People Choose News That Fits Their Views (http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090608/sc_livescience/peoplechoosenewsthatfitstheirviews)
by Jeremy Hsu

News readers gorge on media messages that fit their pre-existing views, rather than graze on a wider range of perspectives. In other words, they consume what they agree with, researchers say.

The finding comes out of a recent study which tracked how college students spent their time reading media articles on hot-button issues such as abortion or gun ownership.

Unsurprisingly, students gravitated toward articles that supported their views.

"The idea has been around for a very long time, but it has just never been proven," said Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick, a communications researcher at Ohio State University. "It's just considered textbook knowledge or lay common sense."

That preference for similar views may also influence hardcore political junkies who prefer to read blogs with strong political views, according to separate research.

However, researchers still don't know how individual uncertainty about political views affects time spent reading one side or the other. And on the flipside, individuals most confident in their political stance may actually seek out opposing views to read.

News that fits your views

Previous studies have asked people about their news reading habits and broad political beliefs, such as liberal or conservative.

But the new Ohio State study took that a step further by observing how 156 college students spent five minutes reading online magazine articles on a computer. The computer recorded the time each student spent looking at pro and con articles about four issues that included abortion, gun ownership, health care and minimum wage.

"A survey isn't the greatest way to get hold of issues," Knobloch-Westerwick told LiveScience. "In my study, we just had people click on things so that we could watch unobtrusively."

As a result, she found that participants spent 36 percent more time reading articles that agreed with their point of view. They had a 58 percent chance of choosing articles that supported their views, as opposed to a 43 percent chance of choosing an article that challenged their view.

Students also commonly spent time reading both sides on any given issue, according to the study, which is detailed in the June issue of the journal Communication Research. However, very few clicked just on articles that opposed their views.

How political junkies read

Only 5 percent of online news readers go to political blogs on a daily basis, according to a new book by a different researcher, yet many represent the most politically active consumers of the news.

Such readers may prefer blogs over mainstream media sources because they suspect bias in the latter, said Richard Davis, a political scientist at Brigham Young University in Utah.

"They're clearly disenchanted with traditional media," Davis said. "That's why they read blogs in the first place - in their view, they see blogs as more accurate."

Davis worked with several independent firms to conduct nationally representative public opinion surveys of both political blog readers and journalists for his book, "Typing Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2009). He also focused on seven of the top political blogs, which at the time included Daily Kos on the left and Michelle Malkin on the right.

Such political blogs are up front with their political views, and typically "echo" the news reported by traditional journalists while adding their own spin or analysis.

But among the hardcore political junkies, 30 percent told the survey that blogs are more accurate, whereas only 8 percent said traditional media was more accurate. About 40 percent gave equal marks to both.

This trust in blogs over traditional media does not carry over to general readers, Davis cautioned. Less frequent blog readers usually give equal weight to blogs and traditional media. And overall, general readers still put more faith in traditional media.

Conservatives buck the trend

Some findings from both researchers suggest that individual confidence and certainty play a role in what people choose to read.

People with stronger party affiliation, conservative political views, and greater interest in politics proved more likely to click on articles with opposing views, according to the Ohio State study.

"It appears that people with these characteristics are more confident in their views and so they're more inclined to at least take a quick look at the counterarguments," Knobloch-Westerwick noted.

However, Knobloch-Westerwick added that her latest study was not designed to assess reader motives, and that she hopes to more carefully study the issue in the future.

The Brigham Young University survey found that journalists also tended to read liberal blogs - perhaps a reflection of journalists' political beliefs, although even conservatives said liberal blogs were often better-written, Davis pointed out.

Among the political blog readers, a similar trend emerged in which "liberals read almost exclusively liberal blogs, but conservatives tend to read both," Davis said.

Davis offered another possible explanation for this trend among blog readers. Conservative views dominate talk radio, and so conservatives may feel more satisfied by that outlet and are willing to check out opposing views on blogs.

By contrast, liberal views dominate the blogosphere, but are scant on talk radio.

Winning hearts and minds ... or not

The big question that remains is whether consuming all this news affects or changes people's views, or simply hardens original beliefs.

Experts have fretted for a while about how people tend to read only what agrees with them. But current research suggests that it's amazing that people ever change their views, Knobloch-Westerwick said.

Some researchers have even begun examining how political leanings are rooted in biology, and the combined influences of genetics or life experiences. A separate recent study suggests that men with more daughters are more likely to take a liberal point of view, while women who have more sons may lean more conservative.

Still, having hardened political views bolstered by media messages might not represent all bad news for a democratic society.

"People who spend more time with messages that bolster their views are more likely to engage in political action, something that's very desirable from a democratic point of view," Knobloch-Westerwick said.

Well, the premise is definitely demonstrated in this forum.

Odd - here is the opposite viewpoint... research from George Washington University involving 5,000 participants, which was last updated in March of this year, as compared to the 156 from the article above. It also found that people gravitated to sites that marched with their political viewpoints for the most part, but they found that

"Those few people who read both left wing and right wing blogs are considerably more likely to be left wing themselves; interpret this as you like."

From a synopsis...

We were interested in two questions, both of which stem from normative debates in political science and political theory. One was whether blogs make it more likely that people will get access to points of view other than their own. Many deliberation theorists argue that this is a good thing. The other is whether blogs affect people’s likelihood of participating in politics – again regarded by many theorists as a good thing, for obvious reasons. Unfortunately, our data doesn’t allow us to make causal assertions – but it does point to some very striking patterns of correlation.

