In Reply: "There is no intellectual or rhetorical vice exclusive to a particular side of any partisan debate."

In reply to the following two comments at the American Power blog post "Post-Partisan Obama Cult":
---

'Putting aside all the particulars that have nothing to do with the topic, of course the conflict will continue... The Left & the Right have different political philosophies, and the idea that anyone's asking or expecting anyone else to give up or give in is a myth. Disagree.'

"All well and good ... until someone starts turning ideology into policy.

Then, the particulars do matter ... as well as the intellectual honesty of those making the decisions.

If the decision-makers do not have the intellectual honesty to recognize their own errors in the light of history and reason (or hide them behind popular acceptance of their position ... hey, even slavery was popular in some places once), then place both their own error and that of their political opponents in actual historical perspective, then their credibility as decision-makers is compromised.

It's not like I have seen this game before, repsac ... and you need to remember that intellectual honesty is inherently in short supply among the morally relative that dominate ONLY ONE side of this debate.

While you might have a stash of that ... many of your fellow-travelers, some of whom are now decision-makers, threw theirs in the 7-11 trash receptacles a long time ago."
---

'Here, I prefer the traditional "conventional wisdom" that has gotten us through pretty much every conflict since we became a nation over your radical ideas about foreign policy.'

"Acutally, that conventional wisdom has only been applicable for the last 60 years or so ... before that, we usually decisively engaged our enemies and defeated them as expeditiously as possible, and did not engage in the perpetual paralysis-by-analysis/vacillation/navel-gazing/self-flagellation that is now the Left's stock-in-trade.

And it has also been in those last 60 years that technology, commerce, and (yes) freedom have combined to produce a highly-interconnected planet ... a place where a few dozen can stealthily leverage the above to wreak havoc on a scale that previously took years and armies -- both highly visible to the defenders of life and liberty before their use -- to perpetrate.

The game has changed ... so the conventional wisdom of the last century does NOT apply ... as if it ever did."
---

@ Rich: I don't suppose I need to mention that you're drifting off topic, again...

Yes, there are conversations & circumstances where the particulars you brought up do matter. This isn't one of 'em.

No, popularity does not equate with correctness. Most good ideas are opposed by the masses, at first, and many bad ones have come to be widely supported.

There really is no intellectual or rhetorical vice exclusive to a particular side of any partisan debate. That you believe otherwise, and are willing to spread such a sweeping generalization over so much of the left, in big bold capital letters, no less, calls your own intellectual honesty into question.
---

Posted Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Blog Pimpin' - My debate with Freedom Now

This is a debate between me & and another gentleman that was going on on a consevative political blog. We were also discussing politics in our posts, but this off-topic thing about blog promo was getting bigger & bigger in our posts. After writing the post below over there--and almost posting it--I decided to post it here instead, and just leave a quick explanatory post & a link over to here, on that site. Below that, I also excerpted the previous portions of the debate out of our previous comments. Hopefully, FN will come visit & continue discussing this, since we both seem interested...

Any reference to where we are ("here," "this site" ...) refers to the site where we were having this discussion.

If you're interested, previous debate on subject was here.
-----------------------------------------------------

FN: "You can promote your blog anyway that you want. I never said that it was bad that you try to get people to go to your blog… that would be stupid. Everyone should try to promote their own blog. How go about it and who you target doesn’t really matter to me."

I know this "blog promotion" thing is a silly argument. I know I should just let you have the last word & be done with it. I know it... ...but I'm a glutton for punishment.

Here's the thing: You brought it up.

All I did was post a link back to my blog, where I had written a whole post on this subject. I thought it was better to post the link than cutting & pasting the whole thing from there over to here. In point of fact, if I had written a big long diatribe about this subject in your comment section, I would've posted a link to YOUR blog.

Folks do it all the time. I didn't think it remarkable in any way. To my mind, it's the polite thing to do.

