use Christianity's anti-logic.






Respect is something you earn. It's not given.




Just as I created misinformation. But BOTH are UNBELIEVABLE misinformation!! JUST MY POINT!!




Your last deceptive tactic! those two words are praticaly interchangable!! ! look them up in the dictionary!! !

I never said that it was your opinion alone, just that there's more than one perception of reality and to say that there is one single "true" one is self-righteous and disrespectful. And how did I chop it up? That was your main point, wasn't it? I thought that the Spartans bit was just to back your statement up or to make another analogy. And for the record, I know many people who have agreed with my statement that America is actually a dictatorship, so I'm not the only one who believes it either. I'm not retracting what I said--if anything I think YOU should retract the statement which that was a response to. You were the one who disrespected me, and spoke of your opinion as the single possible truth just because it's what you happen to believe. Lovely indeed.



When I was speaking of government control I wasn't speaking of the peer review process. They're different things entirely. If you want more information on this subject, then it shouldn't be too hard--I'm not an expert, and it's something that has been well documented. If you're so sure that you're right then what's the harm in doing that?



How is that a red herring? I was replying to something you said, rather than just ignoring it. I was speaking of the government's stance being influenced by the church, which was one of my statements as to why I think that this government is a dictatorship--how is it off-topic?

But okay, let's say it is off-topic, again for the sake of proving a point. You can't go off topic and then criticize me of going off topic just because I replied to what you said when you went off-topic. Sheesh, man.

And you yourself saying that abortion is legal isn't proof of anything--someone who has a legal abortion is proof that abortions are legal, something that I never refuted. You can't say that something I claim isn't proof when something you claim IS.

And again, I never said that the Bush Administration didn't have some opposition within the government--just that things were too tilted to the right. And yes, that is a sign that this isn't a dictatorship, I'll give you that, but again, the opposition is the minority. (And here I'm saying within the government, not that a minority of the PEOPLE are against Bush.)



Can you prove this? I doubt it. I doubt I can prove my statement about this either--so how about we just drop this detail entirely, since there's no way either of us can convince the other about it.



Of course I do, but really, a government can be both a dictatorship AND an oligarchy.

OLIGARCHY: a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes.

DICTATORSHIP: a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique

(This is from Merriam-Webster's.)

See? This is what sums up my beliefs as well. I can definately see why you don't think it's a dictatorship at all, though--indeed, the Bush Admin. doesn't have absolute power. (I just think that they use what power they have for a lot of covert things, so it's difficult to tell how much power they actually have most of the time.) So that doesn't mean that you've changed what I think--I can just see what you're saying. I consider it a mature thing to be able to look at more than one side of an arguement, so I try to do that whenever possible.



The last time I was insulted like that it was when somebody said I was "jaded" because I didn't like "Lost in Translation." Thanks, man--real testament to your debating powers if you have to fall back on insults.

I can see why you'd think that--I'm stating points that I believe to be true because I have seen evidence for them, and you haven't so you see them as bull. But there's a difference between using your only evidence as some old book that anyone could have written and had good reason to (to control the people), and seeing various video footage that serves as evidence that various events took place when there's no reason to create the misinformation. (If you can think of one, let me know--the last time I brought this up, you didn't.) And you refute this footage even before you've even seen it just because CNN doesn't report it?



Oh really? Back to M-W...

Nihilism: 1 a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths

2 a : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility b capitalized : the program of a 19th century Russian party advocating revolutionary reform and using terrorism and assassination

If you thought that that's what I was saying, then you clearly misinterpreted my words. First of all, I wasn't talking about existence. Second of all, I was never advocating the destruction of social organization. I believe some organization is necessary. And third of all, I never said that we shouldn't have any opinions. I said that we should be skeptical of our own beliefs as much as we are of those of others--not that we shouldn't have them. I'd be a hypocrite to suggest that. I'm just saying that if you don't question your beliefs at all, then you're not even allowing in the possibility that you're wrong--and there is practically ALWAYS a possibility.



I was referring to your statement about skepticism. I consider myself somewhat skeptical, but I actually am skeptical of my own beliefs as well because I know that the human mind can warp the truth out of hope or fear. I found it ironic that you were so sure of your own beliefs when you claim to be a skeptic. Rather hypocritical for someone to be skeptical of the beliefs of others but not their own. And if you are skeptical of your own, then great--you just haven't suggested it.




ANOTHER inaccurate analogy. First off, science DOES prove what it's saying. Anything else isn't true science, but rather something closer to philosophy (i.e. string theory). Meanwhile, the mainstream press has anonymous sources, which could be ANYONE--including the government. Many of its sources are as unverifyiable, if not MORE unverifyable, than those found in the independent media that you so deplore.