First – blog readers seem to exhibit strong homophily. That is to say, they overwhelmingly choose blogs that are written by people who are roughly in accordance with their political views. Left wingers read left wing blogs, right wingers read right wing blogs, and very few people read both left wing and right wing blogs. Those few people who read both left wing and right wing blogs are considerably more likely to be left wing themselves; interpret this as you like. Furthermore, blog readers are politically very polarized. They tend to clump around either the ‘strong liberal’ or the ‘strong conservative’ pole; there aren’t many blog readers in the center. This contrasts with consumers of various TV news channels, as the figure below illustrates. All of this suggests that blog readership is unlikely to be associated with the kinds of deliberative exchange between different points of view that some political theorists would like to see.

Second – blog readers are much more likely than non blog readers to engage in politics (through voting, giving money to candidates etc). Not only that, but left wing blog readers are significantly more likely than right wing blog readers to participate in politics. You could interpret this as evidence of more general depression among conservatives etc, but our best guess is that this is in large part the result of the netroots effect. Having a strong political movement which is pushing readers to make donations etc is likely to have real consequences. Obviously, we would like to have more data before we could make a really good case that our guess is correct.

You can read the research results here (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1151490_code516053.pdf?abstractid=1151490&mirid=1)...

Well, the premise is definitely demonstrated in this forum.

Foss - actually the premise you talked about is not demonstrated on this forum. A rather large majority of posts present right leaning material. This might indicate that the conservatives on this site are reading a large amount of material on conservative sites. I rarely see a post from a conservative member of this site that sites a left leaning source, perhaps it is because the 'right' here rarely reads left leaning blogs (this is I admit, speculation drawn from circumstantial evidence). But, noting that 'some' of the right wing posts on this forum are responded to by liberals, we are at least reading 'some' material from conservative sites.

Foss - actually the premise you talked about is not demonstrated on this forum. A rather large majority of posts present right leaning material. This might indicate that the conservatives on this site are reading a large amount of material on conservative sites. I rarely see a post from a conservative member of this site that sites a left leaning source, perhaps it is because the 'right' here rarely reads left leaning blogs (this is I admit, speculation drawn from circumstantial evidence). But, noting that 'some' of the right wing posts on this forum are responded to by liberals, we are at least reading 'some' material from conservative sites.
Most of you don't read what we post. :rolleyes: I stand by my statement.

I rarely see a post from a conservative member of this site that sites a left leaning source, perhaps it is because the 'right' here rarely reads left leaning blogs (this is I admit, speculation drawn from circumstantial evidence). But, noting that 'some' of the right wing posts on this forum are responded to by liberals, we are at least reading 'some' material from conservative sites.

Why would a conservative post anything supporting a liberal view? I haven't seen you post anything that sites a "right-leaning" source, but I may have missed that thread...

Most of you don't read what we post. :rolleyes: I stand by my statement.

But, we do read some - obviously I read this post, even accurately citing the number of students who participated in the Ohio State study - recalled the previous study I had seen, was able to find the info on it and post it...

Should the left start posting from Think Progress or Crooks and Liars, so you have easier access to some better liberal blogs? World Net Daily and Hot Air get to be a bit old after a while... ;)

I know I read most of the left wing posts just to get a laugh, but it usually just makes me mad because of how self-righteously ignorant they are of the facts ;)

Why would a conservative post anything supporting a liberal view? I haven't seen you post anything that sites a "right-leaning" source, but I may have missed that thread...

I would have thought they would have posted drivel from Kos, just to tear it apart... If they were reading it...

I would have thought they would have posted drivel from Kos, just to tear it apart... If they were reading it...

Well, you know what they say, any publicity is good publicity.

I would have thought they would have posted drivel from Kos, just to tear it apart... If they were reading it...That is known as a straw man argument. Why does it have to be from Kos?

Odd - here is the opposite viewpoint... research from George Washington University involving 5,000 participants, which was last updated in March of this year, as compared to the 156 from the article above. It also found that people gravitated to sites that marched with their political viewpoints for the most part, but they found that

"Those few people who read both left wing and right wing blogs are considerably more likely to be left wing themselves; interpret this as you like."

From a synopsis...

We were interested in two questions, both of which stem from normative debates in political science and political theory. One was whether blogs make it more likely that people will get access to points of view other than their own. Many deliberation theorists argue that this is a good thing. The other is whether blogs affect people’s likelihood of participating in politics – again regarded by many theorists as a good thing, for obvious reasons. Unfortunately, our data doesn’t allow us to make causal assertions – but it does point to some very striking patterns of correlation.

First – blog readers seem to exhibit strong homophily. That is to say, they overwhelmingly choose blogs that are written by people who are roughly in accordance with their political views. Left wingers read left wing blogs, right wingers read right wing blogs, and very few people read both left wing and right wing blogs. Those few people who read both left wing and right wing blogs are considerably more likely to be left wing themselves; interpret this as you like. Furthermore, blog readers are politically very polarized. They tend to clump around either the ‘strong liberal’ or the ‘strong conservative’ pole; there aren’t many blog readers in the center. This contrasts with consumers of various TV news channels, as the figure below illustrates. All of this suggests that blog readership is unlikely to be associated with the kinds of deliberative exchange between different points of view that some political theorists would like to see.

Second – blog readers are much more likely than non blog readers to engage in politics (through voting, giving money to candidates etc). Not only that, but left wing blog readers are significantly more likely than right wing blog readers to participate in politics. You could interpret this as evidence of more general depression among conservatives etc, but our best guess is that this is in large part the result of the netroots effect. Having a strong political movement which is pushing readers to make donations etc is likely to have real consequences. Obviously, we would like to have more data before we could make a really good case that our guess is correct.

You can read the research results here (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID1151490_code516053.pdf?abstractid=1151490&mirid=1)...

