Capitalism: A Love Story

[Ritterin Sophia]

Schatten - You suggest there's no need for you to "pile on." Well, how about to answer for the fact that you accused me of applying a definition incorrectly when I was talking about the implication, rather than the precise meaning, of the term? You jumped the gun, then resorted to ad hominem attack.

According to your own citation, bias is often found to occur with prejudice. Do you believe that prejudice has any place in the making of sound argument?

I'm saying his prejudice is irrelevent to his argument and points, cunt stain. By the same token I could write your arguments off because you have a bias to the right wing losers you like to fellate oh so much.

[Axis Kast]

Seriously. Do you require some kind of counseling? It appears as if you've got some kind of rage issue to take care of.

Prejudice involves the abandonment of reason in the formation of opinion. How can that fail to weaken his position and invite question regarding his points?

[ray245]

Schatten - You suggest there's no need for you to "pile on." Well, how about to answer for the fact that you accused me of applying a definition incorrectly when I was talking about the implication, rather than the precise meaning, of the term? You jumped the gun, then resorted to ad hominem attack.

According to your own citation, bias is often found to occur with prejudice. Do you believe that prejudice has any place in the making of sound argument?

I'm saying his prejudice is irrelevent to his argument and points, cunt stain. By the same token I could write your arguments off because you have a bias to the right wing losers you like to fellate oh so much.

I wonder does he even care about what we have to say since we are obviously biased as well.

[Guardsman Bass]

Where are you getting this "only right-winger on the board" deal, Axi? Both Stuart and Shep, for example, have some views that lean heavily into the right. Most people seem to respect Stuart even if they disagree with him, and people generally at least listen to Shep - both of which belies your point about this being some type of hermetically sealed left wing environment.

[Axis Kast]

I can't speak to Stuart, but Shep absolutely restricts himself to making certain arguments, and no more. I was very clear that I am not the only so-called "right-winger," but the only one who is so free with his opinions in front of the board as a whole.

[Samuel]

I can't speak to Stuart, but Shep absolutely restricts himself to making certain arguments, and no more. I was very clear that I am not the only so-called "right-winger," but the only one who is so free with his opinions in front of the board as a whole.

Just to be clear, what constitutes right wing? I was under the impression Darth Wong is a Canadian conservative as are several other members for their respective country (like Ray).

You seem to be the only openly vocal American conservative, but the US is the most right wing first world nation.

[Axis Kast]

I wouldn't be considered conservative by American standards. My social values are too obviously liberal - even well beyond what is standard of most Democrats.

[ray245]

I can't speak to Stuart, but Shep absolutely restricts himself to making certain arguments, and no more. I was very clear that I am not the only so-called "right-winger," but the only one who is so free with his opinions in front of the board as a whole.

Just to be clear, what constitutes right wing? I was under the impression Darth Wong is a Canadian conservative as are several other members for their respective country (like Ray).

You seem to be the only openly vocal American conservative, but the US is the most right wing first world nation.

I'm considered a liberal by Singapore's standard.

[Samuel]

Don't you support the ruling party which is authoritarian because the oppostion is batshit insane on social issues? Most of the members of the board have similar stances on social issues, if only because we have to deal with the people who would be marginalized if we were any other position.

Unless we want to use right wing as a complete synonym for reactionary although that seems to be disturbing close.

[ray245]

Don't you support the ruling party which is authoritarian because the oppostion is batshit insane on social issues? Most of the members of the board have similar stances on social issues, if only because we have to deal with the people who would be marginalized if we were any other position.

Unless we want to use right wing as a complete synonym for reactionary although that seems to be disturbing close.

Not really supporting any party at the moment.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Seriously. Do you require some kind of counseling? It appears as if you've got some kind of rage issue to take care of.

Congratulations, dipshit, you found out I'm a disagreeable asshole. To think you did it without requiring a search of my posting history.

Prejudice involves the abandonment of reason in the formation of opinion. How can that fail to weaken his position and invite question regarding his points?