That would've been the end of it, but you chose to remark on it, saying that I was trying very hard to promote my blog. (I wasn't--not that I don't want traffic--but I wasn't, regardless of what you believe. I was no more promoting my blog by doing what I did than promoting yours when I link to it, as I did last evening on my blog.)

You say that it was just an observation, nothing more. My reply--noting that you don't make the same observation when fellow conservatives post links, and yet, you've made this same observation about me on two occasions, months apart--is no more or less an innocent observation than yours. (For the record, I think both of our "observations" have not-so-subtle-hidden-meanings in them, and call suspect your assertion that yours is a purely innocent thing you just so happened to notice & mention in passing.)

I don't really know your purpose in making the comment or continuing to defend your doing so. I agree that you probably don't believe blog promo is bad... I do think there's something not "fair & balanced" about your making this comment about my back links and not other people's, though... I also think that in saying someone is posting a link to promote their blog, you're cheapening their post, a little. Finally, I think it's a little impolite, regardless of whether the observation is true or not. (It's like making an observation about the frequency with which one uses the restroom. It's one thing to reply if someone asks; it's another to blurt it out in a crowed room, "just because".)

As for "how I go about it & who I target not really mattering to you":

1) it still assumes I am in fact, promoting my blog, rather than giving those interested more info on my position via something else I wrote on the subject, and

2) it doesn't jibe with what you said in an earlier post, where it seems to me you're saying it was "who I was targeting" that was the whole reason for the comment in the first place.

"It is a normal every day experience for likeminded bloggers to try to drive traffic of likeminded individuals to their blog. You are unusual in that you are trying to drive traffic from people that are hostile to your views to your blog."


Now, I'm thinkin' this is getting far off topic, here... I would've e-mailed this reply to you, but I don't have that info. I would've posted it on my blog & just left a link, here, but that'd just be more proof of my blog whoring. I'd of posted it to yours, but... well... I'm guessing you know why I might be reluctant to bother.
--------------------------------------------------------

ABOVE is what I almost posted on the other site, but didn't. (There was probably going to be something more in closing, but once I realized/wrote about how off-topic it was, I couldn't continue.)

BELOW is all of the relevant posting up to this point--in order, first to last:
------------------------------------------------------------------

More from me on the subject here
repsac3 | Homepage | 07.28.07 - 6:50 pm #
------------------------------------
RepSac,

You try very hard to promote your blog dont you?

There's nothing wrong with that, I'm just pointing that out. Controversy can be big. This is just an observation, nothing more.

Freedom Now | Homepage | 07.29.07 - 4:53 pm #
------------------------------------------

"You try very hard to promote your blog dont you?"

Not really... I Just don't see the point of cutting & pasting (or worse, rewriting) my thoughts when I can just provide a link to them. You & I have both seen more rightward thinking people do the same on other blogs where we both post... ...and yet you only refer to it as "blog promotion" when I do it... I wonder why...

FN: "http:// freedomnowonline.blogspot...ates.html#links"

Blog whore 8>)

repsac3 | Homepage | 07.29.07 - 5:59 pm #
---------------------------------------

I merely observed that you try to drive traffic to your blog. You have done the same on Mike’s America. There’s no harm in that. It was solely an observation. That’s all.

Freedom Now | Homepage | 07.30.07 - 12:57 am #
--------------------------------------------

And I am simply making the observation that I have never seen you make that same observation when someone on the right links back to their own blog in posts, though you've had plenty of opportunities to do so.

repsac3 | Homepage | 07.30.07 - 10:57 am #
--------------------------------------

Repsac you think that you are on to something by saying, “I am simply making the observation that I have never seen you make that same observation when someone on the right links back to their own blog in posts, though you’ve had plenty of opportunities to do so.”

It is a normal every day experience for likeminded bloggers to try to drive traffic of likeminded individuals to their blog. You are unusual in that you are trying to drive traffic from people that are hostile to your views to your blog. That is worthy of note. And that is all it is, an observation. Yet you act like I have wronged you somehow.