Ahh....the link you gave doesn't say any of that. It is simply the abstract of the study and here is what it says:There is active debate among political scientists and political theorists over the relationship between participation and deliberation among citizens with different political viewpoints. Internet based blogs provide an important testing ground for these scholars' theories, especially as political activity on the Internet becomes increasingly important. In this article, we use the first major dataset describing blog readership to examine the relationship between deliberation, polarization and political participation among blog readers. We find that, as existing theories might predict, blog readers tend to read blogs that accord with their political beliefs. Cross-cutting readership of blogs on both the left and right of the spectrum is relatively rare. Furthermore, we find strong evidence of polarization among blogreaders, who tend to be more polarized than both non-blog-readers and consumers of various television news, and roughly as polarized as US Senators. Blog readers are also substantially more likely to participate in politics than non-blog readers. However, in contrast to previous research on offline social networks, we do not find that cross-cutting exposure to blogs of different ideological dispositions lowers participations. Instead, we find that cross-cutting blog readers are about as likely as left wing blog readers to participate in politics, and that both are significantly more likely than right wing blog readers to participate. We suggest that this may reflect social movement building efforts by left wing bloggers.

The fact that they are talking about "deliberalization" suggests that they assume the most people start out as liberal, which, depending on how the study is set up, would inject a large amount of systemic error into the study that might make it worthless. Can you link to the actual research results on this?

I would have thought they would have posted drivel from Kos, just to tear it apart... If they were reading it...

Why? That takes a lot of unnecessary time and effort, especially when you can simply link to a blog that already does that for you.

I rarely see a post from a conservative member of this site that sites a left leaning source, perhaps it is because the 'right' here rarely reads left leaning blogs (this is I admit, speculation drawn from circumstantial evidence).

Just a reminder the vast majority of the media as well as academia, pop culture, hollywood, etc. is extremely liberal. It is next to impossible for a conservative to not be exposed to the liberal points of view. However, the same cannot be said for liberals.

What fossten is reacting to is the fact that, more often then not, people come in here with a misunderstanding of the conservative POV on a given issue. This is usually due to the strawman mischaracterizations given of conservative positions in the liberal dominated aspects of our culture. However, most conservatives can articulate the liberal position as well as most liberals, and still have reason to reject it.

Ahh....the link you gave doesn't say any of that. It is simply the abstract of the study and here is what it says:

The fact that they are talking about "deliberalization" suggests that they assume the most people start out as liberal, which, depending on how the study is set up, would inject a large amount of systemic error into the study that might make it worthless. Can you link to the actual research results on this?

Ah, Shag - I am sorry, I figured you must use SSRN somewhat for your research at school, or at least know how research networks operate...

When you get to the page I linked (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1151490) there is a download link at the top of the page that allows you to download the entire paper - it then goes to a 'source' page - where you can chose where you want the download to originate from. I used SSRN so the authors of the research get 'credit' for it, there is this hierarchy thing that happens with how many times it is downloaded, etc. But, you might like Stanford Law or one of the other sites that the paper is available at.

This sort of goes back to the whole copyright thing - I would rather not post a 37 page paper here, or even a direct link - but use the research site so the copyrights are protected.

There you will find all the information you need regarding their research, and their finding that if one group was going to wander to the 'other side's' blogs [I]it would be liberals and not conservatives.

However, I would like to see the 'paper' that your article is referencing - Ms. Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick' research - I am especially interested in why they used only college students - that seems to be a rather limited study regarding this subject. I would have thought that a larger age mix would have been more accurate if you are going to make such broad statement as 'Conservatives more likely to read opposing viewpoints than liberals?!' Perhaps it should be tempered with "Conservative College Students are more likely to read opposing viewpoint than Liberal College Students." I suppose if I want Davis' info, I will need to refer to his book - that I probably won't be doing - however, usually there is a place where at least the raw data is available - have you found that Shag?

Why? That takes a lot of unnecessary time and effort, especially when you can simply link to a blog that already does that for you.

So, I am allowed to just link to American Progress and other liberal sites to refute articles you post... so we just have a list of angry links? ;)

Just a reminder the vast majority of the media as well as academia, pop culture, hollywood, etc. is extremely liberal. It is next to impossible for a conservative to not be exposed to the liberal points of view. However, the same cannot be said for liberals.

What fossten is reacting to is the fact that, more often then not, people come in here with a misunderstanding of the conservative POV on a given issue. This is usually due to the strawman mischaracterizations given of conservative positions in the liberal dominated aspects of our culture. However, most conservatives can articulate the liberal position as well as most liberals, and still have reason to reject it.

I can take from this that you do read a lot of liberal POV? Well, wait, you don't because you get your liberal viewpoints as they are 'articulated' on conservative sites... hmmmmm.... No need to go to the original source, when it can be so nicely be summarized for you.... ;)

That is known as a straw man argument. Why does it have to be from Kos?

It can be from any liberal site - I was using an 'example' Foss that perhaps most people would know...

I can take from this that you do read a lot of liberal POV? Well, wait, you don't because you get your liberal viewpoints as they are 'articulated' on conservative sites... hmmmmm.... No need to go to the original source, when it can be so nicely be summarized for you.... ;)

You cannot be a college student (especially a political science major) and not read, watch, hear, etc. very well articulated liberal POV. In the case of being a poli sci major, you are required to regurgitate that stuff on a test, so you have to understand it. There is no room for error there. You have to be able to understand the liberal point of view as well as any other student and still be able to refute it, if you are a conservative political science major.

In fact, when it comes to the philosophical basis of liberalism (from which all liberal policy emanates), if I may be so bold, I have run circles around you; an avowed leftist.

Most conservatives used to be liberals, so they are going to have a better understanding of of liberalism then liberals have of conservatism.