I didn't say don't question his points, dumbass. I said that his pejudice (bias) towards his issues are irrelevent so long as the points he makes remain valid, to say that his points are invalid because he states or makes them in a way you disagree with (IE His side of the argument only) is a style over substance fallacy. This is like saying that because I'm currently uninsured that my opinion on the UHC situation is invalid because I'm directly affected by any decision made regarding it, therefore I'm prejudiced to want to pay more taxes in order for the government to provide me with healthcare that doesn't require me to stick with a shitty job.

[Edi]

The sour grapes seemed even more clear to me after the discussion of banks than before. People were making bizarre claims that banking itself - the very act of it - was "wasting money" or "shoving it down a hole."

Care to quote anyone saying that? I read through that thread and what people were saying was that the current kind of Russian roulette investment banking and reckless lending type banking was wasting money and shoving it down a hole, as opposed to the responsible kind.

Quite the difference between that and your quote.

[Darth Wong]

It isn't a question of scholarly study; it's a question of whether a large number of Americans go to see Michael Moore movies with the belief that they can actually pick up munition for political argument. They can. However, the conclusions they are able to draw from it will be severely circumscribed. Less healthy than if they'd picked up a book. We've established that I don't expect Moore to change his behavior, however - precisely because he isn't a formal educator.

Yes, because any person who thinks he can actually gain a comprehensive understanding of a complex subject by watching a single movie is an idiot. How is this an indictment of any particular movie on the subject? What you're asking for is quite frankly absurd. What the fuck kind of movie is going to give its viewers a comprehensive understanding of a subject? I've seen lots of video documentaries and I've never seen one that gave what I would consider a comprehensive understanding of all sides of a contentious issue.

I am demanding nothing. I am referring to the fact that, as Republicans listen to what is really the equivalent of shock radio to get their talking points, so too a good number (not as many, of course, but a good number) will view Moore's movie with the sense that his presentation is more or less an accurate presentation, if opinionated.

His voice-overs and ambush interviews are obviously opinionated, but how could anyone possibly not see them as such? Seriously, is there a such thing as an impartial ambush interview?

I contend that you isolate yourselves by a kind of thinking which suggests that the conclusions which you draw are so self-evident, there can be no valid explanation of divergence except perfidy.

In some cases, that is absolutely true. Look at the health-care debate, the "religion in the public square" debate, the "waterboarding is not torture" debate, and the "small-government is always best" debate. In all of these cases, the argument simply doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny, and you know it, which is why you don't even bother trying to defend those arguments. Treating this conclusion as some sort of liberal dogma is just an attempt to marginalize the inescapable conclusion that there is a lot of either stupidity or dishonesty inherent in a lot of standard right-wing arguments.

A good example can be seen in the lengthy discussion between Stas Bush and myself regarding perceptions of a Missile Gap by members of the U.S. Congress. Stas was flabbergasted as to why any legislator would not be convinced of the foolhardiness of any such condition of military inferiority after receiving a briefing from the CIA. He seemed hard put to understand that anybody could doubt the validity of those reports with anything but a heart black as coal.

I didn't follow that debate.

You yourself seem unable to believe that most Republicans avoid speaking out about Limbaugh or "militia nuts" because they simply don't feel any personal sense of ownership or intellectual disenfranchisement when those parties receive air time or attention.

They don't just "avoid speaking out" about him. They invite him to speak at their events. They praise him in public. Any Republican who dares criticize him is immediately made to apologize and beg forgiveness.

You suggest that there's been an alliance; most Republicans see a coincidence of views. Is the left responsible for anarchists and their ilk?

Anarchists are small-government libertarians.

It's no secret that many of them have chosen to duck out because they fear for reputations and friendships that I never bothered cultivating, and therefore couldn't miss. They wilted because they felt that it was "open season," and got out of town before they took a Dick Cheney special right to the head.

Oh bullshit; if they feared for reputations or friendships, they would not leave because there's no reputation or friendship when there's no contact. And your "get out before the tyrants take you out" bullshit is just that: bullshit. Many of those people would have loved to get banned for having the wrong opinion, but they knew they would have to troll first, which wouldn't look nearly as martyr-like. The reason they wilted is because a lot of them wanted to cling to arguments that simply couldn't be defended. Even you don't try to defend some of these arguments, because you know perfectly well that a lot of these party-line US right-wing arguments are horseshit.

