"That's Just Your Opinion"

[CrisisPapers]

| Ernest Partridge |

My friend Roy is a world-class computer wizard. Throughout the more than twenty years that we've known him, he has managed to solve numerous computer glitches that have had us totally baffled. In our business dealings with him he has been unfailingly dependable and honest.

But his politics are abominable! As often as not, when we visit his shop, Rush, or Hannity, or Savage are blaring on the AM radio. In 2000, and again in 2004, a "Bush/Cheney" sign was posted atop his shop.

Just once, I discussed politics with Roy. He let loose with the familiar complaints about how the immigrants were taking all the jobs, the welfare cheats were soaking up the tax money of honest citizens, the "wacko-environmentalists" were stifling growth with their dumb regulations, we had to fight the terrorists over there so that we don't have to fight them here - the usual, familiar, drill.

I immediately saw that the only sensible thing to do was to back out gracefully. Arguing with a Rushophile is as futile as attempting to talk a Catholic Bishop out of his belief in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, or to convince Rev. Hagee of the scientific foundation of evolution.

Roy's closing comment, however, was worthy of note. "Look," he said, "I'm a conservative, and I like to listen to what you call right-wing radio. You're a liberal, and you read liberal magazines and Internet blogs, and listen to Air America Radio. I'm convinced of my views, just as you are convinced of yours. So who's to say who is right or wrong?"

An excellent question, which I have heard all too often from my college students. It is a question that must be answered by any serious liberal, with explicit and objective reasons. "That's just my opinion" will not do.

Quoth Jack Cafferty, "so here's the question:" What is the justification of the liberals' claim that their sources - The Nation, The American Prospect, The Huffington Post, Democracy Now!, Bill Moyers' Journal, etc. - are more reliable than The Weekly Standard, FOX ("fair and balanced") News, The Washington Times, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc., or even, for that matter, the mainstream corporate media?

And so, Roy, if you happen to read this piece, here is your answer.

Political arguments are not created equal, and do not all have equal merit. Even less so, political rants and diatribes. There are many objective criteria with which an unbiased spectator might judge whether or not an argument is strong or weak, and whether a position is well or poorly defended. Here, briefly, are just a few such criteria. Having taught numerous courses in Critical Thinking, I can testify that this list merely scratches the surface of a vast topic.

1. The persistence of memory - and of YouTube and Google

Remember Saddam's alleged "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs), and the "smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud"? Cheney's assertion that "there is no doubt that Saddam has reconstituted nuclear weapons"? Colin Powell's "proofs" before the Security Council of Saddam's WMDs and his evil intentions, along with the corporate media's unanimous and uncritical praise of Powell's performance? The welcoming in Baghdad with candies and flowers? The six-week, self-financed Iraq "liberation?" The Busheviks and right-wing sycophants would prefer that you don't remember all this, and more. But the issue is out of their control. All the above claims and predictions are indelibly on the record, justly undermining the credibility of further assurances by the Bush Administration, the Republicans, and their loyal stenographers in the corporate media.

There was a time in recent memory, when a politician could simply deny that he had made an embarrassing remark, and demand that his accusers "put up or shut up." No longer. YouTube and Google now provide instant "put-up" of such accusations for anyone with a modicum of computer skills.

The Google-ization of American politics is proving to be especially troublesome to the "maverick" and "straight-talking" John McCain. Virtually all of McCain's "maverick" votes and positions have been reversed and thus nullified, as the "straight-talker" has endeavored to set himself straight with his right-wing/regressive base. Count 'em: McCain on campaign finance reform, tax breaks for the rich, reproductive freedom, offshore oil drilling, windfall profit taxes to support alternative energy. Do any of McCain's original "maverick" positions remain "unflipped"? None that I can think of. The substance of McCain's "straight-talk" reputation has evaporated, leaving only an unsupported label.

In contrast, memory and recorded history have caused Barack Obama little lasting damage. The unauthorized recording of his "bitter" remark in San Francisco, and Michelle Obama's reflection that "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country," immediately come to mind. And the latter is more than offset by the recently excavated video clips of John McCain saying "I really didn't love America before I was deprived of her company."

Not surprisingly, the corporate media has amplified Obama's gaffes and downplayed McCain's. But media bias aside, an objective assessment of recent history is not supportive of right-wing dogma and rhetoric.

Santayana's famous maxim has a corollary: "Those who fail to own up to their own history, are clearly trying to hide something."

2. Sources: more is better

If your information comes from several independent sources, it is likely more reliable than reports from few self-replicating sources, like wild horses tethered, not to a solid post, but to each other. Now critically examine the sources of right-wing opinion and compare them with the sources in the best of liberal publications, internet blogs, and broadcasts. (I will concede that there is a super-abundance of weak, "off the top" ranting from the left as well as the right). The right, I suggest, is more inclined to cite, if at all, a limited and self-supporting bunch of "conservative" publications and Bush administration press releases. From the left, I submit that you will find more citations of qualified experts, scholarly journals, and credible foreign sources.

But don't take my word for it. Check it out yourself.

3. If it's not reported by the corporate media, did it really happen at all?

The adequacy of right-wing arguments can be assessed not only by what they say but also by what they choose to ignore. Likewise, the reporting of the corporate media. Did George Bush walk away from his National Guard obligations? Were the past two Presidential elections, along with numerous Congressional elections, stolen through election fraud? Has John McCain reversed himself on almost all of his "maverick" positions? Don't look to the right-wing media for answers. All such embarrassing allegations have been shoved down the Orwellian "memory hole." Out of sight, out of mind, never happened.

As for the corporate media, they too distort public opinion and understanding through the omission of essential information and through the saturation of print and air time with trivia (celebrity romances, missing blonds, etc.). For example, James Risen's and Eric Lichtblau's Pulitzer Prize report on illegal government spying was suppressed by the New York Times until after the 2004 election. Do you know about the July 2002 Downing Street memo that revealed the Busheviks' determination to "fix the intelligence and the facts around the policy" of an invasion of Iraq? If you do, you did not learn of it through the corporate media. And the coordinated and successful effort of the Pentagon to flood the airwaves with the commentaries on the Iraq war by allegedly "independent" retired generals? Kudos to the New York Times for exposing it, and damnation to the rest of the media for ignoring it. Election fraud through "paperless" (DRE) voting machines and compilers? Faggetaboutit! Any attempt to investigate and report on this issue in the corporate media is a "career-ender." And important books on the subject, such as Mark Crispin Miller's Fooled Again, are rarely recognized and reviewed in the mainstream media.