Second of all, I never said that NOTHING they say is true. Stop putting words in my mouth. I was saying that there were things that didn't get reported on and where changed because the government and corporations step in, that sort of thing. Instances of control, or as you say, influence, as well as (again) some things that are unverifyable but are still reported on as fact. That doesn't mean NOTHING they say is true--just that you can't trust them about everything.

Third of all, Christians who reject science reject it because they'd rather believe a book that anyone could have written, and again, definately would have had a motive to write. Christianity is about appealing to people's hopes by promising a life after death and telling them that some benevolent diety is always there for them, while at the same time an attempt to control their behavior with the fear of eternal fire. The sources I get my beliefs on aren't looking to incite anarchy or anything like that, and most definately DON'T appeal to people's hopes. They're just concerned with what the mainstream press isn't: reporting on the truth first, with everything else coming after. Again, if you could convince me of a motive for creating this misinformation, it would definately help your arguement.

If anything siding with the mainstream media over independent sources is more similar to using "Christian logic"--oftentimes the mainstream media appeals to people's wants by slightly warping the story to make things more black-and-white, which is comforting to people because it's simpler. Or they make it more exciting. Again, this has been well documented, and if you want evidence of it look no further than your local newspaper or television news program. This, among other things, was discussed earlier in the thread by Jonathan79, as well, at the bottom of page 1.

You keep making statements about my logic, neither of which convince me of anything. But, just so that you know how it is, how about we but let's talk about yours? You base your opinions on others' opinions by making inaccurate analogies that only seem accurate to you because you (as you show with these analogies) you simply don't understand these opinions.

But I'm sure they're all so accurate to you that it doesn't matter what I say, does it?




Again, I don't see how it was a red herring--it wasn't off topic, and it was in direct response to something you said, meaning that if it was off topic, then so was the statement it was replying to, meaning that you should be charged with this "red herring," not I. So, yes, please point to more, so that I may clear them up as well.

I'm sorry if I've contradicted myself; it's not intentional, believe me, and I do sometimes do it unconciously because I sometimes my perspective on things change. (This is actually a compliment to an arguement the opposition made most of the time.) However, this is rare, and oftentimes when I'm charged with contradicting myself it's because the other party wasn't understanding what I was saying, maybe because I just phrased it badly. When did I do this? Point to the specific sentences.

I refer to people's statements as individual statements because that's the way I see them, and that's how I read them. However, I've seen you do this yourself, so please don't criticize me for it, especially when you're insulting me and putting words in my mouth. If I unintentionally make a mistake in my arguement, I am sorry--I'm only human. But don't say I'm using deceptive tactics when you yourself are using them, and additionally throwing insults and making assumptions about what I'm trying to say.



I never said that because Bush rigged elections ir proved he could stage the 9/11 attacks. I said that because he got away with it and nobody reported it on the mainstream press, it was an example of how the press didn't report certain things or at least shut up about them after the shock had worn off and people could actually think about what they mean--such as the many details surrounding 9/11 that, when combined, are some pretty incrinimating stuff.

And hey, look, another "deceptive tactic" on your part--you completely ignored what I was saying in that bit and didn't even go back to check what I was talking about, in favor of trying to distract me with YET ANOTHER misinterpretation of my words. Maybe you should actually try to understand your opposition's arguement before refuting it, man.



How? It still means the press isn't free. I'm not talking about a totalitarian government. We're going around in circles. Please, pay attention this time: not all dictatorships are totalitarian. Not all of them have complete and utter control of the press--just some to tilt it in their favor.

Perhaps we have different connotations from the word "dictatorship." I use the traits I got from my high school textbooks (which I'll repeat for the sake of convinience): rigged elections or elections between two parties which are basically the same in most ways; aggressive, military-focused foreign policy; control of the media (again, control is vague--it can mean influence); and limited, minimal, or no separation of powers (in this case the first), with all or a majority of the power falling into a singular person or clique (saaaay, the Bush Administration).



I know, it wasn't my point either. Again with the misinterpretation. What I was saying was, yes, the democrats say that, but why bother to bring that up when we weren't talking about the democrats? We were talking about the current administration, which is REPUBLICAN. Furthermore, it sounds like you're trying support my whole point by saying that politicans are trying to disarm us.



How is it a hole? It's an example of more media bias. If it's supposed to be a hole because some protests aren't broken up by cops, I never said that all were--I said that some were beforehand, which IS a sign of a dictatorship. You can't break up all protests or you break the illusion of freedom which is so necessary for the people to have!