I never said that the Republican Party couldn't be tied to death panel rhetoric - I said that the rhetoric was offered with a very often honest set of assumptions, making no testimony as to their truth value except that it was zip. I asked you for evidence that the Republican Party was either allied with militia types, or that most Republicans supported them. My contention was that the two groups share political space, and that it was unreasonable to ask Republicans to assume responsibility for those others.

Nice spin-doctoring. I would suggest viewers read the original thread, particularly the part where you dismissed Sarah Palin as one who lacks "proximity" to the Republican party.

The sour grapes seemed even more clear to me after the discussion of banks than before. People were making bizarre claims that banking itself - the very act of it - was "wasting money" or "shoving it down a hole." If that were true, nobody, anywhere, would ever put money in a bank. I didn't ask if banks had lost money recently. I further explained the rationale for non-performance-based pay, and why change would have to be handled delicately. When people start claiming, "Any old hack could do better!" and strut around sharing their brilliant schemes for investment success, my suspicion of sour grapes spikes. None of those statements of theirs was remotely justified. You think for a minute that all of those analytical mills missed the same conclusions?

You ignored rebuttals to your rationale for irrational pay schemes, and you ignored the fact that yes, anyone has the skills necessary to drive a bank into bankruptcy. Interpreting such a statement by attacking the psychological motives of its author rather than finding logical fault with it is a textbook logic fallacy. Again, I would invite people to read the original thread.

You're taking "hermetically sealed" to mean "no mention of," wheras I take it to mean, "no practical hope of impact for."

In other words, any environment where people don't start to agree with party-line right-wing arguments is "hermetically sealed" from them? Nice butchering of the English language.

You persist in using the term "study," which you then compare to Michael Moore's acknowledged profession - of "video editorialist," in an effort to make me seem ridiculous. However, if so many Americans are ignorant enough to watch the news, particularly Fox, and swallow it hook, line, and sinker, then why not Moore's movies? It doesn't require a sense that he's produced scholarship - just a look at a problem that accurately presents both sides. Sure, there are many folks who know better. But there are also many who do not.

Anyone who thinks he can get a comprehensive view of all sides of a contentious social issue by watching a single movie is a blithering idiot and you know it.

A person launching a salvo in debate is expected to be cognizant of the other side's potential arguments, and, more important, the evidence from which those might be crafted.

Which is only relevant if his conclusion is genuinely weak. Looking at his past work, such as "Bowling for Columbine", his central argument was never really refuted, so why do you think it was weak? His problem was the dilution of his central argument about media fear-mongering with pointless exercises such as the bullet-return or the Heston ambush interview, but the argument was sound. Looking at "Farenheit 911", it's one of his weaker works but it's still largely beyond dispute that the Bush Administration took the US into Iraq on totally fraudulent grounds, and that many US businesses have found a way to get rich off the war. Even many right-wingers have grudgingly conceded this. Looking at "Sicko", he does some pretty silly stunts in the movie (even to the point of accompanying a woman who is attempting to criminally defraud the Ontario health-care system) and exaggerates certain things but once again, his basic point is fairly sound: universal health care is the only way to go. Even you admit this.

If a conclusion is reasonably sound, and people nitpick at it because they think its presentation was not "balanced" enough, that's not an example of a weak argument; it's an example of weak rebuttals.

I disagree that an argument should necessarily be free of bias. I would agree that a study should be as impartial as possible.

The strongest argument will be conducted with all the evidence in hand.

No, the strongest argument is one whose conclusion is based on sound logic and holds up to criticism.

I have. I enjoyed Bowling for Columbine immensely. What sticks out in my memory are those moments in which Moore offered "the other side of the story." Moments such as those when he interviewed Charlton Heston.

You're not seriously saying that the infamous ambush interview of Charlton Heston was portrayed as an attempt to provide balance, are you? That was one of the most blatantly unfair parts of the entire movie, and even his fans know it.

As usual, you evade the point by attacking me. But the point remains: if FOXNews merely "sat on" some of the facts, that would be a huge improvement. It would at least take us back to the old biased media I grew up with, instead of the fucking nut-house we have going on right now.

No; I make the clear point that you'd still find Fox News odious. I still find "sitting on" evidence odious.

