Reticent Liberalism vs. Unabashed Liberalism

Page 6 of 6 [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,671
Location: Seattle

01 Sep 2010, 1:58 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
It does suck to have everything you've said need to be repeated, or at least demanded to be repeated, and then if you give in they spin everything you say into what they want to believe anyway. It's like, "what is the best way to waste my time? Of course! Debating with jerks who twist everything I say and assume the worst possible interpretation and never accept correction no matter how much they are proved incorrect!"


If I want to think of it that way, I could take consolation into having provoked more wasted time than I burned myself; look at all those laborious nested quotes and fisking, plus those ancient quotes of me had to have taken some effort to exhume. Fortunately, I'm not the sort to revel in that sort of spitefulness.

I've *mostly* gotten over the competitive aspects of debating politics here, it's not like any of us is really changing anyone's mind or influencing anything, it's just a fun way to stay sharp and subject ideas and beliefs to a form of peer review. Like I'm often telling frustrated PPR newbs, nobody gets a pass here, if you say something you have to defend it and if you can't defend it you might want to think a little harder about what you said. Be that as it may, it does get a bit old rehashing the same issues with the same people, especially when those people seem to have selective amnesia about what ground has been covered before. I've learned to keep it short with certain subjects and people, it gives them less to latch onto and launch into unrelated diatribes.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

03 Sep 2010, 8:35 pm

Dox47 wrote:
I think most of the forum is sufficiently familiar with me at this point that I don't have to defend myself from every baseless accusation that gets made, and there's nothing for me to gain from embarrassing everyone who tries. If another poster wants to try to spin my intellectual curiosity about controversial subjects into some sort of fanciful narrative painting me as a paranoid militia type, fine, my posting record tell a different story that I'll stand by.


The main problem is that I provided a base for my accusation - and that base is very deep.

Dox47 wrote:
Even my fight with the mods, which boiled down to me feeling that they ought to abide by their own rules, (Alex never weighed in either way) should be viewed through the fact that I came back from the resulting ban. There were plenty of PPR regulars with much more time here and thousands more posts that disappeared without a trace, never to be seen again, that I'm still standing ought to say something.
My views are diverse and are all arrived at via my own cogitations, I don't take my cues from any ideology or political party, let alone use "talking points". I'd could go on at length laying out my positions and explaining how they differentiate me from various ideological constructs, but I fear I'd be tiring my fingers out for nothing. One of these days I'll get around to my long contemplated post on the abuse of language in argumentation and the weakness of arguments based on buzz words and image heavy loaded terms, but that's a project for another day.


The problem is that many of your views and arguments in this thread parrot rather run of the mill ultra-right talking points - "liberal elitism", "big government spending", and so fourth.

Dox47 wrote:
In the meantime, I certainly won't be justifying myself to people who can't respect other people's right to their own opinions, that's a losers game and a waste of my time. I'm interested in discussing issues with rational adults who can respectfully disagree with each other, not ideological slugging matches where "winning" at any cost is the order of the day. I had my fill of that in high school.


Get off you're high horse. This debate was mainly about policy before you severely misinterpreted by comment about "Soviet Russia" as an insult towards you and you brought up the "I'm no racist" spiel when I wasn't even accusing you of racism. You also whined about me "stereotyping you", which I took as an allusion to my earlier "militia comments" - which were well justified (as I've extensively argued).

The fact of the matter is that if you don't want to get into a personal debate, don't make it personal.