And yet many of us know of such crucially significant facts, despite the blackout of information in the corporate media.

How so? We learn of these things through independent liberal publications, through the small but growing progressive radio talk shows, and of course through the internet - "the America Samizdat."

4. The treatment of dissenters

After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, John Kennedy saw to it that before any crucial policy was adopted, dissenting opinions would be heard and seriously considered. That decision quite possibly spared the civilized world from nuclear annihilation, as cooler heads prevailed during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Contrast this with the Bushevik mode of "decision making," replicated in the right-wing media. Bush's "decisions" issue from his "gut," not from his brain. Dissent is not tolerated, and is in fact a sure-fire guarantee of an early departure from the administration. Witness the aborted careers of Paul O'Neill, Richard Clarke, and General Eric Shinseki, and the extraordinary retaliation visited upon Joseph and Valerie Plame Wilson.

Likewise, dissenting (a.k.a. "unpatriotic") opinions on broadcast and cable television have led to the ouster of Phil Donahue and Ashleigh Banfield. Not even Dan Rather was exempt. How Keith Olbermann remains on the air is something of a mystery. Perhaps his spectacular commercial success may have something to do with it.

In contrast, liberal publications acknowledge, and occasionally even publish, opposing opinions from the right. And while Rush Limbaugh's screeners keep "leftist loonies" off the air, Rachel Maddow and Thom Hartmann routinely invite "conservative" advocates on to their programs.

5. The quality of the arguments

Arguments can be assessed according to their positive and negative qualities. First the positive. (We'll deal with the negative, the fallacies, in the final two sections below).

Logicians identify three essential criteria of a cogent argument: (1) the availability of relevant information, (2) the truth of the premises, and (3) the validity of the inferences from premises to conclusion. Technical elaboration: "validity" means the "truth preserving" structure of the argument. In "pure" formal logic, this means that if the premises are assumed to be true, then (due to logical form), the conclusion must be true. In informal inference (i.e., most arguments) "validity" is a matter of degree. (Most logicians would prefer to call it "strength of inference"). In a well-formed informal argument, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is highly likely to be true.

A critical assessor of the best of right-wing and progressive discourse will, I submit, conclude that by and large, the progressives offer superior arguments.

Regarding Criterion One, liberals are less tempted to suppress relevant information. (See Item #3, above).

Furthermore, (Criterion Two) because liberal arguments have a broader range of sources of information (Item #2) and are more accepting of historical information (Item #1), the premises (the foundations of the arguments) are more likely to be true. Add to this, the apparent fact that liberals are, by and large, more convinced by the results of scientific investigation, and less convinced by dogma and "faith-based" appeals. Liberals insist that peer-reviewed scientific publications are the best sources of information, due to the discipline and methodology of science. "The best," but not perfect. All scientific assertions are, in principle, fallible, which is to say, open to revision or even refutation when confronted with new information. Paradoxically, "fallibility," far from being a weakness of science, is one of its fundamental strengths. (See my "Is Science Just Another Dogma?").

Finally, (Criterion #3), liberal and progressive arguments will usually incorporate stronger inferences from premises to conclusions; which is to say that formal implications, statistical analyses, and inductive rules all come into play such that it becomes difficult to reject a conclusion once one accepts the premises and assesses the structure of the inferences.

What does the jargon of the preceding paragraph mean? Many ponderous and book-length treatises have been written, elaborating on the meaning of those terms "formal implications, statistical analyses, and inductive rules." I cannot in this space, add to that shelf in the library. Suffice to say that an intelligent, educated and astute individual, who has somehow managed to avoid a logic class in college, is nonetheless quite capable of asking what some scholars call "the magic question:" Suppose that I accept all the premises, follow the inferences, and discard the fallacies, can I then imagine the conclusion to be false? If it is difficult to do so, then I have been presented with a well-formed informal argument.

6. Fallacies that (sometimes) aren't

Philosophers, rhetoricians, and other such scholars have identified hundreds of logical fallacies, both formal and informal. Logic textbooks routinely list dozens. Obviously, in the remaining space, I can only deal with a very few of these.

The identification of fallacies within arguments can be a very tricky business, for many so-called fallacy forms are quite acceptable in some of their applications.

For example, consider the so-called "fallacy of appeal to authority." But 99+% of all that we know, we get from someone else's "say-so." If we reject all second-hand, third-hand, and n-hand knowledge, we might as well close up all colleges, universities, and even primary schools, and then return to the caves. But that doesn't mean that we can't assess particular claims of authoritative knowledge. In fact, we must. Actors who "play doctor" on TV ads are not authoritative sources of information about drugs. Senator James Inhofe, former real estate developer, is not an authority on climate change. Nor is Michael Crichton, a physician, or most likely the local TV weatherman. But the two-thousand climate scientists who have contributed to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, some of whom have devoted years of their careers to laboratory and field studies, are authorities. Twenty years ago, Al Gore was not an expert on climate change, but after many years of study and the application of his critical skills to an assessment of the data, he may claim some expertise. More to the point, his arguments are grounded in sound scientific research.

Next, is generalization a fallacy? It depends. On the one hand, generalization is the essence of inductive inference, which is to say the foundation of empirical science. All scientific laws are generalizations. Newton's laws of motion apply to all physical bodies, though obviously not all applications can be observed. Likewise, Grey's anatomy, drawn from a few specimen cadavers, applies to all human bodies. On the other hand, a "hasty generalization" can be a grievous pitfall in reasoning. Example: Ronald Reagan's "welfare queen," who allegedly gathered in thousands of dollars in phony claims by non-existent husbands and children. Generalization: all welfare recipients are cheats. Of course, Reagan's example had the further flaw of being totally false – a complete concoction.