No, you are changing the subject in order to avoid conceding the point. This is not about irritation with less-than-ideal news. I've said on many occasions that I find all cable news odious. This is a complete red-herring.

[Terralthra]

The sour grapes seemed even more clear to me after the discussion of banks than before. People were making bizarre claims that banking itself - the very act of it - was "wasting money" or "shoving it down a hole."

Care to quote anyone saying that? I read through that thread and what people were saying was that the current kind of Russian roulette investment banking and reckless lending type banking was wasting money and shoving it down a hole, as opposed to the responsible kind.

Quite the difference between that and your quote.

Clearly, then, bankers do not, by definition, shovel money into deep, dark holes from which it can never be retrieved.

Actually, they do. All of them. Banking by definition and in practice is the business of acting as the middleman in holding & moving money from one party to another. As with all middlemen they take a slice from the pie, a slice which will never be seen again.

Bottom of this post.

[Edi]

Out of context, Terralthra. The fee a bank takes for acting as the middleman (in the form of service fees etc) is usually small enough that it is more than made up for by the time and hassle saved by not needing to personally go and meet everyone you have monetary transactions with. Yes, the fee goes into a black hole in the sense that you don't get it back. From the customer's point of view, it's an inefficiency in the service, but it is far less than the inefficiency time-wise for doing it all yourself.

And that whole exhcnage is more ofa nitpick in the context of that thread anyway.

[Darth Wong]

There's a pretty huge difference between saying that banking intrinsically puts money into a black hole and saying that all the money banks lost in their recklessness and absurd employee bonuses disappeared into a black hole. The former statement is what Kast accuses people of making; the latter statement is what they actually made.

Kast's ranting about how I unfairly assume right-wingers are dishonest in their debating methods would carry a lot more weight if he did not continuously use dishonest methods himself. He still refuses to admit that his "you're all just sour-grapes whining" armchair psychoanalyst rebuttal to the bank-bonus thread was a textbook ad-hominem fallacy.

[Axis Kast]

I didn't say don't question his points, dumbass. I said that his pejudice (bias) towards his issues are irrelevent so long as the points he makes remain valid, to say that his points are invalid because he states or makes them in a way you disagree with (IE His side of the argument only) is a style over substance fallacy. This is like saying that because I'm currently uninsured that my opinion on the UHC situation is invalid because I'm directly affected by any decision made regarding it, therefore I'm prejudiced to want to pay more taxes in order for the government to provide me with healthcare that doesn't require me to stick with a shitty job.

You stated, and I quote, "Of course he's biased, he's going to present the facts that have the most persuasive value to you." He should present the facts that have the most validity. Beyond that, you have suggested that bias - which often equates to prejudicial prejudgment of situations - is not a serious failing. It clearly is.

Yes, because any person who thinks he can actually gain a comprehensive understanding of a complex subject by watching a single movie is an idiot.

Absolutely. And, as quite a few idiots watch Fox News and tune into Limbaugh, so too will quite a few idiots - especially those with preconceived notions - watch this movie and walk away satisfied that they now have useful talking points.

How is this an indictment of any particular movie on the subject? What you're asking for is quite frankly absurd. What the fuck kind of movie is going to give its viewers a comprehensive understanding of a subject? I've seen lots of video documentaries and I've never seen one that gave what I would consider a comprehensive understanding of all sides of a contentious issue.

I'm not "asking for" anything; you've misunderstood me. My point is that bias is not to be celebrated.

His voice-overs and ambush interviews are obviously opinionated, but how could anyone possibly not see them as such? Seriously, is there a such thing as an impartial ambush interview?

They are often very effective in conveying the sense that his target, who is always representative of the "other side," is a smarmy, dishonest bigot, or else completely disconnected from the truth of the situation.

In some cases, that is absolutely true. Look at the health-care debate, the "religion in the public square" debate, the "waterboarding is not torture" debate, and the "small-government is always best" debate. In all of these cases, the argument simply doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny, and you know it, which is why you don't even bother trying to defend those arguments.