Okay, first off, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop saying "Bush." He's just a puppet. I'm talking about his administration. Second off, I never said that the administration had as much power as it should. I admit that I use the "illusion" thing a bit too much, but it IS necessary, and I think that some of it's definately there--and I think some others would agree with me if they were reading this. (Others would agree with you as well, of course. However, it's kind of an irrelevent point because all these posts are so long, so most likely nobody 'cept you and me is gonna read 'em!) Again, I have a different viewpoint of dictatorship--totalitarianism is absolute control, and that's not what I'm talking about. Dictatorship is much more vague. You're talking about a TOTALITARIAN dictatorship. I'm not talking about that. Now if I've been confused this whole time because my high school textbooks were BS, then excuse me, but I still believe that the government has more control than it should. I still think that there's a lot that isn't out in the open and that there isn't nearly as much separation of powers as there should be.



And yet disrespect is something that all who don't "earn respect" should recieve? I know you didn't say that, but that's what the saying always implies. "Respect is something you earn. It's not given." This is the motto that bullies use. This is the mantra that people who lack compassion and empathy repeat whenever they're caught being a**holes.

Then I suppose it's all right for me to disrespect everyone who happens to believe things that I don't, because by having separate beliefs they're worthy of disrespect?

Very well, douchebag. You want respect, earn it by being sensible and agreeing with me.

You see what that's like?

I say, respect is something everyone should be entitled to, at least until showing themselves worthy of disrespect. And having different beliefs about anything, be it religion or politics, is NOT a statement of that. People's beliefs are influenced by the world they've been exposed to. They're not something to disrespect people for, especially since--again--one must always be skeptical about their own beliefs in the face of disagreement.



Oh, please. There's a difference between having every single ball you hit be a home run (which is near-impossible), and a country posing as something it isn't to win the favor of it's people. I wonder if it's so unbelievable that you're unwilling to accept it, even if there was true "evidence."



Again, it's not deceptive. (You call me so paranoid and yet here you are thinking everything I do is an attempt to confuse you? Please!) If I view them as different because of the way they've been described to me, then that's not the same thing as bending their definitions to prove my point. I don't see the two as interchangable at all. In my AP European History class last year, we even had to be sure we could distinguish the two. Questions were given in which we had to decide what sort of government various historical governments were "most accurately" described as. Points would get taken of if we called, say, Oliver Cromwell's "military dictatorship" a "totalitarian" government, or Stalin's "totalitarian" government a "dictatorship." It's very easy to confuse the two.

Your ability to distort arguments is the only skill you have that impresses me. You tried to create the apperance that I was simply offering an opinion as fact (a favorite tactic of yours). Your original point was that aggressive militarisim is an exclusive charechteristic of dictatorships. I gave one of many historical examples of why this is'nt true. Apparently you feel anyone who cuts through the BS you dispense is being disrespectfull. You're the one who has been disrespectfull all along with your constant mis-direction of arguments.



You've accused both of being government controlled. Your problem at this point is that you've tried to argue out of both sides of your mouth so much that you forget the points you've made. Go back and check you OWN POSTS!!



It's a red herring because you ignored the main point of the statement, namely the government was'nt able to impliment it's wishes.




More mis-direction. The leagality of abortion in the face of government opposition was the point.


WOW Finally an admition that you're wrong!!




You're really getting desperate here!! You can't refute this point so you resort to nihlism.



You choped up the definition of oligarchy. You left out the "or a ruling class" which you knew to be my point!


I also consider it mature to be able to look at more that one side of the argument. However I consider it IMMATURE to try to argue both sides at once.




This is no insult at all. The more I debate you, the more I realise that your political views ARE your religion. Just like christians, you have to ignore a great deal of evidence in order to hold on to your beliefs.


If you're referring to 9/11 footage, there's no confirmed evidence of a conspiracy there.



I'm only concerned with def. 1 here. Perhaps I misspoke, your comments were heading towards nihlisim.




I hold all truth to be provisional. Sometimes you must be sceptical of facts, sometimes you must be sceptical of the sceptics.





I've never trusted "everything" the news says.


I'm not concerned with the beliefs of christians. I simply see your political worldview as your own unique religion. It serves the purpose of explaining the world, but like all religions, is full of logical inconsistancies.


No, it's what you're saying thats so INACCURATE!





I've already attemted to poit out your inconsistancies and contradictions. You denied ever making the statements you made by parsing your words.







Really?? That's not what Merriam Webster says. The two word are practically interchangable. I see parsing words is a favorite pass-time of yours.


Well, this school textbook's definition is a bit "vague" It could apply to most governments.


You are making the point that politicians are trying to disarm us for the first time here. When I brought the point before, you sais it was'nt necessary to disarm people if you could create an illusion that they were free. This contradicts one of your earlier points. Did you really think I was goint to miss that one??



Who is seeing an illusion here?? If the people cun usually stage a protest. That means a right exists. When protests are only occasionally broken up, you have to look at it on a case-by-case basis, NOT making blanket statements.


Your high School textbooks probably DID contain a certian amount of bull$hit. The government having more power than it should does'nt rise to the level of dictorial control.