How about arguments from analogy? Again, it depends. Animal experimentation with prospective drugs draws warranted analogies from animals to humans. Yet the fallacy of faulty analogy is among the favorite devices of unscrupulous propagandists. Among the most prominent of these is "the Munich analogy:" the claim that the example of the 1938 Munich agreement proves that bargaining with one's (presumably "evil") opponent will only increase the opponent's appetite for more concessions. Yet diplomatic negotiations have prevented far more wars than they have caused. Another faulty analogy, I suggest, is B. F. Skinner's inferences from laboratory rat behavior to human behavior. The disanalogy? Human beings, unlike rodents, use articulated language, a point that Noam Chomsky expounds upon in his devastating critiques of Skinner. Of course, many experimental psychologists would disagree.

The bottom line: "fallacies that (sometimes) aren't" must be evaluated individually. Argument from authority? What are the qualifications of the alleged "authority"? Generalization? How adequate is the sample that is being generalized? Argument by analogy? How similar are the two cases, the original and the analog?

7. Fallacies that (usually) are

Some fallacies are reliable indicators of bogus arguments. Among these are the false premise and the straw man (attacking a non-existent invention of the arguer).

"Begging the question" (or circular reasoning) is a fallacy that is summarily excluded in courts of law. A simple, obvious, yet widespread example: "I believe the Bible to be the Word of God." And why? "Because the Bible says so."

Here's another example from contemporary politics: When Ed Gillespie, former Chairman of the Republican National Committee, was presented with exit poll evidence that the 2004 Ohio returns were rigged, he replied that you can't rely on exit polls because they have been proven time and again to be unreliable.

Trouble is, they haven't. In fact, in virtually all of their applications throughout the world, exit polls have been "the gold standard" of election verification, generally yielding a margin of error within one or two percentage points. When the returns in the 2004 Ukrainian election were wildly inconsistent with the exit polls, it was generally assumed that polls proved that the election was stolen. The only noteworthy "failures" of exit polls turns out to be in US elections that use unverifiable touch-screen (DRE) machines.

So it comes to this: By claiming that the official election returns "proved" the inaccuracy of exit polls, Gillespie was assuming what he intended to prove: namely, that the election returns were accurate and thus that the election was honest. But that was the very point at issue.

Gillespie might have escaped this fallacy by presenting independent evidence that the exit polls were flawed, albeit exclusively in elections using unverifiable DRE voting machines.

In fact, apologists have done just that by introducing the theory of "the reluctant Bush voter." Bush voters, they claim, were less inclined than Kerry voters to respond to the exit pollsters.

This leads to the final fallacy on our short list: the ad-hoc fallacy. This is an "explanation" that is concocted on the spot to explain (better "explain away") some troublesome fact or experience. Trouble is, ad hoc hypotheses "explain" nothing else whatever, and are entirely disconnected from any independent evidence.

My favorite example comes from the "young earth creationists." Question: If the world was created six thousand years ago, how do you explain the existence of dinosaur bones? Answer #1: Satan put them in the ground to lead us astray from the truth. Answer #2: God put them in the ground to test our faith. Of course, there is and can be no independent evidence whatever to support either "explanation."

Returning to the 2004 Ohio exit polls: The hypothesis of "the reluctant Bush voter" was in fact tested and found to be without independent foundation. In paper ballot and other verifiable precincts, there was no such bias. Only in precincts with DRE machines. In other words, the "reluctant Bush voter" was an unfounded ad hoc "explanation" of a very suspicious and troublesome voting anomaly, which has been widely and scrupulously studied by numerous scholars and statisticians. But don't expect to find any curiosity about it in the corporate media.

In sum: We all use fallacies: politicians, journalists, scholars, scientists, and even retired philosophy professors. To err - and to employ fallacies - is human. But just as there are recognizable degrees of virtue and justice (all falling short of perfection), there are also degrees of fallacious argument. And while all informal arguments fail to achieve perfection, they can nonetheless be assessed as to their cogency. In fact, the rules of evidence in law courts and the scientific method are both devised to minimize fallacious inferences.

I submit that the right is much more inclined than the left to utilize fallacies. That's a bold and unsubstantiated claim. Perhaps I should now proceed to write the book that will support this claim. It will take at least that much space to accomplish the task.

But much better than that, why don't you examine the arguments on the right and the left to see for yourself whether or not I am right?

And while you are at it, ask yourself: (1) Which side is more willing to own up to its past positions, predictions, and assurances? (2) Which side examines the broader field of source material? (3) Which side looks for the most relevant information, even if that information is absent from the corporate media? (4) Which side is more tolerant of dissent, both within and outside of its ranks? (5) Which side uses the more cogent arguments? And (6) which side relies less on fallacious reasoning?

You presumably know my answers by now. But I would not presume to do your thinking for you.

So check out the arguments of the right and the left, and find the answers for yourself.

-- EP

Note: There are numerous excellent textbooks in critical thinking. For more than twenty-five years, I assigned Howard Kahane's Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric (Wadsworth) to my students. Though Kahane died in 2001, co-author Nancy Cavender has continued to revise it and keep it in print. (The latest edition, the Tenth, was published in 2005). Outrageously overpriced at more than $70 new, reasonably priced used copies can be obtained through Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble.For more about fallacies, see http://www.logicalfallacies.info/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies, then check out the references included therein.

Finally, see my "The Right to Know: Propaganda and the Media," and "The Eclipse of Science and Reason," and especially the section therein titled "Is Science Another Dogma?" Chapter 21 of my book in progress, Conscience of a Progressive.

[Bob Dobbs]

1. Impressive

for a "low post" member.

Recc'ed happily.

[Jane Austin]

2. What a marvelous resource.

Thank you for posting this.

I have a database where I store things I know I'll want to refer to again, and I just copied this over there.

I hope everyone reads this.

[SnowCritter]

3. Absolutely Fascinating

Makes me wish I had taken more Philosophy classes while in school.

I think I'll look for the book you mentioned. Thanks!

[sshan2525]

4. As Stephen Colbert brilliantly puts it:

"The truth has a well known liberal bias".