How is it "absolutely" true that perfidy is animating Republicans afraid that government-run health care will result in long lines, a lower quality of care for all, and subjugation of sick folks to medical interventions not of their own choosing? Look, some politicians are presumably making hay with this; I'm not sure which ones, because, like you, I don't read minds. I think that talking heads, by and large, should be above this as well, because my sense is that they are, more or less, intelligent folk. But the average individual out in Middle America has been drinking from the water hose trying to figure out what it is, this complex beast called the "government option."

Waterboarding as torture is more about a sense of indignation regarding what some see as quibbles over the treatment of folks on whom, to them, there is sufficient judgment to say "terrorist." Most people have no idea that the detention and processing system is tenuous or fault-ridden. Let me add a personal sense that it's a bit odd not to be able to tollerate anyone who says waterboarding isn't torture, even when the individual is a confirmed terrorist, but to suggest that it's a public service rather than a moral outrage when China forces prisoners into organ donation.

As for the "small government is always best" debate, why are folks, when wrong, necessarily speaking from perfidy?

The arguments don't hold up. That doesn't mean those who make them are doing wrong knowingly.

Treating this conclusion as some sort of liberal dogma is just an attempt to marginalize the inescapable conclusion that there is a lot of either stupidity or dishonesty inherent in a lot of standard right-wing arguments.

I'm speaking about the perception of perfidy, not ignorance or faulty analysis.

I didn't follow that debate.

It's indicative, I think, of a lot of the thinking here.

Let me add, too, that whole bunch of folks who argued that Bush could never have honestly suspected that there were WMD in Iraq, in spite of the fact that we know for sure that both the Germans and French concluded that there were. Then you had those who turned out to be right - those who argued that whatever Saddam had, if anything, was not a threat to the U.S. or its interests in the region - but couldn't have known it at the time. The argument then boiled down to what one thought of Saddam himself, and the long-term future. We never quite got that far.

Anarchists are small-government libertarians.

ETA, then. I don't hold you responsible to explain animal liberation bombings, do I?

Oh bullshit; if they feared for reputations or friendships, they would not leave because there's no reputation or friendship when there's no contact. And your "get out before the tyrants take you out" bullshit is just that: bullshit. Many of those people would have loved to get banned for having the wrong opinion, but they knew they would have to troll first, which wouldn't look nearly as martyr-like. The reason they wilted is because a lot of them wanted to cling to arguments that simply couldn't be defended. Even you don't try to defend some of these arguments, because you know perfectly well that a lot of these party-line US right-wing arguments are horseshit.

They haven't left. A few of them still post here; they just don't express their views on all the issues, except in private.

Nice spin-doctoring. I would suggest viewers read the original thread, particularly the part where you dismissed Sarah Palin as one who lacks "proximity" to the Republican party.

When almost no members of your own party identify you as a leader and you have disgraced yourself before the nation time and again, you're not a very effective political player. I can say that it appears that Palin has given her career new life through functioning as a mouthpiece for the "death panels" argument, which immediately earns her a new sense of importance. Again, I don't see why it's necessary for me to go out flag-waving and disagree with her.

You ignored rebuttals to your rationale for irrational pay schemes, and you ignored the fact that yes, anyone has the skills necessary to drive a bank into bankruptcy. Interpreting such a statement by attacking the psychological motives of its author rather than finding logical fault with it is a textbook logic fallacy. Again, I would invite people to read the original thread.

You ignored my overall point, which is that those pay schemes can only be changed all at once; the alternative is to risk head-hunting on a grand scale. The pay schemes are so high just because of that.

In other words, any environment where people don't start to agree with party-line right-wing arguments is "hermetically sealed" from them? Nice butchering of the English language.

I've made sound arguments before; you're often too busy burning strawmen you create.

Anyone who thinks he can get a comprehensive view of all sides of a contentious social issue by watching a single movie is a blithering idiot and you know it.

I've never said anything different.

Which is only relevant if his conclusion is genuinely weak. Looking at his past work, such as "Bowling for Columbine", his central argument was never really refuted, so why do you think it was weak? His problem was the dilution of his central argument about media fear-mongering with pointless exercises such as the bullet-return or the Heston ambush interview, but the argument was sound. Looking at "Farenheit 911", it's one of his weaker works but it's still largely beyond dispute that the Bush Administration took the US into Iraq on totally fraudulent grounds, and that many US businesses have found a way to get rich off the war. Even many right-wingers have grudgingly conceded this. Looking at "Sicko", he does some pretty silly stunts in the movie (even to the point of accompanying a woman who is attempting to criminally defraud the Ontario health-care system) and exaggerates certain things but once again, his basic point is fairly sound: universal health care is the only way to go. Even you admit this.

