Why are liberals incapable of rational debate? (Putin, Congress, wage)

[Huckleberry3911948]

a big complaint on CDF is that people do not think and say what the OP wants them too.
for the hard right there is only one correct post response.
zeik heil

[Shizzles]

Originally Posted by saganista

I don't have an ideology. I have an array of positions that are presently held pending further study and the receipt of additional pertinent information.


I will certainly plead guilty to displeasure at the audacity of people who lie when the truth is sitting plainly in the middle of the table. Tax cuts do not increase government revenues. It doesn't matter how many times the claim is repeated, it is still false. No one should feel poorly over being intellectually superior to serial liars. Everyone should in fact strive for at least that much.

So when I posted the link about Conservatives giving more than Liberals, you provided a thoughtful and throuogh analysis as to why that was wrong, correct? Or did you do this:

Originally Posted by saganista

Who needs a disinformation media when you can simply fool yourself...

This was in response to Bagz when he agreed with my article. You claim you seek to provide the "truth". I see very little fact-finding and a whole lot of temper-tantruming in this reply....

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Shizzles

So when I posted the link about Conservatives giving more than Liberals, you provided a thoughtful and throuogh analysis as to why that was wrong, correct? Or did you do this:

Originally Posted by saganista
Who needs a disinformation media when you can simply fool yourself

This was in response to Bagz when he agreed with my article. You claim you seek to provide the "truth". I see very little fact-finding and a whole lot of temper-tantruming in this reply....

<bagz> response suggested an ability to confirm the thesis of Arthur Brooks' book by looking at the individual income tax returns of four people. Is that a thesis that you would endorse, or does that amount more to hollow partisan chirping from the Peanut Gallery?

Brooks' book itself meanwhile has been done to death on C-D. Do you know his methodologies? Can you explain why he used variable confidence intervals? Do you know his data sources? Do you know why he chose to exclude data from other pertinent sources? Do you know why he excluded Moderates from his analyses, focusing just on Liberals and Conservatives? If not, then, like many before you, I would suggest that you may have come away with more of the hype, and less of the substance, generated by Brooks' research. This is not, by the way, entirely to discredit his work. It is not a piece of junk. It is however sufficiently incomplete and imprecise as to be at best suggestive, whereas the hype has (hardly surprisingly) pushed it as conclusive.

[Shizzles]

Originally Posted by saganista

<bagz> response suggested an ability to confirm the thesis of Arthur Brooks' book by looking at the individual income tax returns of four people. Is that a thesis that you would endorse, or does that amount more to hollow partisan chirping from the Peanut Gallery?

Brooks' book itself meanwhile has been done to death on C-D. Do you know his methodologies? Can you explain why he used variable confidence intervals? Do you know his data sources? Do you know why he chose to exclude data from other pertinent sources? Do you know why he excluded Moderates from his analyses, focusing just on Liberals and Conservatives? If not, then, like many before you, I would suggest that you may have come away with more of the hype, and less of the substance, generated by Brooks' research. This is not, by the way, entirely to discredit his work. It is not a piece of junk. It is however sufficiently incomplete and imprecise as to be at best suggestive, whereas the hype has (hardly surprisingly) pushed it as conclusive.

You could say that for any publication. Nobody, not even you, know "everything". As for interviewing 4 people, do you really believe that? LAMO.

I don't doubt your an avid intellectual and have good research skills, but do you ever travel and see first hand the on-the-ground effects of your social positions? How do you explain the failures of housing like Pruitt-Igoe or Cabrini-Green? How do you explain the rise in crime after, not before, the Great Society?


For example, how much reading/watching have you done around the French Riots of 2005? Here you have a country with extremely generous welfare benefits, a tolerant agenda and a very left-wing viewpoint experienceing social problems, where as it's decidedly more capitalist, conservative and "do-or-die" cousin across the channel has become a model for intergration? You can crunch the numbers and read all the books in the world, but if you don't understand the human element, nothing will work. Communisum was supposed to work on paper too remember?

[Odelia]

Originally Posted by zman0

Well, maybe not all liberals, but a vast majority of them.

Any time the talking points of the American Left are put under the microscope and attempted to be analyzed under unbiased conditions, liberal members of this board immediately jump on the attack.

Consider the thread on Nazism, where I questioned the talking point "Right wingers are Nazis!" Rather than engage in rational debate, discussing whether the Nazis really exhibited socialism (as opposed to merely giving it lip service), it quickly turned into a flame and troll fest.