I don't care if you agree with me or not, You simply have an opinion that is far out of the mainstream. "Extrordinary" claims require "extrordinary" evidence. Your accepting an extrordinary claim on little more than faith.


We've been dicussing this for quite some time now. I find it hard to respect an opinion that's so radical with so little evidence to back it up.


HA!! My analogywas accurate!! As I've said before I'll accept the notion that our country is an Oligarchy(with a sizable rulling class containing several competing factions) pretending to be a republic.
Your position is that it's a dictatorship trying to be a democracy. You see why I find this so unbelievable? If I said I could hit as well as the best pros, that would be feasable. A government wielding the kind of power you're alleging, would be unable to hide it! Furthermore, It would have no need.



Stalin's government was a dictatorship. Your professor was playing stupid semantical games with you.

Okay, first of all, how have I distorted any arguements? If I have, I appologize. Second of all: there's a difference between stating one's opinion, and saying that anyone who disagrees is psychotic (someone who sees "the opposite of reality," or is out of touch with reality). I don't feel as though anyone who disagrees with what I say disrespects me. I feel disrespected when someone puts words in my mouth, makes assumptions about what I'm saying, calls me a "dolt" for not understanding the "humor" in a situation where they called me ANOTHER insulting name, refutes my arguements without understanding them, and accuses me of doing things that they themselves are doing the whole time. Third of all, I never said that aggressive militarism is EXCLUSIVE to dictatorships, just that it is a trait of them. Again, you're putting words in my mouth. Fourth of all, there you go again accusing me of "mis-direction" of aguements when everything I say is a response to something YOU say. If I "mis-direct" an arguement, it's because you yourself did, and I'm just refuting that point, regardless of whether or not it has an overall impact on the rest of the arguement.




You know, I did, and I didn't see anything I've said say anything about "peer review." Why don't you go back and search my old posts for the phrase "peer review"?




You've done this very thing numorous times, with numorous things you've quoted me saying. Don't be hypocritical, man. It's a common arguement tactic. People reply to what they can, refute what they can--you yourself do this. Don't get on my ass for it just because you can't take it when someone does it to you. Furthermore, as I already explained: in that particular example, what I said still related to the topic at hand.




Ah, well I didn't understand what you were saying here. My appologies. I got confused because you brought that point up in response to something I said about the church's hand in government, so I thought it was your way of saying that the church doesn't have a hand in government. I'm sorry, I don't always follow things too well.



"Finally"? I said "Good point" in response to some of the things you said to indicate you had me on them, even if I wanted to bring up a few more points about them afterwards, just for the sake of acknowledging them.




Again, check the definition of nihilism. Also, I just didn't think either of us could convince the other on this particular point. I mean, I wasn't at all convinced by what you said, and you obviously weren't convinced with what I said, and since this disagreement was based on a lack of proof from either side, I just figured, "What's the point?" I mean, neither of us could produce evidence to convince the other. It was a minor point in the grand scheme of things, and these posts are long enough. "Desperate"? Not really. Just sober. I'm not so drunk on this arguement that I'm unwilling to let a point or two go.



While I didn't include all three definitions, I didn't see that phrase in either of the definitions--I just copied the one I felt was clearest and most appropriate. (I felt that "government by the few" and "an organization under oligarchic control" were kinda vague so I just didn't mention them, especially since their meanings were already covered by the much-clearer second one.)

You can check here if you wish:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/oligarchy

The phrase "or a ruling class" is not stated once on that page. Who's paranoid and delusional now?

Furthermore, "a ruling class" is already covered in the definition I gave you, under "a small group that exercises control." Since this is a government, it's reasonable to assume that this "small group" that is in control is a ruling class.

Also, this is an example of a time where you evaded the main point. I won't get on your ass about if if you don't get on mine about it.

Additionally I'd like to give a big "OOPS!" moment here--below I talked about how I was using the definition I got from my textbook, but here I was quoting an m-w definition in which it definately DID have "absolute"! My bad, my bad.

Basically, a chunk of my arguement was based around my own understanding of the word "dictatorship," which I guess isn't the most accurate understanding. And you did say some things that did convince me about a few things. With that in mind, I'll change my thesis: while the US isn't a COMPLETE dictatorship, I still believe it has the ELEMENTS of one, and that it could become a fully-fledged one after a time.




I consider it immature to misunderstand any concessions one gives to the other side of an arguement as "arguing for both sides at once," especially when you did this with your statement about the gun laws.



