06-16-2017, 10:23 PM
(06-16-2017, 09:23 PM)Dill Wrote: 1. My examples don't have to be "complete" to make my point. And if "fair" means they supply enough context to make point without misrepresenting, then yes, they are fair.
If your point is that you are highly biased and partisan then, yes, you are correct.
Quote:2. Again, no need to make a an "exhaustive" list. (How would you ever fit something like that in a forum post?) My point is that "both sides" aren't equally responsible for the current politics of hyperbole and hate, and some "skullduggery" as you call it, definitely originates with one side, not the other. You had to UTTERLY MISS that clearly stated point to come back with questions like "why those examples?" and "why only one party?" The examples were chosen because so far as I know, no Democratic organization or campaign did what I specified Gingrich, Rove, and the Fox crew did. I am claiming that BOTH SIDES DON'T DO IT because I have not seen the other party doing it. That is why "all the actions are by one political party."
I didn't ask for exhaustive, I asked for fair and representative. You seriously can't think of one instance of dirty politics by Democrats? I can think of a few from the most recent Democratic primary.
Quote:3. One doesn't begin any inquiry with "no assumptions at all." And you are faulting me for not going into my inquiry with your assumption--namely that "skullduggery" must be equally distributed. My clearly stated hypothesis is that it must not. To test that hypothesis, I must find examples that either originate with one side or are only practiced by one side. The goal here is to find out whether the hypothesis is true, not to make both sides feel good.
No, I fault you for going into your inquiry with the mindset you just expressed above, that there is no such parallel activity by the Democrats. You're making my point for me with your own words. I'll send you some chocolates if you PM me your address.
Quote:Also, this hypothesis is put forward in a way that makes it falsifiable. One could 1) offer examples showing Democrats used the same three tactics BEFORE Republicans did, or 2) put up three examples of equally egregious tactics created and pursued by Democrats in the post-Watergate era (i.e., close enough in time to influence current politics), or 3) demonstrate the examples did not in fact occur or did not occur as described.
Wait, is your concern only with the specific tactic or with dirty politics in general? I mean, I've seen some amazing examples of selective outrage, but this would be a new one on me.
Quote:Claiming that BOTH SIDES DO IT--"it" being skullduggery--does not refute my hypothesis. I BEGAN by granting all kinds of behavior is done by both parties. That was to set up my point, that I was specifying behavior originating with one party.
Why the hyper focus on one party though? In your own words, just quoted, you admit to granting dirty behavior by both parties. So why, in a thread about the rancorous nature of today's politics, and how it led to this tragic event, would you indulge in more one sided rancor?
Quote:Michaelsean understood on the first reading, and went right to the appropriate question.
He's nicer to you than I am. I deal with this kind of pretzel logic every work day so I have far less patience for it.