Similarly, the post on the inaction of civilized countries in Kenya, rather than being about what obligation civilized nations have to prevent genocide and whether they are living up to that obligation, flames about the Iraq war sprang up.

A post on how suicide bombers can kill innocent people turned into an attack on Christianity, same with any posts about homosexuality or abortion.

Is this visceral reaction merely a consequence of the fact that more posters here are liberal than conservative (see the politics forum for evidence)? I have noticed that there are a few liberals who, while I do not necessarily agree with them, are able to articulate their positions without resorting to personal attacks and insults.

Should the "Great Debates" forum be restricted to certain posters who petition for access? Should it be open with selective banning of people who don't adhere to the "high standards" expected?

Your input is appreciated. Thank you.

Education and experience in which to draw from? They debate on here and now rather then lets say history ect? Not that any of that is a bad thing you cant get world knowledge over night. In order to debate one would have to have background and knowledge in which to draw conclusions from. Articulation is a tricky one are they good at communicating what they mean. Maybe that could be some of the problems. Erm, I wouldn't restrict access to debate. Setting standards and banning could work. Most boards have a troll policy. Maybe having some informal debates so people can be more relaxed not so restricted to a standard. Open debate is always fun People learning is a good thing even if they are not very good at debate. I would never have a leg to stand on debating lets say a scientist but I will try to learn everything I can. Really sounds like critically thinking skills. Do they teach that anymore?
We are truly on our own paths I believe. That of course would have to be debated another day lol.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Shizzles

You could say that for any publication.

No, some research is done to impeccable standards, and some is not. That which underlies Brooks' book falls into the latter category but would hardly serve well as an exemplar of it. There are far more egregiously biased reports than his. Brooks made data and methodology choices that affected his outcomes. Different choices would have yielded different outcomes. Though it isn't always easy, that's a situation that most researchers try to avoid.

Originally Posted by Shizzles

Nobody, not even you, know "everything".

Certainly not. There are plenty of topics discussed in these parts where I would have no particular interest and no real knowledge or insight to offer. I don't post in those very often.

Originally Posted by Shizzles

As for interviewing 4 people, do you really believe that? LAMO.

The response by <bagz> that you refered to suggested that the thesis of Brooks' book could be confirmed by examining the tax returns of the presidential tickets. That would amount to four people by my reckoning.

Originally Posted by Shizzles

I don't doubt your an avid intellectual and have good research skills, but do you ever travel and see first hand the on-the-ground effects of your social positions?

My social positions aren't actually implemented to the degree that I'd like to see them. Possibly a good thing, possibly not. Travel is something that I no longer look forward to. I have tried to cut back. The past twelve months have seen three signfiicant trips...one through the midwest, one through the northeast, and one to Europe. With luck, I can keep it to two next year, one of which would so far appear to be to the southeast in the Spring.

Originally Posted by Shizzles

How do you explain the failures of housing like Pruitt-Igoe or Cabrini-Green?

The same way I'd explain the Challenger and Columbia losses: something went critically wrong with those missions. Reason to scrub the program?

Originally Posted by Shizzles

How do you explain the rise in crime after, not before, the Great Society?

Usually it's after they took prayer out of the public schools. I suppose the Great Society is at least a change of pace. Maybe landing a man on the moon and the Mets winning the '69 Series were factors also. You'd kind of have to make some sort of connection to turn correlation into causation, though. That would apply to Charles Murray as well.

Otherwise, crime rates, especially those associated with the Eisenhower-era plague of juvenile delinquency, were already headline news in the 1950's. Rates did increase during the Vietnam/Watergate era, peaking in conjunction with the departures-in-shame of Nixon and Agnew and the first Arab oil embargo. Until recently, property crime rates had been improving almost continuously since the day Jimmy Carter was inaugurated, falling by roughly 70% across a 25-year period. Violent crime rates, fueled in large part by Reagan's insipid War on Drugs, did not begin to decline until the mid-90's but had been more than cut in half by the time Bill Clinton left office. [Data are per the National Crime Victimization Survey. Context was added by me.]

Originally Posted by Shizzles

For example, how much reading/watching have you done around the French Riots of 2005?

Wasn't an issue that drew much of my attention, although I do recall a radio editorial wondering whether French republicanism could survive or whether the country would spin off into an economic apartheid such as that of the US. In any case, if you'd like to explain why this particular one out of history's many examples of such uprisings has a significance that is not otherwise understood, I'd be all ears.