[bluerum]

5. K'd R'd and bookmarked!

[raccoon]

6. K&R. nt

[Mythsaje]

7. Excellent work.

Another fallacy that often comes under fire is the "slippery slope" argument which, in some cases, is sheer foolishness--like gay marriage will lead to people trying to marry their dogs, or their furniture. On the other hand, allowing certain liberties to be set aside for convenience's sake, on the other hand, will doubtlessly lead to further erosion of liberties simply because it puts the citizens in the analogous position of frogs in a gradually warming pot. At first it's a hot bath, then a jacuzzi, but eventually it's a death trap.

We've SEEN the results of that particularly slippery slope with the "War on Drugs" (TM) and now the "War on Terror" (TM).

[truedelphi]

11. On the other hand, many of us women could point out that our

Husbands have married the couch.

Can't be sure it is the fault of the homosexshuals, though.

[Mythsaje]

14. Without ceremony, of course. LOL n /t

[gorfle]

38. Ahem.

Can't be sure it is the fault of the homosexshuals, though.

What sort of accent are you attempting to emulate by your spelling of "homosexshuals"?

[truedelphi]

51. My co-worker's indignant self righteous one

She is more godly than I am, according to her, because I have failed to see that the immoral deviance of the non heterosexual has been brought about by SA-A-tan. And is bringing our nation to RU-ANNE!

Whoever RU-ANNE is.

The co-worker is from Oregon by the way. She talks much more normally when not all riled up.

[bertman]

8. excellent!!

let's hope some unenlightened soul actually reads this and learns something.

[wryter2000]

9. Wow

Awesome piece. I only wish a few freepers would read and understand it.

[PatSeg]

10. Excellent post

Thank you so much.

[truedelphi]

12. The "Munich" argument about concessions

The OP states: Among the most prominent of these is "the Munich analogy:" the claim that the example of the 1938 Munich agreement proves that bargaining with one's (presumably "evil") opponent will only increase the opponent's appetite for more concessions. Yet diplomatic negotiations have prevented far more wars than they have caused.

This popint is quite easy to prove, with regards to preventing evil from triumphing.

It was actually quite good that Chamberlin conceded to Hitler. At that point in time, England had few armanents of any type - and without the year and a half that it gave the nation to start building up its Air Force and Navy, Britain's chancing of staving off Hitler would have been almost impossible.

You meet a fierce bully and his buddies in a back alley when you are unarmed - far better to hand over your wallet and go home and get some buffed up friends than trying to tackle said bully outright on your own.

[Chulanowa]

13. Beat me to it!

I've been planning such a post myself.

The media's biggest, fattest crime, has been to convince us that everything is "opinion" and thus equally valid. There is no longer any "fact" in politics. Don't think war is good for the economy? Well that's your opinion! Think our presence in Iraq inflames violence? Just your opinion! ad nauseum

Everything isn't opinion, and all opinions are not equally valid.

[puebloknot]

15. And "a crime was committed" has now been replaced with ...

... "mistakes were made." And no one is held accountable for the "mistakes."

"It happened."

[EndofTheRepublicans]

16. Nice Job...

I have a quick question though...
Any chance you can point me to a source for this...

"The hypothesis of "the reluctant Bush voter" was in fact tested and found to be without independent foundation. In paper ballot and other verifiable precincts, there was no such bias."

I've never bought into it (RBV), but I haven't seen the conclusion you've noted.

Thanx
PS I tried to send you a PM instead, but my low post count prevented it.

Edited for clarity

[Ernest Partridge]

25. Debunking "the reluctant Bush voter theory."

Here are some citations debunking "the reluctant Bush voter" hypothesis:

A Novice's Guide to Why the Ohio 2004 Exit Poll Discrepancy Matters to Americans. pp 8-9.
http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/exit-polls/Ohio2004-US-future.pdf

"US Count Votes" Analysis of the 2004 Presidential Election Exit Poll Discrepancies." (Search "reluctant.") http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit_Polls_2004_Edison-Mitofsky.pdf

"Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (RollingStone. June 1, 2006).
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/print

RFK Jr. writes:

"In its official postmortem report issued two months after the election, Edison/Mitofsky was unable to identify any flaw in its methodology -- so the pollsters, in essence, invented one for the electorate. According to Mitofsky, Bush partisans were simply disinclined to talk to exit pollsters on November 2nd(34) -- displaying a heretofore unknown and undocumented aversion that skewed the polls in Kerry's favor by a margin of 6.5 percent nationwide.(35)

"Industry peers didn't buy it. John Zogby, one of the nation's leading pollsters, told me that Mitofsky's ''reluctant responder'' hypothesis is ''preposterous.''(36) Even Mitofsky, in his official report, underscored the hollowness of his theory: ''It is difficult to pinpoint precisely the reasons that, in general, Kerry voters were more likely to participate in the exit polls than Bush voters.''(37)

"Now, thanks to careful examination of Mitofsky's own data by Freeman and a team of eight researchers, we can say conclusively that the theory is dead wrong. In fact it was Democrats, not Republicans, who were more disinclined to answer pollsters' questions on Election Day. In Bush strongholds, Freeman and the other researchers found that fifty-six percent of voters completed the exit survey -- compared to only fifty-three percent in Kerry strongholds.(38) ''The data presented to support the claim not only fails to substantiate it,'' observes Freeman, ''but actually contradicts it.''

"What's more, Freeman found, the greatest disparities between exit polls and the official vote count came in Republican strongholds. In precincts where Bush received at least eighty percent of the vote, the exit polls were off by an average of ten percent. By contrast, in precincts where Kerry dominated by eighty percent or more, the exit polls were accurate to within three tenths of one percent -- a pattern that suggests Republican election officials stuffed the ballot box in Bush country.(39)"

Note: the numbers in the RFK Jr. excerpt above indicate references which may be found in the Rolling Stone article. EP

[grace0418]

17. Fantastic. What a wonderful read.

Thank you so much! I feel like I just took a wonderful class, you must be a great teacher.