But see, that IS an insult to me. I hate religion for this very reason. And I won't ignore this evidence if it convinces me; just not everything will convince me. I mean, you've given me SOME evidence--just not a "great deal." Also, you just haven't contradicted my own points well enough for me to be convinced. I still believe that the elections were rigged (a point you ignored entirely in this arguement); that the two parties are essentially the same in most respects (again, another point you ignored); that the government has SOME control of the mainstream press (in that there is much that isn't reported, much that is fabricated, much that is altered to fit a particular agenda--again, a subject that has been well documented); that religion plays a definitive role in today's government; that the Supreme Court is quite unbalanced, with a majority of the Justices being right-wing (even if the Court doesn't automatically approve everything); that many (though not all) peaceful, nonviolent anti-Bush protests ARE broken up by cops; etc. etc. etc. I'm sorry if I've ignored "a great deal of evidence" that has proven this all to be bunk, but I haven't seen a great deal of evidence. I've seen a great deal of evidence SUPPORTING these claims. Your "evidence" has just shown me the exceptions, the times when things weren't actually all that bad, all just pointing to a single point: that the Bush Administration doesn't have absolute power. Yes, I understand that, and I think that that's a great thing that they don't--you've convinced me that things aren't QUITE so bad as that. But I still think things are pretty damn controlled, and you haven't given me this "great deal of evidence" which you speak of.

Furthermore, the things discussed in religion are scientifically impossible, the stuff of fairy tales and Santa Claus. Haven't there been many real-world scenarios in which the government has excessive control over the populace? What I'm saying is entirely possible.




"Confirmed evidence," eh? Who confirms it?

You still haven't given me a motive for creating the misinformation, either. You didn't with the bit about the stolen 2004 election, either. You haven't done so with any of my points. You keep saying that the points I bring up are unconfirmed, and yet when I specifically ask you why they'd be foraged you don't give me a reason, any of the times.

Have you even bothered looking at the points I brought up in the 9/11 thread, in the aforementioned post you so hypocritically ignored?




Well, I still don't see how. I never once said anything about existence being senseless and useless, and I don't believe that at all. Neither did I say that any "objective ground of truth" is to be taken with a grain of salt. What I said was, neither of us can bring in evidence on this particular matter, so what's the point in continuing it? And in the particular bit that this bit sprung from, I was saying that neither of us can be QUITE sure that we're so right, and that it's terribly self-righteous to be skeptical of everything else but not of yourself. Does that mean any opinion is wrong? Nope. Just that we shouldn't be so utterly convinced we're right that we shouldn't question our own beliefs a bit.




Oh, indeed. You ignored the main point here, by the way.




Good, but I wasn't saying you did. Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I said, "you can't trust them about everything" to explain what I meant.




It's not like I'm talking about fairy tale magic here--just stuff you don't agree with, even if it's technically possible.



Forgive me if I missed a time where you actually quoted two things I said and stated how they were inconsistant. Also, here's yet another time when you avoided the main points--that I sometimes do so unconciously, that I'm sorry for it, and that if it happens it's either a result of a misunderstanding or because you actually convinced me of something and I just didn't realize it.



Hm. Ignoring yet another point. You won't even try to refute it or explain it when I have you on a deceptive tactic? Not even an, "I'm sorry I misunderstood what you meant about the rigged elections"???




Again, when I made my initial statement I wasn't using the M-W definition of dictatorship... >.<



That particular definition was from the US Government textbook. (I know I spoke of the AP Euro textbook earlier, and that definately talked about it and distinguished totalitarian from dictatorship, but the actual definition I was using was from an US Gov. textbook.) The entire book was ridiculous propaganda. It began with talking about how Bush began the War on Terror with "the full support of the American people behind him." (Funnily, most people I knew where shouting "NO WAR! IMPEACH BUSH!" etc.) Then it started talking about how the US was a Democracy, and tried to distinguish this from Dictatorships. Except I looked at the two definitions, and went, "Hey! Everything it says for Dictatorship fits this country better than what it says for Democracy does!" This is actually how I came up with this whole thesis in the first place.



AGAIN with the misinterpretation, even in response to something I say about misinterpretation! I NEVER said that the republicans are trying to disarm us. Where did you get that? You were the one who brought in disarming in the first place. Then I said it wasn't necessary if people thought they were free. Then you said that the Democrats were trying to disarm us, and I said it wasn't important because the Democrats aren't in power, and anyway what you were saying backed up my point rather than your own. Now you say that I'm saying that the republicans are trying to disarm us? What the hell?




My point about the protests was that some WERE being broken up, which means that our freedom of speech IS at steak, regardless of whether or not a right exists. Again, Bush himself said, "The constitution is a piece of paper." You think he cares about rights? You think anyone in the current administration cares much about what rights a piece of paper says we have?




Yeah, if we're using the m-w definition if dictatorship, okay. Oddly, though, the book was full of pro-Bush propaganda. You could even use one of its pages that said, "How to recognize propanganda!", and apply it to the book to find examples of it. I found multiple examples of each type in just the first chapter. It woulda been comical if it wasn't so infuriating.