Freedom Now | Homepage | 07.31.07 - 10:20 am #
------------------------------------------

As far as the "driving traffic" linking thing, I'm fine... You made an observation about what I was doing, and I made an observation about your observation. Unless you want to continue discussing it for any reason, I'm willing to leave it as is and let you, me, & all reading us think as we will about it.

repsac3 | Homepage | 07.31.07 - 12:25 pm #
--------------------------------------

You can promote your blog anyway that you want. I never said that it was bad that you try to get people to go to your blog… that would be stupid. Everyone should try to promote their own blog. How go about it and who you target doesn’t really matter to me.

Freedom Now | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 6:03 am #
--------------------------------------

"You can promote your blog anyway that you want. I never said that it was bad that you try to get people to go to your blog… that would be stupid. Everyone should try to promote their own blog. How go about it and who you target doesn’t really matter to me."

This "blog promotion" bit is getting wicked off topic--and I almost took it further, before realizing I'd only be making it worse.

So, at the risk of being called a blog pimp, I took it over to my blog (My other, non-political blog--'cause it'd be off-topic on mine, too): What'd I Say?: Blog Pimpin' - My debate with Freedom Now. Much as I kinda want to, I won't continue to discuss that subject here. Those interested are welcome to come on over & read the response I had all written in this very comment box--& was yea close to "publishing."

Hopefully, FN will show up too, or this'll all be in vain.

...&, like it or don't, I'll likely be back to tackle the rest of FN's post, soon.
repsac3 | Homepage | 08.01.07 - 10:30 am #

Dishonest Debate Tactics - Shifting the Burden

Now that I'm taking all the political stuff outta here (Have you seen the spiffy new blog, Wingnuts & Moonbats?), I figure I can focus on other things, here...

Today, I'm thinkin' about using language and debating, & specifically about folks who want you to disprove their points or statements.

Some of the following examples will be real. Some will not be real. Either way, I'm not interested in discussing the veracity of the statements, but only their value in confrontational conversation.

You suck. Go on, prove you don't.

The anti-war movement is anti-American.

You stole my sandwich.

Conservatives hate free speech.

Anarchists and Liberals share the same basic political philosophy. They're Nazis.

These statements (& every other affirmative statement under the sun) all share a similar feature. The onus is on the person making it to prove his/her statement is true, by offering evidence. That's the way it's supposed to work, and we have every right to expect that proof, rather than just accepting the veracity of the statement. In it's absence, one has every right to flat out dismiss the statement as being without merit.

Sometimes, that's where the trouble starts...

Sometimes, the party making the statement tries to turn it around, and requires YOU to prove what THEY said is untrue. They're not proving anything... Instead, they're trying to shift the burden of proof to you. And, they're asking you to prove a negative, which, if you really think about it, is just about impossible.

There is no conclusive evidence I could ever offer that I didn't steal something. I could produce people who saw me somewhere else, but the accuser says, "So you didn't steal it at that time... But prove you didn't steal it, at all." A search of my property reveals no stolen item. "Maybe you hid it. Proves nothing." No physical evidence on my person. "You were careful, wore gloves, and showered. You still could've done it." No matter what I said, I could never ever prove I didn't do it.

That's why legally, ethically, & logically, the onus for providing proof always falls on the original speaker. Don't get trapped, and don't accept the claim that you're only "playing word games, or semantics," which often indicates that they know the jig is up; you recognize their "word game," of shifting the burden of proof for their words onto you. Make them keep the burden they came into the conversation with. Make 'em prove what they say is true.

If a person is unwilling or unable to prove the statement s/he's making is true, you are under no obligation to accept it is true, and can therefore reject it as unproven, & therefore untrue.

If you still don't believe me, just try to prove you don't suck.

(When you can't, it won't mean you do suck. or that you don't suck. or anything else, at all. And that is the point.)

Some of those statements above have other problems, like being sweeping generalizations, as well. Perhaps I'll hit that one next time.