In fact, when it comes to the philosophical basis of liberalism (from which all liberal policy emanates), if I may be so bold, I have run circles around you; an avowed leftist.

Most conservatives used to be liberals, so they are going to have a better understanding of of liberalism then liberals have of conservatism.

:) :) :)

So, got a link or links to that place where all liberal policy emanates.... since, I need some help with my philosophical basis regarding my ties to the left.

Are you one of those conservatives that used to be 'liberal' shag....

:) :) :)

So, got a link or links to that place where all liberal policy emanates.... since, I need some help with my philosophical basis regarding my ties to the left.


Did I ever say it was a "place"?

I can give you the names of thinkers/philosophers, but the best place to start for modern liberalism is Karl Marx, as most of the core principles stem from there (though, on it's own, Marx is a hard read and often mischaracterized, even by his supporters).

Are you one of those conservatives that used to be 'liberal' shag....

Relevance?

Another great example of bias in academia; the "biology" course I am taking this summer titled "Human Impact on Environment". The "textbook" for the course is this: Lester R. Brown's Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (http://www.amazon.com/Plan-3-0-Mobilizing-Civilization-Substantially/dp/0393065898/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244567890&sr=8-1) The book cites President Clinton's praise of the the author on the front cover, and I can tell you after reading it the book is full of one sided enviromentalist propaganda. The author, Lester Brown, has been called "the guru of the environmental movement" and the founder of the Earth Policy Institute. The class is nothing more then liberal/environmental propaganda (it is an online course, so no lectures).

I have also had econ courses taught by socialists, and textbooks in econ classes written by Paul Krugman.

And that doesn't even touch my experiences in my political science classes.

Are you actually going to try and argue that I am not exposed to the liberal POV? :rolleyes:

Are you actually going to try and argue that I am not exposed to the liberal POV? :rolleyes:
Yep Shag, it looks like your liberal reading is pretty up to date – school does that… Most schools are pretty liberal, along with most professors.

Heck, I haven’t read Plan B 3.0…. I have read Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth by Brown. I thought it had some good points… I have never seen if Obama has read the book – but certainly some of his eco economy campaign promises followed along the same lines as Brown outlined… the tax basis stuff was really weak though…

Just think… when you finally graduate you can go back to reading what ever you want.

Relevance – were you ever a liberal? You stated that since many conservatives were at one time liberal, and that it gave them special insight to the workings of the liberal mind, I was just wondering if you also have that special ability as well…

I can give you the names of thinkers/philosophers, but the best place to start for modern liberalism is Karl Marx, as most of the core principles stem from there (though, on it's own, Marx is a hard read and often mischaracterized, even by his supporters).
Shag, well, maybe you should state Marx/Engel – since you are recommending…

I have read Communist Manifesto more than once… Capital – is a better book…. Grundrisse is excellent…

How about The State and Revolution (Lenin)? Why leave out Guerrilla Warfare (Che Guevara) or Accumulation of Capital (Luxemburg) or Woman’s Evolution (Reed)? Heck, since we are paining liberals with the communist brush there certainly has to be others… ;)

Just think… when you finally graduate you can go back to reading what ever you want.

Lose the cattiness.

How about The State and Revolution (Lenin)? Why leave out Guerrilla Warfare (Che Guevara) or Accumulation of Capital (Luxemburg) or Woman’s Evolution (Reed)? Heck, since we are paining liberals with the communist brush there certainly has to be others… ;)


Those are not as relevant to understanding modern liberalism. Those are variations of Marxism, but go in a completely different direction then modern liberalism. If you want modern liberalism, go read Rawls, Dworkin, Nussbaum and many others (though Rawls and Dworkin are the big ones).

Modern liberalism is not Marxism. It is a philosophy that is considered "post-Marxist" because it builds on Marxist theories/principles and goes beyond Marxism.

Shag – since you were just going with Marx as the place to ‘start’, I thought I should leave it at the Marxist level…

Plus, Guerrilla Warfare is a must!!!!

Ah, but since we need to move beyond Marx - How could you miss Goran Gherborn – From Marxism to Post-Marxism, if you really want a good book that compares the differences…

Or, here is one that people can download…
Reading Capital (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/RC68NB.html) by Althusser/Balibar

or for a really current view on post-Marxism… Rethinking Marx (http://www.rethinkingmarxism.org/cms/)

Nussbaum – Martha? You have read her? Women and Human Development? I think of her more as an Aristotelian, rather than post Marxist…

Andrea Dworkin? Did you take some sort of post marxism feminism in the later half of the 20th century class Shag?

Finally – John Rawls – excellent choice…

Let's go to ‘NationStates (http://www.nationstates.net/page=create_nation1)”- create your own utopia!!!

The Republic of Marx-Rawls is a massive, environmentally stunning nation, notable for its restrictive gun laws. Its compassionate population of 2.935 billion enjoy extensive civil freedoms, particularly in social issues, while business tends to be more regulated.

It is difficult to tell where the omnipresent government stops and the rest of society begins, but it juggles the competing demands of Social Welfare, the Environment, and Education. The average income tax rate is 100%. The private sector is almost wholly made up of enterprising fourteen-year-old boys selling lemonade on the sidewalk, although the government is looking at stamping this out.

The government is slowly introducing social welfare programs, the government is pouring funds into the nation's welfare system, leather-clad individuals can be seen walking their slaves in public parks, and welfare funding has recently gone through the roof. Crime is totally unknown. Marx-Rawls's national animal is the chimpanzee, which frolics freely in the nation's many lush forests, and its currency is the russell.