Accepting it? I created this claim myself, based on what I have seen, what I have heard, what I have read. It requires a LOT more than faith to do that.

And who cares of it's far out of the mainstream? As I've stated before in another thread, if the masses believe it, it's more likely to be bull. That's a whole 'nother arguement. Actually, practically my entire arguement here is BASED around other arguements--control of the media, the elections, etc. If you don't believe me it's because you don't believe them, but that doesn't mean that they themselves don't have evidence for them. I just can't produce it--I mean, what do you expect me to do? What, do you want me to link to a video at YouTube or something? How can someone like me produce evidence? I'm no reporter. I see videos, I see interviews, I see footage, I read a lot that jives with all that, and I tie it all together in a way that fits for me. "Little more than faith," indeed.

I've actually asked you multiple times how you expect me to give you that kind of evidence before but you just ignored it each time.

Oh, and this is another time when you ignored the main point of what you quoted...a little thing about respect.




See above about "so little evidence." And you don't have to respect one's opinion about something to still respect them. An opinion, especially a political opinion, doesn't define every aspect of who someone is. I'm not that simple, and I take it you're not so simple as to have your entire personality defined by your political views, either. I won't judge your worth on our disagreement, or even your hypocracy, so please show me the same respect.



This is just another part where you misunderstood the amount of power I'm alleging here due to the definition of dictatorship I was going with at the time. Therefore, irrelevent--outdated.



Hmm, I do believe you ignored the main point here as well. (Again, I'm happy to get off your ass about it if you get off mine about it--I just want you to understand that you've been doing it waaaaay more than I.) And actually, a question like that was on the bloody test, which wasn't created by my professor at all. Stalin's regime was considered totalitarian by the board because totalitarian deals with extreme rapid changes, wheres dictatorship is looser and implies a more conservative tone. These are expert historians, by the way, and I'm not so sure the m-w definition-makers can say the same.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


But whatever. I'm going to reiterate the most important points here for the sake of clarity. I was going on a different meaning for dictatorship based on high school textbooks, so there was some misunderstanding here. With your definition of dictatorship, no, the administration isn't a dictatorship. With the one I was using, I still think so. You've convinced me that the government doesn't have absolute control, BUT, with that in mind, I still believe that it has ELEMENTS of a dictatorship and that the government still has WAY more control than it should, and that there's plenty of illegal things it gets away with that doesn't get reported on, that there's not nearly as much separation of powers as there should be, press isn't fully free, etc. etc. etc. And I seriously doubt you'll be able to convince me otherwise about those things.

Oh, I get it insult me, put words in my mouth, and then proceed to ignore my response. Yeah, real honorable debating, Scrapheap.

Maybe he's just gotten bored with the debate since all you're doing is repeating the points he's already debunked with increasingly verbose and meandering responses.

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!!

You see Veresae?? This is why I quit the debate. YOUI HAVE MADE SO MANY F*KING CONTADICTIONS AT THIS POINT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP UP WITH YOUR LIES!! !! !

Make one more post on this and I will dedicate an entire thread to expose your sneaky little debating tactics like this. Alll that you have done is bury me with bull$hit. If you want' I will expose that bull for everyone to see. Care to look like a complete fool??

This one isn't about politics, so technically I'm not making a post "on this." Unless, of course I misunderstood what you meant by "on this." In case you do post it, though, know that I'll be gone a for week starting tomorrow (Sunday).

The points I repeat? Oh, no, he hasn't debunked them--he retorted to them, and I retorted to his retorts, and somewhere along the line he stopped, quoted my quote, and just didn't say anything. That's not what I call "debunked." If I get convinced of something (and if you actually read the last post you'd see that I was convinced of a few things) then that's one thing. But I hardly consider a disagreeing statement to count as debunkment.



And I could make one for your "sneaky little debating tactics." Not to mention examples of your disrespect. Is this how you reply whenever anyone calls you on disrespectful acts that you know you did? With threats? Is it so hard to admit it when you did something wrong? I mean, okay, my opinions about politics are a bit convoluted in some respects, and I'll admit that, but my last post was only half about politics. Half of it was kinda about your behavior. If you actually read it you might have seen that I agreed with you in some ways, and that most of the actual debating had been a result of miscommunication due to the fact that you were using the definition of "dictatorship" from a general dictionary, and I was using it from a high school textbook. But then, maybe you did read it, and maybe that's really why you quit the debate, and maybe that's why you're behaving like this--just blocking out what I've actually said in favor of putting words in my mouth.