Originally Posted by Shizzles

Here you have a country with extremely generous welfare benefits, a tolerant agenda and a very left-wing viewpoint experiencing social problems, where as it's decidedly more capitalist, conservative and "do-or-die" cousin across the channel has become a model for intergration?

Model for integration? That might be overstating it.

Originally Posted by Shizzles

You can crunch the numbers and read all the books in the world, but if you don't understand the human element, nothing will work. Communisum was supposed to work on paper too remember?

And Reagonomics, and laissez-faire, and the Invasion of Iraq. The advantage that research and numbers bring is one of broadened perspective. What comes out of any relevant sql query will always be more useful than anything that comes out of the mouth of Joe the Plumber. He is a drop of water when what you need is a bucket.

[burdell]

In many cases, this being a prime example, the original premise is irrational, negating the possibility of rational debate.

[Icy Tea]

I can only speak from my experience. I got interested in the chat rooms after a long hiatus because this election had everybody so riled up. I can say up front that I cannot stand hypocrisy at all, so I get testy when I try to have a civil debate and get nowhere with people who have their heads firmly planted up their you know whats. I also get annoyed when I get labeled something I am not by people who don't know me and are basically only showing how ignorant and narrow minded they are. I also don't like being verbally attacked personally for my views or getting bullied by gangs who think free speech only belongs to those who agree with them completely. This is probably why I have to be so harsh against liberals. They are supposed to be the open minded, tolerant, educated, but many aren't. That they can believe they are is just aggravating.
Both conservatives and liberals are at fault here, I don't like either one in particular because so many truly disgusting people hind behind those labels and spew hatred and intolerance. But the worst are the left wingers. I think the folks on the right can be bad, but more of those on the left are surely sick.
I made a comment in another chat that both McCain and Obama were terrible choices for president and was set upon by 4 or 5 left wingers that tried to drive me out of the room attacking every comment I made, verbally abusing me, demanding I prove everything argument I offered. I saw that behavior more from the left than I did from the right and I have no doubt that more mentally ill people support the left than the right. These people are angry, self destructive, and lash out at everybody, society, the country, the government and cannot be reasoned with. They spewed hatred at Hillary supporters, McCain supporters, independants, everybody. A conservative may be an ignorant jerk, he may be racist, he may even be stupid, but he's generally not mentally ill. The far left are all of the above, more than anybody else.
That's why I'm here, the debates are more thoughtful, less nasty, more issue oriented and people are more careful to present rational opinions.

[Bagz]

Originally Posted by saganista

Applause for the post, but the process works much better when all sides have some tendency to accept and examine facts and to believe that counter-arguments might have some merit. If, however, you are dealing with a group whose credo is built around revealed philosophical absolutes, and whose information base is actually a members-only, gated-community of pure propaganda, the suggested course of action can prove both frustrating and a good deal less than productive...

Very interesting that you start your post espousing arguments with merit and end it with an ad hominem attack on a group. A false one at that since you have all access to the propaganda as the average member of the group you are attacking.

Originally Posted by saganista

I will certainly plead guilty to displeasure at the audacity of people who lie when the truth is sitting plainly in the middle of the table. Tax cuts do not increase government revenues. It doesn't matter how many times the claim is repeated, it is still false. No one should feel poorly over being intellectually superior to serial liars. Everyone should in fact strive for at least that much.

I have no problem when you say that saying tax cuts increase revenues is a lie as long as you are clear that when you say tax RATE cuts could possibly increase revenue. Then we can debate on at which point does raising tax rates decrease revenue and whether we are there or not. This issue is the main issue I am neither a Democrat or Republican - since they seem to agree that the goal is to find the rate that maximizes the income for government. I think the rate should be what is most fair to the people. What is clear is that a tax rate so high that income actually decreases for both is good for neither. I would say that most repubs that espouse tax rate cuts mistakenly call them tax cuts. Your post calling them liars without any attempt to clarify the issue is an excellent example of why I find it more frustrating to argue with liberals than conservatives - bringing us back on topic for this thread.

Originally Posted by saganista

<bagz> response suggested an ability to confirm the thesis of Arthur Brooks' book by looking at the individual income tax returns of four people. Is that a thesis that you would endorse, or does that amount more to hollow partisan chirping from the Peanut Gallery?