[tbyg52]

18. www.abe.com is also a good resource for used books

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&tn=Logic+and+Contemporary+Rhetoric

[lildreamer316]

26. Why, thank you for that..

good to know. ;)

[Tech 9]

19. The problem is that much of it IS just opinions

From where I'm standing, what you've produced is a wonderful guide in the partisan wars between Democrats and Republicans. As such, it has almost no relationship to real politics at all.

Most of the issues your post highlights -- and I assume its not inadvertent that you choose the issues that you do -- together represent a very opinionated view of what issues are politically important. At the fore is of course battling and perhaps shouting down Republicans followed by "refuting" Christian fundamentalism" and "proving" science in the face of skeptics (presumably Christian fundamentalists) and the dissemination of right-wing propganda by major media outlets.

To be honest, it seems as though you want to make the case that "We're right because we're smarter". That doesn't really answer your friend's rhetorical challenge: what makes your opinion better than mine.

It's not about fancy argumentation or "framing" things to your best advantage, its a question of where you stand, why, and what you plan to do about it. It seems to me that liberalism is painfully lacking in consistent answers to those questions.

I mean, sure you come out and say you're for this or that (or even just generics like "change") but the Why? starts to degenerate into the fact that you're an enlightened and socially conscious individual and the Plan ends up being perpetuating more of the same with a different label in the vain hopes that somehow that will change everything. Playing within the system even though any honest assessment would conclude the system is the problem. Being pragmatic even though you know its a code word for capitulation because its too risky to do anything else and you don't have any other ideas anyway.

To me, the liberalism you advocate is nothing else BUT a series of more or less unconnected opinions strung together this way or that, depending on how the winds blow at any given time. As an easy example, Nancy Pelosi is a popular punching bag right now, but you will be banned from DU if you support Cindy Sheehan against her.

You know how I have to end this post, right ;)?

This is just my opinion

[BobTheSubgenius]

20. What issues are much more important than those?

Trying to keep the world's most powerful country from falling into a fundamentalist nightmare that varies from fundamentalist Islam only by degree? Putting forward the proposition that 'catapulting the propaganda' is the job of partisans and not that of supposed journalists?

Those seem like pretty big issues to me....and a large part of the underlying paradigm. Without that kind of blind faith and willful ignorance, perhaps some of the other catastrophes this so-called administration has brought to the country and the world could have been derailed.

[Tech 9]

47. Explain to me how that compares with

the platform of the Democratic Party as late as the 1950s let alone earlier. The stuff you're trumpeting as "most important" has dick to do with the average workingman, and very little social consciousness besides. Food, energy, and consequently every other commodity is skyrocketing. You are, in my view, obligated to present a better analysis than "its the fault of the criminal Bush White House". Surface truth does us no good.

[mrbluto]

22. Did you actually read the post?

It's good that you end yours with "That's just my opinion."

Because that's all it is - no facts, data, testability or outside reference.

I have to admit you set off my radar when you put Christian Fundamentalists and skeptics in the same breath. That's stretching the word skeptic to the point that's way out of whack with it's more traditional usage.

The OP's answer to his friend does answer his question.

He doesn't say overtly, nor obliquely, that "We're right because we're smarter." if you look at what the OP says it's more akin to saying "We're right because what we say is not mere opinion - we actually believe it, it's rooted in the consensus reality, has been tested to some extent and, if you don't agree, then make some sort of sincere, earnest, and reasoned case."

Logic is a toy to many Republicans, it is a weapon for others who only resort to it to tweeze flyshit out of pepper and stall deliberations and stymie consensus. This is why sincere, earnest, and reasoned is important. Many Republicans talk a good game, but don't eat their own cooking, or obviously stop their efforts short when it appears they don't like the answers they're going to get. Democrats are noted for not being like that in they'll argue their opposition's case for them, etc.

I'm not saying democrats are angels, but you can tell that, in general, they actually pay more than lip service to good governance and the spirit of the ideals outlined in the constitution.

I can't really say the same for most Republicans I know.

[Tech 9]

48. Good intentions, sentimentality, and

belief? Don't try to pin that on me, its what your post just identified as the difference between Democrats and Republicans.

That's really not a very good set of criteria.

What I think is that most liberals live vicariously through the TV (what do you think the correlation coefficient between what's discussed on MSNBC and DU is? ~.9?). Further I think your opinion on any given day might as well involve flipping a coin.

Off the top of my head, that sentimentality flared up not so long ago when Bill Frist threatened the "Nuclear Option". It was a blow to Democracy, an insult to every ideal this country holds sacred, blah blah. Yet, suppose the Democrats make solid gains in the Senate. Tell me there won't be arguments here that we have to stop "obstructionist Republicans".

What you're saying is that the difference is as much moral and ideological as it is based on factual disputes. You're going to need more than a pair of tweezers to stretch the threadbare "principles" of liberals to figuratively pull that argument out of your hat.

If you go to sleep with some cherished, iron-clad belief and wake up tomorrow and the consensus has done a 180, what happens? Its not just that your own view shifts to match, its that you DON'T NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE!

I'm telling you, the only thing you can know for certain is where you stand. Compromise that, and the rest is a chaotic whirlwhind. Do you really want brownie points because sometimes Democrats play Devil's Advocate?? Or that they want good goverance (whatever that even is) in words but more Democrats (same old shit) in deeds?

Tell me where you stand and the rest will always follow. Forget where you stand, or plant your flag in sand and you've pre-rejected what comes after.

[mrbluto]

49. Pin what on you?

What do you think I'm trying to "pin on you"?

Who are you swinging at? Because it ain't me.

Nowhere do I say I want "Brownie points".

It's amazing to see you recast the words "sincere, earnest, and reasoned" and fling back "Good intentions, sentimentality, and belief". I'm tempted to ask "what's your problem with sincerity?", but that would be an unfair question. What do those words mean to you? Do they mean something different where you're coming from? To me it they indicate "meaning what you say", "seriously working on what you attempt" and "seriously thinking about things".

What is "good governance"? Let's see...what does the word "good" mean? What does the word "governance" mean? Let's suppose it's some combination or intersection of the two.

