Anthology Books Available
Odds and Ends
2 7, 6:17am
Actually, I speak some Norwegian. I have some friends over there, and they find my pronunciation hilarious. So I ended up being taught a little.
I probably wouldn't have made a mistake if I was using the internet, which tends to get individual words correct. So thank you for the correction.
You're aware that the whole 'tantrum' thing is not making you look any better, by the way?
Oh, and 'were', not 'where'. Wouldn't normally point it out, but the irony of you making a mistake whilst berating me for making a mistake is... hilarious. So thanks for that, too.
"One of the differences between you and me is that I stand squarely for democracy against tyranny - while you make excuses for tyranny."
And that is exactly my point - giving reasons why tyranny *will* happen is not the same as saying that tyranny *should* happen. Knowing that tyranny is the default which must be opposed reminds people to be on guard from it.
"Democracy is an anomaly in human history, it's not really something we should expect to last, one shouldn't resist tyranny as success isn't guaranteed, don't even bother voting, it's almost guaranteed to be useless anyway - you hit all the note the Kremlin want to see western idiots like you do."
True, false, and true. It's a mistake sandwich! A society in which people are free is an anomaly - which is precisely why it must be defended so strongly. Because it might never come back if it's lost. Voting is often a waste of time - anyone with a basic grounding in public choice theory can tell you that - but if you think voting is the only way to effect change, you're flat wrong. But I did not - nor would I - say that one should not resist tyranny.
There is an argument I have come across in a book of logical fallacies, which I shall reproduce here:
"If we decide that foreign aid is ineffective, and does not raise living standards, then we are condemning people in the poorer countries to a life of degrading poverty, squalor and disease."
The argument, of course, is fallacious because facts do not depend on 'should'. If aid doesn't work, it is better to know that now, so that we can find other ways of helping the poor. So too for voting. Facts must be determined in the absence of moral concerns, so that on the basis of these facts, one can decide what *should* be done. It is this that you seem to be incapable of.
"You couldn't find the truth if it hit you over the head - the fact that you pretend that US Republican voters are generally better informed then Democratic voters are proof of that."
I must be being misled by all those 'actual statistics' from 'published sources' that support my position. Academia is, after all, a well known bastion of Republicanism. Online magazines with open political affiliations are fare more trustworthy.
Seriously, you think I'm wrong? Fine. I'm happy to be wrong. Give me a source that proves it - because the sources you've cited so far... don't. You think I'm cherrypicking? Show me the data I've missed.
"Attacking mainstream media sources is a classical move of undemocratic extremists"
And Hitler ate sugar. Analysing and questioning whether the source of particular information has an agenda is also a basic part of critical thinking.
By the way, Fox News is *also* a mainstream media source.
But no, both MSNBC and the Guardian are reasonably reliable, you can generally trust them not to actually be lying or anything. But that wasn't my point. My point was that they are both openly supportive of the Democratic party, and thus can often be expected to report things in a way that favours the Democratic party. Which means that whilst the facts may be true, they may be selected to form a particular narrative. You yourself being a supporter of the Democratic party, your use of these sources rather suggests that the media you consume is selected in order to confirm your own existing beliefs, rather than to challenge them.
Note that at no point did I say that the message in those particular videos was biased. I am critiquing you, not your argument, since I have already made my reply to your arguments.
"The Guardian? It's one of the leading English language newspapers in the world with a well documented record for excellence."
I read it regularly. But it also created a letter-writing campaign to support the Democrats in the 2004 election. The fact that they openly admit their agenda makes the Guardian in many ways more trustworthy than if they tried to hide it, but the agenda still exists.
"And finally - Vice? What's that? I don't believe I've ever used this "Vice" (whatever it is) as a source for anything and I don't know where you got that from."
I mean Slate, of course. I'm sorry. Vice is another Democrat-leaning e-zine, and I got them mixed up in my head... you should try Vice, you might like it.
"From the Nazi's and the far-right to the Soviet states to now Trump"
Wow. You went full Godwin. Congrats! You lose! Argument over!
(Before I go, though, that stuff about how people respond to me... that is *really* detailed. Like this is something you've been through. Please tell me if there's anything I can do to help. Seriously, I know you might interpret this as mockery, but it's not. You may be a little abrasive, but I genuinely don't want you to be unhappy.)