Your pair of quotes is even another example of not only the disrespect, but also one of your own deceptive tactics--again, putting words in people's mouths and assuming that they said things that they didn't. In the first quote, I assessed why I believed that the Bush Administration was, from a moral perspective, entirely capable of staging an attack, and explained why they would do something like that. (I'll elaborate on this later on in this post.) The second was response to another time when you put words into my mouth. There's a difference between would and could, and there's a difference between explaining why I believe the administration is capable of staging an attack and saying that my reasons for this are, undoubtedly, proof that the administration had all the resources availible and was entirely able to stage the attack. Furthermore, there were multiple times when I have discussed why I believed the administration to be capable of such a thing, and in the first statement you quoted, I was just giving one of the reasons so that my post wouldn't be as long and convoluted as it would have been. (You know, like this one.) I didn't see the point when I'd already given reasoning to support this claim in other posts, reasoning that had not been contradicted. I suppose I should have, though, for you evidently thought that my belief that Bush cheated both elections was the only reason that I believed what I did:



Actually, this was what I was responding to when I made the second statement, and I didn't understand that you were referencing that particular post until now. Before I'd thought you had been talking about one of the numerous times when I had used the elections as reasoning for why the press wasn't free and didn't report on certain things. I was confused, and I'm sorry about that. Sometimes I get confused in debates, and I'm not afraid to admit it. And my confusion was only deepened when you quoted my response and gave no retort, and simply went on to criticize my definition of "dictatorship."

I want to respect your opinions, Scrapheap, but it's hard to when you're being this disrespectful and never once appologizing for any of it--and worse, just being even more disrespectful when I call you on it. But then, I'm sure that posting this at all and being at all critical of your behavior will just give you less incentive to treat me as any respect and more incentive to post that thread, in some attempt to smear any of my beliefs as rubbish 'cus you can't take it that I called you on your own bull and can't think of ways to explain it, or contradict my explainations for your examples of my "bull." But know this: if you do...when I come back, chances are I'm going to just be able to explain most of these "contradictions." Chances are most of them will just be more misunderstandings or miscommunications or moments where you made assumptions like all the other examples you've shown me. And chances are I'll be able to just recycle a lot of what I've said here, all those instances of your bad behavior that you never bothered replying to, all those explainations for mine that you never bothered to understand or acknowledge. And then it won't be me who looks the fool, Scrapheap.

So...are you gonna even bother replying to this one? Are you gonna even bother trying to understand me or my beliefs? Or are you just going to predictably post that thread in the hopes that nobody will listen to my "lies," all the while content with yourself and your disrespectful acts and deceptive tactics, going to all that trouble just to try to make me look bad?

What you did here was a very weak attempt at establishing pattern of behavior. I called you on it, and you tried to dance. Dance all you like but this is a laughable argument. No psycologist would accept this and no Judge would allow such an argument into a courtroom. You know the first attorney I ever met said he could win every case if not for the evidence. You've attempted the same thing here. You constantly try to shift the burden fo proof on me whe it is YOU making outrageous claims, and YOU who must provide the evidence to support those claims. Since you lack any real evidence (Hell, you won't even quote sources!!) to back up any of your theses, you resort to verbal chess.

And that's where we are Veresae, you're good at verbal chess, but you have no REAL case. If you have a logical argument that you can back up with reliable sources, then present your case. Since all you've done is post a whole TON of Inuendo, Insinuations and Heresay, I doubt you have anything to say.

I ask you to listen, but I suppose that's much too much, isn't it? Go ahead, continue making assumptions that I've already explained to be incorrect. Go ahead, think that this is about politics. It's not.

How many times must I repeat myself? I attempted to suggest a pattern of behavior, yes, but I was paraphrasing so that my post wouldn't be ridiculously wrong and because I had already discussed my reasoning in greater detail in earlier posts. And yes, you did call me on it, but when you did, I got confused about what you were talking about because you were vague. I already explained this and bloody appologized for it. I've appologized for other instances of confusion on my part, as well. Have you appologized for any your rampant disrespect? Not at all. You've just deepened it and continued putting words in my mouth and making more assumptions about me. You've ignored my statements about your behavior altogether. You've ignored my examples of your hypocracy and instances of YOUR sneaky tactics and YOUR "verbal chess." If you're so blatant about it then how can you so deplore your examples of mine, even after I explain them thoroughly multiple times and even though you fail to explain how you see my explainations as irrelevent. Your last post was so miniscule that it just seems, well, desperate.

Scrapheap, you're still thinking this is about politics, but it's not. It's about communication and behavior. I could care less about arguing with you about my "dictatorship" theory at this point, and I haven't been talking about it for several posts now. From what I see most of the things I've said that you disagree with were just because you didn't understand what I meant, either because we have different definitions of certain words (i.e. "dictatorship" vs. "totalitarian," "media control" vs. "media influence," and of course "nihilism") or because of miscommunication and confusion. Your main arguement was that the Bush Administration didn't have enough control to have a totalitarian government, and I agreed with you there. However, you said that you did believe that the government does influence what goes on the media and that the government is a corrupt oligarchy that acts towards the desires of the rich, both of which I also agree with. If my politican opinions are so far-fetched then I'm afraid so are yours--from the sound of things they're not really all that different. I just use different terms to describe them.