"Plant my flag in sand"? I'm not even going to give that image the full-treatment.

Look not every watercooler is Iwo Jima, I'm actually not much for flag planting - I like to let results speak for themselves as much as possible.

If you hate "Liberals" so much what are you doing on this board?

I get the feeling you're a bit too concerned with planting your flag.

[Tech 9]

50. You can't say I'm making those things up

because you just said them


QUOTE
"We're right because what we say is not mere opinion - we actually believe it, it's rooted in the consensus reality, has been tested to some extent and, if you don't agree, then make some sort of sincere, earnest, and reasoned case."

I'm not saying democrats are angels, but you can tell that, in general, they actually pay more than lip service to good governance and the spirit of the ideals outlined in the constitution.
QUOTE

What is this junk about "spirits of the ideals outlined in the constitution" BUT sentimentality and cherished belief?

What I'm saying is, being "right" kind of comes second to having a clue. You created a schema where the two, if not mututally exclusive, sure don't like each other very much.

EDITed to add: the schema revolves around argumentation and besting the arguments of the other guy, rather than articulating your own platform. In fact argument supercedes even the notion of a platform because we have to beat back the encroaching peril of right wing thinking. The alternative you end up offering is "They're wrong". Big whoop.

It is nothing but pure assertion and a matter of opinion as to what the most important issues are according to the very logic laid out in the OP. If this is true, we really don't stand for anything nor can we. And on that point, I think the OP is right.

[mrbluto]

53. Look....

...if you can't understand what I mean when I say "the spirit of the ideals outlined in the constitution" I'm not sure you should be debating American politics.

But I think you do understand and find it more useful to pretend you don't.

Do you think I mean hippy-dippy kumbyaa singing ghosts?

Of course you don't - but it certainly helps your rhetoric if you pretend that I do.

No. Let me spell it out for you for your future willful misinterpretation:

1. There is a document called the Constitution.
2. In it are ideas (sometimes referred to as ideals)
3. There is an intent implicit in those ideals
4. That intent can be referred to as the "spirit" of the document
   
   With me so far?
   
   
5. It is my opinion that Democrats, "while not being angels", act more in the spirit of that document than Republicans

I see what you're doing in your posts and it's a typical tactic. It's basically rope-a-dope via cupidity and misinterpretation.

You don't question your own assumptions, willfully misinterpret what mine are, gloss over anything valid I say, then hope I get tired and leave you the last word. Voila! Victory!

It is possible have sentiments and cherish a belief and for those sentiments to be useful and the belief be true. I like my fellow citizens to share a cooperative belief - it's a net benefit to us all. (see last week's Economist) And I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Not the trivial fact that they exist, but that they are worthy of my support.

Does everyone agree on what they mean? No, obviously not. I'm willing to engage in debate and deliberations with those who disagree but are willing to "sincerely, earnestly and reasonably" discuss our differences. What I'm not willing to do is waste time going back and forth with people I sense see them as documents to be gamed and is willing to engage in bullshit tactics.

What exactly is "Bullshit" as you seem wont to ask?

You can't seem to credit my intended meaning for any word, so I'm going to provide you a definition.

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.

Harry Frankfurt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit

There you go.

That is precisely what I think you're doing.

[Tech 9]

55. I understood what you mean

and I wasn't trying to game your statement in any way. I don't particularly see the Constitution as something worth supporting without attaching alot of caveats. And I think appeals in that direction are more based on sentimentality than rationality.

I don't even know what it would mean to "support the ideals outlined by the Constitution". If you start getting too specific, the specifics start to suck pretty bad. So you're forced to deal in vague abstractions about "justice", "equality", "freedom", "peace", whatever.

But those things are just hollow abstractions. Even if they're great ideals to cherish, pragmatically they don't help us at all. We're along way from any of those things, and I don't see how holding fast to something so divorced from reality helps us at all.

If I'm charitable, I'd call it a mental shrug, but its pretty much just a cop out.

[mrbluto]

56. I'm pleasantly surprised.

It looked like we were headed toward a useless flame war, but I credit the reasonable tone of your latest post with pulling us back from the brink.

There is a lot of sentimentality regarding the constitution and the bill of rights. In the long run that is a bad thing to depend on, but sentimentality does have it's beneficial effects. Sad to say, but many people in this country don't have the time or are articulate enough to wade into deliberations regarding rights, laws, politics, etc. without an effort that their economic situation doesn't afford them a practical chance of doing. But so long as they "get" the essential idea we're not so bad off. For example they may not know off the top of their head that the Bill of Rights indicates that citizens should be "secure in their place, persons, and papers", but they have a sense of what privacy is. That makes it easier for everyone to defend those rights. Same for many of the other rights. The general sentiment for the Bill of Rights helps. Easily abused, easily misinterpreted, in danger of being spun as irrelevant, a whole host of flaws aside - I think it's a net plus.

The big trouble is that the people whose job it is to apply their intelligence to the task of vigilance have slacked off and not done the maintenance necessary to keep the Constitution and Bill of Rights as healthy as it ought to be. In fact some in power clearly are working to trivialize them.

The words "Justice", "Equality", "Freedom", "Peace" and other big idea words are not always vague abstractions. Often they are useful abstractions. Sometimes even vagueness itself can be useful. I have an idea of what they are, people I know have somewhat similar ideas, even many people I've just met have very similar ideas. I'll cheese out right now because it's my day off and not define all four in this post, but pick one and ask me what I think it means. That will be an interesting exchange I'm sure. What I will say in this post is that they do help us pragmatically.

There are positive expected values for those acting in ways that even partially fulfill the meaning people hold for those words.

Let's take "Equality" for instance. If you have a law about equal opportunity for employment and there's an institution that takes measures to ensure that hiring processes are at least somewhat competency based as well as racially and ethnically neutral then more people who wouldn't have applied for a position will apply. If you have a cost efficient way of accurately reviewing applications then you get a bigger pool of applicants. A bigger pool typically means a greater variety, which means a better chance of a good fit for the job. At the very least you're more likely to find people who will have a greater commitment to the job. Voila! Pragmatic outcome.

I could do that for each of those words.