A logical argument is founded on evidence. With only some evidence, logic is only so strong in relation to the whole environment. Moore is a movie maker. We agree that he isn't subject to the same standards as one might encounter in other forums.

No, the strongest argument is one whose conclusion is based on sound logic and holds up to criticism.

Which will rarely be possible without relation to evidence.

You're not seriously saying that the infamous ambush interview of Charlton Heston was portrayed as an attempt to provide balance, are you? That was one of the most blatantly unfair parts of the entire movie, and even his fans know it.

I think that there will often be a perception that it was, or is.

Moore tried to describe a culture of fear in the United States in Bowling for Columbine. He moved tangentially to criticize American foreign policy for being aggressive and bloody-minded. That didn't help explain at all why gun ownership and criminal use in the United States is so high. Very strong anti-gun laws in Europe might. As I understand it, the number of stabbings in the UK is astronomical by comparison to the US.

No, you are changing the subject in order to avoid conceding the point. This is not about irritation with less-than-ideal news. I've said on many occasions that I find all cable news odious. This is a complete red-herring.

No, I am pointing out that we agree on the fact that "sitting on" evidence is generally despicable.

[Axis Kast]

Out of context, Terralthra. The fee a bank takes for acting as the middleman (in the form of service fees etc) is usually small enough that it is more than made up for by the time and hassle saved by not needing to personally go and meet everyone you have monetary transactions with. Yes, the fee goes into a black hole in the sense that you don't get it back. From the customer's point of view, it's an inefficiency in the service, but it is far less than the inefficiency time-wise for doing it all yourself.

You literally had folks insisting that bankers (1) offer no useful service, and (2) that they could perform effectively in those roles. When challenged to discuss bankers other than those who had failed so dismally, they simply repeated their accusations. When told that they clearly lacked the credentials to perform in the industry, they provided hypothetical investments, without reference to the list of other qualities which I indicated were more often considered important in the selection of banking executives.

[Samuel]

How is it "absolutely" true that perfidy is animating Republicans afraid that government-run health care will result in long lines, a lower quality of care for all, and subjugation of sick folks to medical interventions not of their own choosing?

Because it hasn't happened in the rest of the world?

Waterboarding as torture is more about a sense of indignation regarding what some see as quibbles over the treatment of folks on whom, to them, there is sufficient judgment to say "terrorist."

If they aren't of the right tribe, fuck 'em!

Most people have no idea that the detention and processing system is tenuous or fault-ridden.

Government sucks, except for law enforcement where it is perfect? What the hell?

but to suggest that it's a public service rather than a moral outrage when China forces prisoners into organ donation.

Utilitarianism- because helping people beats squimishness.

As for the "small government is always best" debate, why are folks, when wrong, necessarily speaking from perfidy?

Because we refuse to believe that they can actually be that dumb.

ETA, then. I don't hold you responsible to explain animal liberation bombings, do I?

Except they are different because they hold animal life to a higher value than human life. There is a pretty sharp divide between the nutty left and more normal strains.

That didn't help explain at all why gun ownership and criminal use in the United States is so high. Very strong anti-gun laws in Europe might. As I understand it, the number of stabbings in the UK is astronomical by comparison to the US.

The murder rate and cop killing levels are alot lower.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... per-capita

[Axis Kast]

Because it hasn't happened in the rest of the world?

As Mike's pointed up elsewhere, most Republicans operate with only a fraction of the real playbook on government-run health care: the part full of the horror stories.

Republicans have a much better point about the sheer cost of systems like the NIH, which demand a certain level of taxation that most Americans are not willing to contemplate, and which may not come about until it is forced on them by a critical mass of senior citizens.

In any case, the point isn't actually to debate universal health care in this thread, but to address ridiculous assumptions - like your own - that everybody can, does, or will see the world as you do.

If they aren't of the right tribe, fuck 'em!

