10-17-2022, 05:23 PM
(10-17-2022, 04:19 PM)Dill Wrote: I'm not terribly impressed with Harris. But yes, less "impressive" than Harris, by the standards and examples I have given.
Yeah, this opinion makes me think far less of your position on this issue, dramatically so. Harris is one of the most insipid, vacuous and insincere politicians I have seen in my lifetime.
Quote:"Pedantry" is obsessive concern with minor details or rules, according to my online dictionary.
I don't think asking for standards and examples is digressing into "minor details" here any more than
asking for evidence that fits evidentiary protocols in a courtroom would be.
If we don't do that, then people are just trading impressions, all equally valid.
I think you'll find that my issue is with your tone and choice of words, not your desire for elaboration.
Quote:One of the problems with the current climate of political debate is that people DON"T measure actions and
words against non-partisan standards. I am aware that some don't like going that route of accountability.
But why should they be in the right about this and I in the wrong? Why is offering impressions and JUST SAYING
superior to demonstration? You don't find it so when arguing 2nd Amendment issues. Why do you in this case?
Because here we are dealing in subjective opinion. When I argue 2A issues I do so from an objective, fact based, position. Debating the perceived intelligence of a person is always going to be subjective, even if it's regarding a matter of degree of intelligence/unintelligence.
Quote:No, JUST SAYING I am "partisan" because I think Tulsi not that smart and you think she is, is not specification.
What I'm saying is that, to me, she is obviously not unintelligent to the degree that finding her so makes me question the motives of the person making that claim. You have shown yourself to be firmly entrenched on the far left, to the point that I honestly can't recall a position you hold that could be considered right of center (even in Europe). This logically leads me to conclude that your issued with Gabbard, i.e. finding her "unintelligent", is, at the very least to a significant extent, based on her political leanings.
Quote:I did offer an "example" which led me to question her intelligence and judgment--her decision to switch parties on the grounds that Dems were "weaponizing the security state against their opponents." To that I could add her claim the Dem party is an "elitist cabal of warmongers driven by cowardly wokeness." That's in the same ball park as Guam tipping over. There is no logically consistent, non-partisan path from evidence to her conclusions, as there is to, say, the conclusion that Trump weaponized the executive to go after enemies and keep himself in power. Hers are unsubstantiated impressions. Best you could say here is that Gabbard is "smart" because she knows this is what the CPAC audience wants to hear. But why is it smart to go that route? Because she was dead as a candidate in the Dem party?
Interesting. You don't see any issue with the Dem stance on war/foreign intervention? For all his myriad faults Trump kept us largely away from military engagement, the, fully justified IMO, assassination of Qasem Soleimani being an obvious exception. I certainly agree that the war in Ukraine was not caused by Biden, at least not directly. One could certainly make the argument that US policy towards Russia in the 21st century was/is a major contributor towards it, of which Biden was no small contributor either as a senator, VP or POTUS, but it was not a direct cause. But his response to it can absolutely be viewed through the lens that Gabbard uses, especially his reaction to the potential use of nuclear weapons.
Quote:That you listen to Gabbard and think she is intelligent and listen to others and think they are not, doesn't establish that my judgment is "partisan," especially given the effort I've put into appealing to non-partisan standards--or what used to be such standards, pre-Gingrich--and the effort you put into avoiding them as "pedantry," keeping disagreement a battle of impressions.
Yeah, I already addressed this above, so no need to repeat.
Quote:The best way to refute me, under the standards given, is as I said before--show me the standards for judgment are wrong, or show how they don't apply to Gabbard because she has a deep understanding of policy and principles and shows good judgment, e.g., the ability to recognize and prioritize real problems and policy solutions.
Show you that your subjective standards are wrong? I'm afraid that would require an openness to different points of view/arguments that you have never demonstrated on this board. After all, I cannot prove you "wrong" as your position is pure opinion. Of course you think it is buttressed by fact, but it is, more accurately, your perception of her that you have cemented in your mind as factual.
Quote:So far, you are just asking me 1) to trust your ability tell who is or is not intelligent by your hearing them, not by standing what they say against any "pedantic" external measures, and 2) to assume my failure to buy such impressions given their clash with already noted standards indicates partisanship. Just does.
I'm not asking you anything, I'm wholly disagreeing with your assessment of Gabbard for reasons already given. I am especially unimpressed by your appraisal of her as the "most unintelligent" member of the Democratic party at the national level given the myriad superior choices available in that regard. It demonstrated, as I've said, a clear bias against her by you. There are Dem politicians that are clearly unintelligent, as is true with the GOP. That you not only lump Gabbard in that group, but declare her the most unintelligent example, demonstrates that you're not reasonable enough on this issue to even attempt a discussion. You have your position, I find it absurd. I suppose there's no need to discuss it beyond that for reasons already given.