What you might want to consider is that Democracy isn't just a "nice" thing to have - it really is more effective in the long run. Think of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as a way to mitigate the risk of a Tyrant and, in my opinion, it starts looking like a remarkable piece of systems engineering. If you read Thomas Jefferson he has this great quote about the core being cyclic voting you can tell he's right at the edge of articulating the idea of democracy as a designer memetic organism. One with an immune system and built-in provisions for adapting and for error correction.

It needs maintenance though. And repairs. And some refactoring.

But some don't want that cause all their work at gaming it would be gone. They're like parasites that mainly want to monetize everything in sight and then punch eject. Where is it that Bush has that plantation in South America? Paraguay? Not that I'm implying any thing, but it is in the neighborhood where a bunch of Nazis went to ground. (yes, yes - now I've set-off Goodwin's law.)

Eh. I could make a better case, but I've been up all night. We'll have to pick this up later.

[Tech 9]

58. I think that it's a fairy tale

Sure, I know what they "mean" as in the thoughts those words are intended to conjure up.

But what lies underneath? In a system where property and profits are privately appropriated I mean. I look around and I don't see freedom at all. I see freedom to work everyday until you're 65..err, 75..until its time to die. I see freedom to seek comfort and appeasement from whatever shit they stock in the strip malls and megastores. I see freedom to enjoy what by the standards of 90% of the world is a petit bourgeoisie lifestyle while two billion people live on $2/day without adwequate sanitation or clean water to drink.

Equality? I see 1 or 2% of people who own everything and never have to work a day in their lives. Everyone else might as well be staring down the barrel of a gun. My parents desperately want to retire and enjoy their golden years but will be working when they're 70 years old. My Dad has disability problems and my mother has basically never missed a day of work. You know the resounding chorus they hear in response to what they want out of life? Tough shit. Damn near $1000/mo for health care until Social Security kicks in and God knows what their electric bill in Florida is going to look like. Good luck living without the A/C.

Eat, shit, sleep, consume, repeat until dead ain't my idea of liberty, equality, justice, freedom, or anything else.

I think abortion, religion, guns, gay marriage and 1000 other social issues have nothing to do with the above. I think its hard to trumpet "gains" in those areas as societal advancement in a society that is based upon wage-slavery. I think only declasse, relatively well-off people could prattle on all day, every day, ostensibly about "politics" and fail to mention or even notice the above.

I think the Constitution is a document that is infinitely malleable to the demands of the power structure of the day. There are people who argue the first fascist state was the US South in the aftermath of tearing down Reconstruction. A century ago Mark Twain was railing against war with Mexico and declaring himself a sans-culotte. Listen, my brother is a poli-sci major. He says the Constitution was a good document for its time, but it got corrupted.

The joke I always come back with is that it was corrupted 10^(-40) seconds after coming into existence.

It has nothing to do with "evil in the hearts of men" either. A system based on perpetuating disparity is going to lead to..disparity. Shock, I know.

I think that a "Big Tent" party is not a party at all. The Big Tent becomes a rationale for abandoning what the party stands for and creates an ever shifting platter of "stances" that the party -- more or less, most of the time -- lines up behind. Until some other stances become more convenient or "practical" or whatever.

This is a sketch of why I believe that the OP doesn't address the question put to him. From a humanisitc perspective one could be right on every position -- abortion, gays, religion, and so forth. But its a bit like holding your breath until you turn blue. Both those who line up on the "right" side of the issues and those who are "dead wrong" come together to support a system that is brutal, inhumane, and completely merciless..an unfeeling vengeful Moloch. Capitalism produces nothing but profit..and if you're lucky enough to be able to eat at the same time, so much the better.

The assault on our Latino brothers and sisters is in full force, with police roundups and bullying tactics applied every fucking day. Families and lives and communities have been destroyed, are being destroyed.

Sorry, opinions don't mean jack shit

[Tech 9]

59. I just want to add

QUOTE
I have to admit you set off my radar when you put Christian Fundamentalists and skeptics in the same breath. That's stretching the word skeptic to the point that's way out of whack with it's more traditional usage.
QUOTE

I had a mathematics professor as an advisor who doesn't accept the validity of proof by induction. The case against it says that you never prove specific cases. Granted, he probably just read too much Heidigger or something :)

[ihavenobias]

21. K & R

[mogster]

23. K&R

Good stuff.

[NM Independent]

24. K&R&Bookmarked

Great read. Thanks!

[DUlover2909]

27. I wonder if the freepers have any thinkers like this posting this kind of quality stuff?

Prolly not, lol

[lligrd]

28. Yep, The Difference Is Truth! nt

[BlueJazz]

29. One of Rush's most digesting, blatant Lies that was not reported in the Media involved Heath Care

He said: Canada's health care is so bad the Canadians even send their major operations to the USA !!

Yeah...well, what he didn't say was: In some remote regions of Canada (that are close to the border) it's cheaper for Canada to send the patient across the border, to a US hospital, then ship the patient a long way to a Canadian Hospital.

It has NOTHING to do with the inadequacies of the Canadian health Care system.
Typical Rush Bullshit. :(

[Dr.Phool]

30. Kick

[Doctor_J]

31. I'm going to forward this to the last few Limbeciles I associate with

:thumbsup:

[NoFederales]

32. K&R

NoFederales

[arendt]

33. This is not only great writing; it is a list of talking points we all can use. K&R n/t

[NinetySix]

34. But aren't opinion and truth the same thing?

How are we to tell the difference between one person's opinion and another's? Doesn't everyone who evaluates an issue arrive at a different conclusion due to their unique subjective perspective? How can any one of these opinions be shown to be superior when everything is relative?

Really, who's to say whether Creationism, Intelligent Design Theory, or Evolutionary Theory are the truth? Is Global Climate Change the truth, or the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American public?

It was thought by some that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and this served as the basis for an unprecedented invasion, but even though others criticized this policy after the fact because none were found, how could we really have known for sure? Wasn't it better to "shoot first and ask questions later" when faced with such an intractable enemy who constituted an existential threat? After all, he-says this, and she-says that, and how could anyone possibly know the truth, and is there really any such thing as truth anyway?