Here is a great example of why I think we should all use some rules of arguments on these forums. Here we have a well read liberal trying to make a valid claim that my argument is flawed. You could have simply said that this statement is a false generalization. Rather you pointed out the premise for such an argument and instead of making the proper conclusion diverted into an ad-hominem attack. Had you tried to make the argument that it was false generalization, I would have pointed out that I was not generalizing to a result, but rather simply pointing out that the result from the study is not in conflict with the leaders of the 2 parties. This is a point that the left would rather ignore because they are embarrassed by it, but if we bring it up, maybe future leaders will be more generous.

Originally Posted by saganista

Who needs a disinformation media when you can simply fool yourself...

It is statements like this that bring up the question that kicked off this thread.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Bagz

Very interesting that you start your post espousing arguments with merit and end it with an ad hominem attack on a group.

The thread itself is an ad hominem attack on a group.

Originally Posted by Bagz

A false one at that since you have all access to the propaganda as the average member of the group you are attacking.

Oh, I have access alright...I just don't BUY any of it, something that puts a very broad gap between me and a whole gaggle of right-wingers.

Originally Posted by Bagz

I have no problem when you say that saying tax cuts increase revenues is a lie as long as you are clear that when you say tax RATE cuts could possibly increase revenue. Then we can debate on at which point does raising tax rates decrease revenue and whether we are there or not.

If you are refering to studies of the effects of the JFK tax cuts in the early 1960's that do suggest a delayed and minor positive effect on federal revenues while conceding that this is the only known instance of the effect, I would have no problem. The claim by the typical right-winger however is that tax cuts automatically increase federal revenues -- that the Reagan tax cuts did so, and that the Bushie tax cuts did so. This is malarkey.

If you are suggesting on the other hand that some sort of Laffer Curve-based analysis should be undertaken here, that too is malarkey through and through.

Originally Posted by Bagz

This issue is the main issue I am neither a Democrat or Republican - since they seem to agree that the goal is to find the rate that maximizes the income for government. I think the rate should be what is most fair to the people.

The general idea is that federal revenues from all sources should at least come close to matching government expenditures for all purposes, such that the country does not have to run huge serial deficits as it has done for the past eight years. It is not necessary to maximize revenues, only to keep them in line with expenditures. Equity concerns involved in potential rate structures that would collect the amounts needed are a separate matter, one in which the elements of marginal utility theory will come importantly into play.

Originally Posted by Bagz

What is clear is that a tax rate so high that income actually decreases for both is good for neither.

There is no evidence that we are anywhere near such a rate.

Originally Posted by Bagz

I would say that most repubs that espouse tax rate cuts mistakenly call them tax cuts. Your post calling them liars without any attempt to clarify the issue is an excellent example of why I find it more frustrating to argue with liberals than conservatives - bringing us back on topic for this thread.

What degree of truth would you see in a statement that either tax cuts ot tax rate cuts increase federal revenues? I've been through this before. I don't feel a need to set out the arguments against such a claim every time I make a passing reference to it.

Originally Posted by Bagz

Here is a great example of why I think we should all use some rules of arguments on these forums. Here we have a well read liberal trying to make a valid claim that my argument is flawed. You could have simply said that this statement is a false generalization. Rather you pointed out the premise for such an argument and instead of making the proper conclusion diverted into an ad-hominem attack. Had you tried to make the argument that it was false generalization, I would have pointed out that I was not generalizing to a result, but rather simply pointing out that the result from the study is not in conflict with the leaders of the 2 parties.

Actually, you used the word "reaffirmed"...as in reaffirmed by looking at the tax returns of the presidential tickets, as if these four tax returns would comprise additional evidence in support of Brooks' questionable conclusions. If you now say that this was a poor choice of words on your part, I would agree. There is nothing ad hominem however about discrediting the post as it originally appeared.

Originally Posted by Bagz

This is a point that the left would rather ignore because they are embarrassed by it, but if we bring it up, maybe future leaders will be more generous.

It is a study that the right tries to trump up despite its flaws because they have so little else to cling to. Their stewardship over the past eight years has been a complete disaster. Their much-touted domestic and foreign policies all lie in tatters. More than nine out of ten Americans think that this country has been put on the wrong track. Touting the Brooks book at this point is little more than a vain and desperate attempt to award some sort of feel-good consolation prize to the right-wing faithful whose faith has been so utterly betrayed.