As far as they are concerned, an eye for an eye is appropriate barter. You seem yourself susceptible to this attitude, so long as the individual is a convicted criminal in China.

Government sucks, except for law enforcement where it is perfect? What the hell?

Go figure. You can tell me what some Republicans sound like.

Utilitarianism- because helping people beats squimishness.

You don't need two eyes. Some people have none. Half your vision. Give it to me.

You don't need so many possessions. Some people have none. Your Internet access. Give it to me.

Because we refuse to believe that they can actually be that dumb.

That's astonishingly scary.

Except they are different because they hold animal life to a higher value than human life. There is a pretty sharp divide between the nutty left and more normal strains.

If you aren't responsible for ETA, I'm not responsible for militia members.

The murder rate and cop killing levels are alot lower.

Knives are not as deadly as guns. Still, the number of stabbings in the U.K. far exceeds the number of stabbings in the U.S., does it not?

[Samuel]

In any case, the point isn't actually to debate universal health care in this thread, but to address ridiculous assumptions - like your own - that everybody can, does, or will see the world as you do.

They can- they choose not to.

As far as they are concerned, an eye for an eye is appropriate barter. You seem yourself susceptible to this attitude, so long as the individual is a convicted criminal in China.

You'd be amazed at the total lack of pain senstivity of the dead. The only downside of the system is that it encourages executions.

You don't need two eyes. Some people have none. Half your vision. Give it to me.

You don't need so many possessions. Some people have none. Your Internet access. Give it to me.

First, you need a match for eyes and there is the need to take drugs to suppress the immune system so it is hardly equal.

As for possessions, I'm afraid the internet access belongs to someone else. I'm not exactly swimming in cash either.

That's astonishingly scary.

I was joking, but when people say things that are so astoundingly stupid the first reaction is to look for an alternative aside from stupidity. The benefit of the doubt if you were. Only when the other options are discarded are we left with the fact that they are, in fact, that stupid.

If you aren't responsible for ETA, I'm not responsible for militia members.

Basque Marxist seperatists? I thought it was pretty clear our objection to Marxists was that Marx was nuts because his model of how the world worked did not mesh with reality.

Knives are not as deadly as guns. Still, the number of stabbings in the U.K. far exceeds the number of stabbings in the U.S., does it not?

No idea. Working off this
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/t ... onstab.htm

32% of US homicides don't use guns so working off of this...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... per-capita

homicide rates are about equal excluding guns- England has about 33% of the homicides per capita of the US.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

Knives are not as deadly as guns. Still, the number of stabbings in the U.K. far exceeds the number of stabbings in the U.S., does it not?

No idea. Working off this
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/t ... onstab.htm

32% of US homicides don't use guns so working off of this...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_m ... per-capita

homicide rates are about equal excluding guns- England has about 33% of the homicides per capita of the US.

If Kast wants to assert that, "the number of stabbings in the U.K. far exceeds the number of stabbings in the U.S.," then methinks he should be providing the data to back that up.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, because any person who thinks he can actually gain a comprehensive understanding of a complex subject by watching a single movie is an idiot.

Absolutely. And, as quite a few idiots watch Fox News and tune into Limbaugh, so too will quite a few idiots - especially those with preconceived notions - watch this movie and walk away satisfied that they now have useful talking points.

You are still ignoring the fact that while FOXNews viewers can successfully isolate themselves from the liberal point of view, the same is simply not true for a person who dislikes capitalism in America. This one-sided isolation capability is the crux of my argument, aimed squarely at the crux of your argument, and you act as if it does not exist! You nitpick it by pretending that a forum like this one is just as ideologically sealed as FOX (it isn't), and you evade rebuttals by saying that we discuss Republican arguments just to make ourselves feel good about our intellectual superiority (even though this is a total concession that we do not hide away from competing arguments), but at the end of the day, it's a point you have never come close to addressing, and the longer and more diluted each post gets with various side-issues, the more easily you can walk away from it.

So I will ask you to answer this point, and this point alone: why are Michael Moore's films harmful in a society where the opposing point of view is so overwhelmingly popular that it is completely ubiquitous and impossible to escape? Don't tell me it's because people will watch his movie and never hear the other side's point of view; it is impossible to escape pro-capitalism propaganda growing up and living in the United States, and you know it. It's as absurd as Christians whining that kids aren't being exposed to Christian thought in America if they see "slanted" atheist arguments.