Note – it is important that your country achieve some level of liberal attitude towards public nudity.;)

It can be from any liberal site - I was using an 'example' Foss that perhaps most people would know...
So when I post from NBC, AP, NYT, MSNBC, CBS, et al, that counts? Ok, then your premise is proven false.

Shag – since you were just going with Marx as the place to ‘start’, I thought I should leave it at the Marxist level…

Plus, Guerrilla Warfare is a must!!!!

Ah, but since we need to move beyond Marx - How could you miss Goran Gherborn – From Marxism to Post-Marxism, if you really want a good book that compares the differences…

Or, here is one that people can download…
Reading Capital (http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/RC68NB.html) by Althusser/Balibar

or for a really current view on post-Marxism… Rethinking Marx (http://www.rethinkingmarxism.org/cms/)

Nussbaum – Martha? You have read her? Women and Human Development? I think of her more as an Aristotelian, rather than post Marxist…

Andrea Dworkin? Did you take some sort of post marxism feminism in the later half of the 20th century class Shag?

Finally – John Rawls – excellent choice…

Let's go to ‘NationStates (http://www.nationstates.net/page=create_nation1)”- create your own utopia!!!

The Republic of Marx-Rawls is a massive, environmentally stunning nation, notable for its restrictive gun laws. Its compassionate population of 2.935 billion enjoy extensive civil freedoms, particularly in social issues, while business tends to be more regulated.

It is difficult to tell where the omnipresent government stops and the rest of society begins, but it juggles the competing demands of Social Welfare, the Environment, and Education. The average income tax rate is 100%. The private sector is almost wholly made up of enterprising fourteen-year-old boys selling lemonade on the sidewalk, although the government is looking at stamping this out.

The government is slowly introducing social welfare programs, the government is pouring funds into the nation's welfare system, leather-clad individuals can be seen walking their slaves in public parks, and welfare funding has recently gone through the roof. Crime is totally unknown. Marx-Rawls's national animal is the chimpanzee, which frolics freely in the nation's many lush forests, and its currency is the russell.

Note – it is important that your country achieve some level of liberal attitude towards public nudity.;)

Gherborn isn't paving any new ground philosophically. Nussbaum is an egalitarian (which is basically another word for post-marxism) and no I wasn't talking about Andrea Dworkin. :rolleyes:

So when I post from NBC, AP, NYT, MSNBC, CBS, et al, that counts? Ok, then your premise is proven false.

Good point. We post from many liberals sources. If you are limiting it to simply "blogs" you are effectively cherry picking and creating a false impression.

Well, back to the subject at hand - Why do you think the Ohio State research study used only college students?

Well, back to the subject at hand - Why do you think the Ohio State research study used only college students?

I am still waiting to see the full research that you pulled your quote from (you linked only to the abstract).

I am still waiting to see the full research that you pulled your quote from (you linked only to the abstract).

Check out post #14 - I explained how to get to the full paper - so the authors get 'credit'... It is pretty easy- and, you might want to root around in SSRN - they have a lot of interesting research posted - could be useful for school.

So, why do you think only college kids - convenience? And that study probably skewed pretty far left, there aren't that many conservative college students - as you know Shag...

What fossten is reacting to is the fact that, more often then not, people come in here with a misunderstanding of the conservative POV on a given issue. This is usually due to the strawman mischaracterizations given of conservative positions in the liberal dominated aspects of our culture. However, most conservatives can articulate the liberal position as well as most liberals, and still have reason to reject it....coming from someone who posts five right-wing articles a day including this fourth grade-level diatribe (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=54486). And you want to lecture the rest of us about straw men? :rolleyes:

...coming from someone who posts five right-wing articles a day including this fourth grade-level diatribe (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=54486). And you want to lecture the rest of us about straw men? :rolleyes:

"Fourth grade level diatribe" from an attorney that is factually backed up and accurate. You stay classy Marcus. :rolleyes:

"Fourth grade level diatribe" from an attorney that is factually backed up and accurate. You stay classy Marcus. :rolleyes:The fact that you consider anything in that article "factually backed up and accurate" is absolutely stunning. It is one long string of straw men followed by another. You know damn well that if a "liberal" had posted something similar, you'd be all over it with your wikipedia links.

Most of you don't read what we post. :rolleyes: I stand by my statement.

Because most of what you right wing whackos post are pointless attack pieces that have been worn-out like a 5$ whore over the last 8 years. Maybe if the right had some actual new ideas to offer you might have a chance to regain some offices in 2010.

Poll: Most don't know who speaks for GOP

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-06-09-poll-parties_N.htm?poe=HFMostPopular&loc=interstitialskip

By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Republicans, out of power and divided over how to get it back, are finding even the most basic questions hard to answer.
Here's one: Who speaks for the GOP?

The question flummoxes most Americans, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, which is among the reasons for the party's sagging state and uncertain direction.

A 52% majority of those surveyed couldn't come up with a name when asked to specify "the main person" who speaks for Republicans today. Of those who could, the top response was radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh (13%), followed in order by former vice president Dick Cheney, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former House speaker Newt Gingrich. Former president George W. Bush ranked fifth, at 3%.

So the dominant faces of the Republican Party are all men, all white, all conservative and all old enough to join AARP, ranging in age from 58 (Limbaugh) to 72 (McCain). They include some of the country's most strident voices on issues from Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court to President Obama's policies at home and abroad. Two are retired from politics, and one has never been a candidate.

Only McCain holds elective office, and his age and status as the loser of last year's presidential election make him an unlikely standard bearer for the party's future.

"It's a problem," says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an adviser to McCain's 2008 presidential campaign who this month is filing the papers to create a think tank aimed at generating new ideas for conservatives. "We need the perceived leadership of the party to be those who are the future."