And as I have stated many times before, there is proof for much of what I've said--I just can't give it and the public isn't being given it. I've asked you many times how someone like me can provide convincing proof, how you expect me to give you top-secret incriminating files or whatever when they're not already being circulated, and you haven't answered me. I've referred you to the videos that have convinced me, and you have ignored these referrals altogether. I appologize if you feel I shifted the burden on proof to you, but I don't remember doing so. Perhaps this was another example of miscommunication. I do remember saying that neither of us could provide sufficient proof on a particular matter, simply because neither of us could, and then you accused me of desperation and used an incorrect definition of nihilism. I don't quote verbal sources because I don't believe an article is convincing because anyone can write an article and fabricate stuff like crazy--I need a video with footage and interviews and that sort of thing. That's why I recommended such films as "The Corporation," "Outfoxed," and "9/11 Revisited" much earlier.

I have asked you, Scrapheap, what you would say if this was all found to be true, and you dodged the question. It seems to me that you simply want to disagree with me without even bothering to give my views a chance, and want to think that I'm some sneaky immoral debator. I'm not, and I've explained how. You haven't given me any sufficient contradictions, nor have you explained how you are not. Every post you make in this thread is another example of how you are, for you keep trying to make this be about politics again and ignoring anything I say about your behavior and about our accidental miscommunication. Even your first one in this thread was, for you put words in my mouth before this debate even got started.

You know, you really had me going for a secod that this whole thing was just a matter of mis-communication and that I was being a total jerk. But then you posted...this....

I was going to make a quip about this being your most blatant attempt at mis-direction to date, but then I had an epiphany, It hit me like a diamond bullet right between the eyes....right here....

You're right absolutely 100% right. This whole debate to you isn't about politics is it?? No, it's about your fragile little ego. Just get it over and admit it. You can't handle the slightest little jab because your skin is too thin. That's why you're arguing a viewpoint that has no merrit. It makes you feel better about yourself that you can master bombastic blather. You don't believe in a single word you post, you just look for ways to attack others arguments, dispense a large glob of sophistry, and walk away from your computer...and laugh... This is likely your only enjoyment in life so I won't give it to you anymore. You had your fun, now POOF......go away!!

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. This isn't fun for me at all. Believe me. I absolutely believe what I post. I just have uncommon beliefs and a terminology that doesn't always jive with everyone else's. And I'm certainly lot laughing--I never was. There's nothing funny about being insulted, Scrapheap--how could you think I'm getting enjoyment out of your flaming? I don't like arguing with people, about politics or about personal matters. I'm more inclined to post my own opinion and be done with it. But when someone responds to something I say, especially when they do it by putting words in my mouth, I feel obligated to defend myself. Why do I continue posting in this thread, though? Well, I want this stuff resolved, and I think you owe me an appology for your disrespect, especially for that last post.

I don't get how you can accuse me of looking for ways to attack other arguements when you were the one who attacked mine in the first place, you were the one who insulted me and put words in my mouth and told me I was saying things that I wasn't. And lo and behold, you're doing it again.

And...can't handle the slightest jab? Excuse me? I have admitted it when you had me on something, and I appologized for my mistakes multiple times. I'm far from a narcassist. I criticize myself like crazy and frequently wonder how to become a better person. So I can definately handle jabs--at least when they have any merit to them. I don't take kindly to people accusing me of things that aren't true. When they are true, I admit it, as I have done so numerous times in this very thread. You have done no such thing for any of your dishonorable actions, and look what happens when I call you on them--you deflect them to me without any given explaination or reasoning, and when I pick that apart you try changing the subject. And when it seems like you can't do that anymore, you just tell me to "go away," as though you can't face it. Hmm, it looks to me like you're the one with the ego problem, Scrapheap. Pray tell, how did you come to the conclusion that any of this was about my ego? Please tell me you have evidence and reasoning for this that you simply haven't divulged--you have been so hypocritical in this thread already as it is.

Furthermore, if my arguement has no merit, then I suppose neither does yours. I still don't understand how our opinions about politics are all that different, save different terminology and my belief that the government was in part behind 9/11. Funnily enough, I did post some stuff that could be considered verrrry convincing in the 9/11 thread right around the time that you quit, as close to proof as someone like me can provide, but of course you decided to ignore that, as though you simply didn't want to face it. You know, like right now.

What an accurate doccumentary of a verbose, fillabustering, sophist.

Erased wrong thread... dunno how it ended up here.

Last edited by Abangyarudo on 16 Dec 2007, 4:17 am, edited 1 time in total.