Not only are all men endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, as Jefferson famously pointed out, but they are also endowed with Reason; in fact, it is Reason which most human beings consider the primary characteristic that constitutes our humanity. When employed properly to interpret empirical evidence, Reason can clearly indicate the truth of the world, and in a manner so demonstrative and indisputable that all reasonable people are compelled to accept its conclusions.

Metaphorically speaking, we see through a glass darkly. Nevertheless, we needn't simply shut our eyes to what is visible, no matter how vaguely, and choose to uncritically accept the word of the soothing voices that whisper the answers in our ear. Instead, we can strain our eyes (and it DOES require you to strain) to see what is visible to us, and using our invaluable endowment of reason, enhance our vision to perceive what is plain and equally available to all who seek it: THE TRUTH.

The truth of the greatest issues of our day silently waits to be revealed, and must be revealed in such a way that all reasonable people cannot resist accepting: through the dispassionate, objective use of Reason. Just as you would if put on trial for a crime you didn't commit, you must expect -- DEMAND -- that the facts be laid out properly so that the truth may be known to all, regardless of whose agenda is harmed in the process. Never allow those with an agenda to convince you that opposing viewpoints regarding an issue are equally valid. In matters of fact, the truth is unwavering, immutable, and waits to be found by those equipped and dedicated enough to find it.

[gaijinlaw]

35. Best. Post. Ever.

My natural taciturnity leaves me a low post count leading people to think otherwise, but I've been here for years and read tens of thousands of posts.

This is absolutely the most valuable one I have encountered. Very important, universally applicable principles are explained cleary and laid alongside common right-wing arguments as a yardstick even hardcore bushites would be hard pressed to dismiss.

Copious kudos.

[DeeDeeNY]

36. My only problem with your piece

"And so, Roy, if you happen to read this piece, here is your answer." He won't happen to read it, unless you print it out and hand it to him. Please do this.

[LibDemAlways]

40. I second that. You are definitely

preaching to the choir here on DU. This needs to go straight into the hands of your freeper friend. It is wonderful food for thought (if he's still capable of any)!

[dccrossman]

37. Kick

Excellent piece, thanks for sharing.

[Lugnut]

39. K&R n/t

[redqueen]

41. Logic & critical thought...

These need to become as fundamental a part of our educational system as reading and writing are.

[Lasher]

42. I've bookmarked this in my myth debunking folder.

Thanks for sharing. K&R.

[elocs]

43. As Democrats we tend to believe that ours is the only valid viewpoint.

Republicans tend to do the same. Both sides hold up what they view as the extreme positions of the other side in order to ridicule and dismiss them. We do it with Republicans here all the time, lumping them all together with Bushco and the neocons. We tend to make caricatures of them in order to belittle and dismiss their points of view, and they do the same to us.

The question is, is there a valid conservative viewpoint that contrasts with the liberal viewpoint? Many of our Founding Fathers were men of very contrasting and partisan points of view on some very important subjects and they argued vehemently about them, but I don't know if they looked upon the opposing side as being evil or just stupid and not having a valid point of view or political philosophy.
Think of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Think today how many of your partisan Republicans in daily life would spit at the name of Ted Kennedy, yet he is a man who is admired in the Senate by fellow Republicans (they disagree with his politics, but admire the man).

Have we become so bitterly divided and partisan today that even if we disagree on something we cannot even admit that the opposite side has a valid (but wrong to our way of thinking) belief? I not just referring to Democrat-Republican because I have seen the exact same thing happen right here among Democrats where you somehow must hold a certain point of view, otherwise you are not really a Democrat.

[yellerpup]

44. Thank you sincerely for this wonderful essay.

I bet your classes are terrific. K&R! :kick:

[pipi_k]

45. The thing with his "It's just your/my opinion" thing

is that if it's only opinions, it's not a big deal, but when opinions spill over into wanting to force others to live by one's own standards, then it's not so great.

For example, I can respect a Conservative's opinion that gay marriage is "wrong". I don't agree, but I respect it. Conservatives can think it's wrong till the cows come home, and it's not a problem UNTIL they start sticking their noses into the private lives of other people.

Liberals don't think it's wrong and want others to have rights. Conservatives think it's wrong and want to DENY other people rights.


So, for me, it's not so much the opinion that's bothersome, it's what people try to do to others...or take away from others...based on their own opinions.

Conservatives need to stay out of the private lives of other people. Have their opinions...fine....just leave other people the hell alone.

[nosferaustin]

46. Excellent!

You're making me miss my philosophy classes from my minor back in school!

I'm bookmarking this and sending it out to friends (and maybe some others, as well)


Well done!

[Uncle Joe]

52. Well done!

Thanks for the thread, CrisisPapers. Maybe if your friend reads your post in stead of just listening to the radio, the reasoning or logical aspects of his brain will be more activated over the emotional part.

I do believe emotion is easier to transfer through listening and this is what has given hate radio it's power, when you read, the reasoning part of your brain is activated just to decipher the written words and their connotation. A radio jockey or television pundit can put contempt overtly or subliminally in the tone of his or her voice which in some cases neutralize or alter an identical message on paper and strike at what I believe to be a more primordial portion of our brain.

Good luck with getting your message across.

[ThoughtCriminal]

54. Many Right Wingers are "Fact Proof"

Here's an example that I ran into one one forum. A very persistent wingnut claimed that "Richard Armitage is a Democrat". Even providing a link to his official bio at the State Department could not convince him that Armitage was in fact, a career Republican loyalist.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/armitager-bio.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage

He would not say where he got his information, but my theory was that he either picked it up from some one of his "trusted" right-wing blog, forum or "news" site or overheard it from a caller to some local Rush wannabe radio show. Nor was this particular idiot alone. Google "Democrat Richard Armitage"

At that level of delusion, you have to wonder what the point of even debating source reliability with these people. The political right today may be one of the most extreme examples of cognitive dissonance that our society has had to deal with.

[Doctor_J]

57. or, as O'Lielly puts it, "We'll just have to agree to disagree"

Most Limbeciles are braindead.