"We cannot be a party of balding white guys," says former Republican Party national chairman Ed Gillespie, a White House counselor for George W. Bush. "We have to have a broader appeal, but there's time for us to make that change."

Republicans have seen an erosion of support across almost all demographic groups — the steepest decline since World War II, even bigger than in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s. Since 2004, Republicans have gone from a 3 percentage point advantage in party identification over Democrats in USA TODAY polls to a 7 point disadvantage.

In that time, the GOP has lost control of the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate. It is struggling to forge a united response to the popular new Democratic president. The result has been to give Obama "an extension" to his political honeymoon, Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg says.

No surprise, then, that a debate rages over what to do next.

The annual Congressional Republican fundraising dinner Monday prompted weeks of political drama over who would deliver the keynote address. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's name was announced, but when questions arose over her schedule Gingrich was tapped. Then a last-minute kerfuffle developed over whether Palin, McCain's running mate, would attend after all.

In the end, she showed up at the Washington Convention Center, walked across the stage and waved but didn't speak. He delivered an hour-long, policy-laden address that castigated Obama for having "already failed" on the economy and called for a "majority Republican Party" that would tolerate disparate views.

In recent days, the party's divisions over Sotomayor have played out in public.

At one end of the spectrum, Limbaugh labeled the appellate judge a racist and Gingrich said she should be forced to withdraw, although he later backed away from his harshest words. At the other, Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, praised the nominee's judicial philosophy and defended Sotomayor's temperament after meeting with her last week.

"We're undergoing, obviously, an identity problem, both in terms of the issues and what we represent as Republicans, what the Republican brand is all about," Snowe says. One of the few moderate Republicans left in the Senate — their ranks shrank when Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched to the Democrats — she worries her party has "lost its way."

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who declined to be interviewed about the GOP's future, has been caught in the crossfire between Limbaugh and others. (In the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, only 1% said Steele spoke for the GOP.)

USA TODAY asked whether Republicans, to succeed, should either do a better job arguing for conservative views or change positions on some issues to appeal to moderates — an ongoing debate within the party. Cheney sparked headlines last month when he said on CBS' Face the Nation that he would rather have a GOP defined by the conservative Limbaugh than the moderate former secretary of State, Colin Powell.

A majority of those surveyed said the party should make changes to draw moderates. Among Republicans, however, nearly two-thirds said the party would be better off by holding a conservative line and advocating it more effectively — as Limbaugh advocates.

"They're disorganized, they don't have a leader, and they're trying to be too moderate," Kim Lowe, 43, of Charlotte, says. The conservative stay-at-home mom and interior designer, who was among those surveyed, predicts that a message of fiscal responsibility ultimately will prevail with voters.

"I believe they'll come back once America sees what Obama is doing," she says.

'Politics is self-correcting'

Political fortunes are cyclical, of course. Republicans were crushed in Lyndon Johnson's 1964 landslide but regained the White House four years later amid turmoil over civil rights and the Vietnam War. In the 1980s, Democratic liberals and centrists faced off, sometimes bitterly, over welfare, crime and other issues until Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992.

"When you have a party out of power, especially after you've lost an election, it's not surprising there would be many voices competing to speak," says Frank Donatelli, who was political director in the Reagan White House and helped run the Republican National Committee for the McCain campaign last year.

Republican opportunities will come in response to Democratic excesses, Donatelli says: "Politics is self-correcting."

In time, the GOP will be defined and led by its presidential nominee, he says. Several prospects are laying the groundwork for potential runs in 2012.

Last week, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty announced he wouldn't seek a third term, stoking speculation that he is interested in the White House. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee and Gingrich have been making appearances in key primary states.

Republican candidates also are competitive in this year's two gubernatorial races, in New Jersey and Virginia, for seats now held by Democrats. Winning either would help Republicans argue they are making a comeback.

Still, some see the GOP's immediate plight as perilous.

"We're in the basement of a 100-story building," says Ed Rollins, a Republican strategist who advised the presidential campaigns of Ronald Reagan in 1984, independent Ross Perot in 1992 and Huckabee in 2008.

Rollins says next year's congressional and state legislative elections are crucial. If Republicans don't make significant gains in the House, he says, the redrawing of congressional district lines after the 2010 Census could lock in Democratic advantages for a decade.

Then there are the demographics of the GOP's decline.

From Bush's inauguration in 2001 to Obama's inauguration in 2009, Republicans lost significant support among nearly every major demographic group, according to a Gallup analysis — among men and women, Americans at all income levels, residents of every region and those ages 18-64.

The losses were particularly steep among those under 30, the rising Millennial generation. Support for the GOP among college graduates fell by about 10 percentage points. Surveys of voters as they left polling places also showed a significant decline among Hispanics, the nation's fastest-growing ethnic group.
Republicans maintained support among seniors, conservatives and frequent churchgoers.

To win elections, Gillespie says, the party needs to make more inroads among the rapidly expanding parts of the population. "I was not a math major, but I know that getting an increasing share of a decreasing percentage of the overall vote is not a good thing," he says. "That's what we're doing now."

"The world has changed, and they cannot be staying in the same place where they've been for the last 200 years," says Erika Quinteros, 63, an independent from suburban Philadelphia who was called in the survey. The retired doctor sometimes votes for Republicans — she liked former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge— but says the current GOP seems "too radical" for her.

In the poll, 34% had a favorable impression of the Republican Party, matching the lowest level in more than a decade. In comparison, 53% had a favorable impression of the Democratic Party.

Dissatisfaction with the GOP extends to within its own ranks. Among Republicans, 33% had an unfavorable impression of their own party. In contrast, 4% of Democrats had an unfavorable impression of their party.

The GOP's electoral setbacks, policy divisions and image problems make it harder for the party to influence the national debate.