PS. Stop lying about how I always assume Republicans are lying instead of stupid. As I said in the other thread, you know perfectly well that I accuse them of being either stupid or dishonest, or both. I have never shied away from the "stupid" interpretation, and in fact, I have written at great length about how stupid many of them are. You repeat this accusation in every one of your posts in this thread in an obvious effort to score points, and your misrepresentations are becoming extremely irritating, not to mention being a blatant rule violation. It's not clever to keep insistently misrepresenting my position; it is extremely dishonest and you know it.

[Axis Kast]

You are still ignoring the fact that while FOXNews viewers can successfully isolate themselves from the liberal point of view, the same is simply not true for a person who dislikes capitalism in America.

I disagree that the problem is total and complete isolation; the problem is one-stop shopping. The conservative population of which you are speaking is well aware of liberal arguments - as they are interpreted through the lens offered by Rupert Murdoch's media empire and conservative talk radio. This then colors how they read the information they obtain from alternative sources, which they may still look at very often (i.e., the newspaper at work, or the articles on the MSN homepage). Some of Moore's viewers will doubtless operate in the same fashion: Michael Moore will provide them with new ammunition and reinforcement; they will go forth without a chance to see anybody else putting different points of view into dialogue that cannot be boiled down to a few sentences. In the end, however, this isn't a cry for Michael Moore to make different kinds of movies - just an observation about one inescapable quality of his films. Indeed, for my own money, I'd rather sit down and be titlated by a Moore film, even when I know I'm being preached to, than a more strident film like Religulous or the recent Ben Stein clunker, which I also avoided in order to hear repeat stories of folks complaining about the ridiculous idea that their children can't receive a "good Christian education."

On the other hand, I think that the warped perceptions which provoke Christian complaints about the status of religion in this country are badly understood by liberals, who it seems to me either criticize religion in general for being completely useless, or else move immediately to condemn anyone who would try and impose a certain kind of intellectual agenda. Regardless of how valid such arguments may or may not be, I don't happen to think that they are very useful. Why? Because they present Christians as a one-dimensional group - crazies - and don't zero in on the fact that these populations are talking past eachother, and thus not making any progress in promoting greater understanding or community. I think there are compromises, or at least possibilities for mutual understanding, that can be made without driving either side up the wall and back behind a fence.

So I will ask you to answer this point, and this point alone: why are Michael Moore's films harmful in a society where the opposing point of view is so overwhelmingly popular that it is completely ubiquitous and impossible to escape? Don't tell me it's because people will watch his movie and never hear the other side's point of view; it is impossible to escape pro-capitalism propaganda growing up and living in the United States, and you know it. It's as absurd as Christians whining that kids aren't being exposed to Christian thought in America if they see "slanted" atheist arguments.

This discussion is chiefly about bias; Michael Moore's films are one example of a situation in which biased people enter the theater and received ammunition without having gained a better view of the battlefield, whether or not they are on the "right" side of the fight. I wanted to take the stand, and I did: presenting the whole case is always better. It isn't always possible.

[Simon_Jester]

I disagree that the problem is total and complete isolation; the problem is one-stop shopping.

I find it darkly amusing that this is more or less what I was saying days ago.

Some of Moore's viewers will doubtless operate in the same fashion: Michael Moore will provide them with new ammunition and reinforcement; they will go forth without a chance to see anybody else putting different points of view into dialogue that cannot be boiled down to a few sentences. In the end, however, this isn't a cry for Michael Moore to make different kinds of movies - just an observation about one inescapable quality of his films.

Yes, but Moore can never be exclusively or even mainly responsible for that. He doesn't produce enough material to singlehandedly bias his audience, and he doesn't coordinate with enough other left-wingers* to deliberately bias them collectively.

But just such an engine of systematic bias generation and manipulation is running on the right, so there's a major asymmetry there. Both sides have biased members, but one is deliberately creating more of them with an organized propaganda campaign while the other can't propagandize its way out of a paper bag.

*"Left-wingers by American standards," whatever.