"It's as if the Republican Party is in a time-out chair," says Charlie Cook, editor and publisher of the non-partisan Cook Political Report. "Nobody's really listening to them. Nobody's caring what they think. The question is when they're asked to rejoin the class, are they going to have something new or different to say?"

"I don't think people know what they stand for," says Troy Collett, 39, a Republican from Shelbyville, Ind., who was surveyed. In the 2008 election, he says, "all they knew was there was a war in Iraq that most people disagreed with, and spending was out of control, and gas prices were high."

A GOP 'wilderness'

Asked by Gallup "what comes to mind when you think of the Republican Party," 25% said "unfavorable" and another 1 in 4 offered negative assessments including "no direction," "close-minded" and "poor economic conditions." Sixteen percent said "conservative" and 7% "favorable."

For the Democratic Party, the most dominant impression was "liberal," mentioned by 15%. One in 3 used positive phrases such as "for the people" and "socially conscious." The most prevalent negative judgments saw the Democrats as "big spending" (8%) and "self-centered" (4%).

The survey of 1,015 adults, taken by land line and cellphone May 29-31, has a margin of error of +/– 3 percentage points.

Like the Democrats or not, there was a broad consensus about who speaks for the party. Obama was named by 58%. He was followed by 11% who cited House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and 3% who cited Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Twenty-one percent couldn't come up with a name.

And Obama's popularity — 67% had a favorable opinion of him — is boosting his party. Even the 14-year-old daughter of Rollins, the Republican strategist, has put up posters of the president in her bedroom.

Some analysts say a stumble by the president and the Democrat-controlled Congress would give Republicans their best opportunity to recover.

"Republicans are counting on the Obama administration to disintegrate, to disappoint, very rapidly and very spectacularly, and a big popular movement of unhappiness with the administration to coalesce," says David Frum, a speechwriter in the Bush White House.

Frum, who says the party hasn't yet come to terms with its problems, has launched a website called newmajority.com to encourage a debate.

"There's a lot of time and nothing wrong with the Republican Party that health care reform or the cap-and-trade (energy plan) or something like that blowing up wouldn't help fix," Cook says.

At the moment, though, "Republicans are going through a wilderness period, and it may take a while to come out of it."



:bowrofl: It is HILARIOUS to watch the GOP and the conservative movement self-destruct under the "leadership" of loud-mouths like "Oxycotin" Limbaugh and "We have proof of Iraq's WMDs" Cheney. Maybe this will turn out to be an opportunity for a Libertarian movement to push aside conservatives and BE the 2nd major political party.

The fact that you consider anything in that article "factually backed up and accurate" is absolutely stunning. It is one long string of straw men followed by another. You know damn well that if a "liberal" had posted something similar, you'd be all over it with your wikipedia links.

If that were the case, then you could point to specifics and refute it with facts and logic. If it truly was a "long string of straw men" you could show that.

If that were the case, then you could point to specifics and refute it with facts and logic. If it truly was a "long string of straw men" you could show that.

I'm gonna regret getting into the middle of this, as it will never end but...

He doesn't have to. You've committed two fallacies in your defense of this article.

1. Appeal to authority - He is a lawyer..... so what, does that make him an expert socialogist?
2. Burden of proof - your shifting it to Marcus, rather than proving the assertions the article makes.

As for the article itself, I'll touch on a few points:

1. Hasty Generalization - this article does this a lot, it lumps the actions of a few, in some cases 1 individual and attributes them to all liberals.
2. Straw man - "support exterminating babies in the womb;" Really? Really? I think its called pro-choice, not pro-exterminating babies in the womb.
3. Guilt by association - "like a thuggish Third World dictatorship" , "consciously employ the sinister tactics of radical Saul Alinsky"
4. Straw man - "promote a secular humanist worldview that considers government a quasi-deity that can perfect the human condition"... clear distortion
5. Straw man - "have so little faith in their fellow human beings that they diminish their dignity by expanding the welfare state and increasing man's learned dependency on government" ... again a distortion.

There are many examples of straw man.

6. Ad hominem tu quoque - "oppose vouchers to keep inner-city minorities trapped in inferior schools while pretending to be their caretakers and while sending their own children to elite private schools"

These are just some examples but there are more. I really don't see how this article can be defended as a legitimate proof of anything.

Thank you aztecknight, you just saved me the trouble, and did more than I would have. I would have just stuck to "shifting burden of proof" and moved on. :D

Appeal to authority - He is a lawyer..... so what, does that make him an expert socialogist?

My argument is only an "appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority)" if I am arguing that he is right because he is an authority. If you read the post in which I respond to Marcus' claim (post #31), I am disproving the notion that it is a "fourth grade diatribe". Pointing out the fact that he is a lawyer is very relevant and logically disproves that notion; you cannot be a lawyer unless you have passed fourth grade and in fact graduated H.S., graduated college, graduated law school and passed the bar exam.

So, my argument is only an appeal to authority if you assume a mischaracterization of my argument.

Burden of proof - your shifting it to Marcus, rather than proving the assertions the article makes.

I have done no such thing. For a criticism to be valid, it has to be disprovable. And before someone says that is wrong because it would mean the claim is false; that is not what disprovable means. Disprovable simply means that the argument is verifiable as either right or wrong and thus able to be reasonably challenged.

His claims are vague and not disprovable because of that. There is no specific argument.

The fact is, due to the vague nature of his claim, it is unable to be challenged. So the burden of proof is still on him to make his claim valid by making it specific and disprovable.

To expect me to have to go back every single claim in that article is absurd and nothing short of moving the goalposts. If he is relying on the vagueness of his claim to force me to have to back up so much that it is overwhelming and impractical, it is nothing more then a dishonest means to avoid a counter just like hrmwrm's "wall 'o' text" posts.

Hasty Generalization - this article does this a lot, it lumps the actions of a few, in some cases 1 individual and attributes them to all liberals.

Again, specifics? What claim(s) are hasty generalizations? Frankly you are talking in generalizations here that make you claim so vague as to not be valid.

Straw man - "support exterminating babies in the womb;" Really? Really? I think its called pro-choice, not pro-exterminating babies in the womb.

Ahh, this has been discussed ad nauseum in this forum; Obama actions show that he supports infanticide (specifically, allowing a baby born in a botched abortion to die outside the womb). If he supports that, it is pretty clear that he supports partial birth abortion as well (which could also be called "exterminating a baby in the womb".

Precisely what abortion is; exterminating a baby in the womb. Just because he doesn't call it "pro-choice" does not mean he is mischaracterizing it. What you are doing is making a distinction without a difference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_without_a_difference).

Guilt by association - "like a thuggish Third World dictatorship" , "consciously employ the sinister tactics of radical Saul Alinsky"

...where is the association? There needs to be an association for there to be guilt by association.

Straw man - "promote a secular humanist worldview that considers government a quasi-deity that can perfect the human condition"... clear distortion

No, that is precisely what the ideology of socialism (egalitarianism, progressivism, "democratic" socialism, whatever you want to call it) tries to do; to perfect the human condition. There is also a dedicated effort to remove religion from the public sphere; secular humanism (another philosophical idea).

It is only a "straw man" if you are ignorant of the philosophies involved.

Straw man - "have so little faith in their fellow human beings that they diminish their dignity by expanding the welfare state and increasing man's learned dependency on government" ... again a distortion.

No, again accurate if you have an understanding of the philosophies/ideologies involved and an understanding of the historical track record of those philosophies/ideologies.

In short, they view humans as generally good, which is not realistic. When reality meets there idealistic views, they lose faith in humanity and start to impose their agenda to change human nature to fit their view so that their agenda can work. You see this very dramatically in most any modern totalitarian country (socialist countries, fascist countries). You see a much more "pleasant" version of this in the socialist democracies of Europe. And we are seeing it here in this country as well.

Ad hominem tu quoque - "oppose vouchers to keep inner-city minorities trapped in inferior schools while pretending to be their caretakers and while sending their own children to elite private schools"

Here is the definition of a tu quoque argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque):Tu quoque is a Latin term that describes a kind of logical fallacy. A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.

What claim is Mr. Limbaugh, specifically, trying to disprove by showing that it applies equally to the person(s) making it? If that is not there, then this claim is simply meant to show both the disingenuousness of the actions of the dems as well as their unjustifiable double standard.

Somebody found the logical fallacy website and is throwing them all against the wall in the hopes that some will stick.

Thank you aztecknight, you just saved me the trouble, and did more than I would have. I would have just stuck to "shifting burden of proof" and moved on. :D
Aww...aren't you the cute cheerleader. Too bad your hero's arguments have been put down.

Aww...aren't you the cute cheerleader. Too bad your hero's arguments have been put down....said the head cheerleader.

Somebody found the logical fallacy website and is throwing them all against the wall in the hopes that some will stick.No that would be your hero.

My argument is only an "appeal to authority" if I am arguing that he is right because he is an authority. If you read the post in which I respond to Marcus' claim (post #31), I am disproving the notion that it is a "fourth grade diatribe". Pointing out the fact that he is a lawyer is very relevant and logically disproves that notion; you cannot be a lawyer unless you have passed fourth grade and in fact graduated H.S., graduated college, graduated law school and passed the bar exam.

So, my argument is only an appeal to authority if you assume a mischaracterization of my argument.

Let's break it down, Marcus never asserted that Limbaugh didn't graduate fourth grade, nor did he say this diatribe was written by a 4th grader. So you've successfully disproven something that isn't there... can we say strawman. Furthermore the mere fact that Limbaugh is a lawyer and therefore mastered the 4th grade along with his other academic achievements would only support his ability to create a "4th grade-level' diatribe. If you had said something to the effect that he never even got passed 3rd grade, then I would say you disproved the fact that this is a 4th grade level diatribe. If you never mastered 3rd grade then its unlikely you can operate at a 4th grade level.

Let's get real now though, Marcus was attacking the veracity of the article, calling the article a 4th grade-level diatribe. You defend said 4th grade level diatribe's veracity by saying no way he is a lawyer. If you had read a little further down the page on your source you would have seen the following:

Believing something because it is attributed to an honored profession. So yes, appeal to authority.

I have done no such thing. For a criticism to be valid, it has to be disprovable. And before someone says that is wrong because it would mean the claim is false; that is not what disprovable means. Disprovable simply means that the argument is verifiable as either right or wrong and thus able to be reasonably challenged.

His claims are vague and not disprovable because of that. There is no specific argument.

The fact is, due to the vague nature of his claim, it is unable to be challenged. So the burden of proof is still on him to make his claim valid by making it specific and disprovable.

Again, Marcus attacks the veracity of the article. You can question the way he did it, but not the fact that he did. It is not up to him to prove the article wrong, it is up to the author to defend the assertions made in the article.

To expect me to have to go back every single claim in that article is absurd and nothing short of moving the goalposts. If he is relying on the vagueness of his claim to force me to have to back up so much that it is overwhelming and impractical, it is nothing more then a dishonest means to avoid a counter just like hrmwrm's "wall 'o' text" posts.

Yet you expect this from him?

Again, specifics? What claim(s) are hasty generalizations? Frankly you are talking in generalizations here that make you claim so vague as to not be valid.

My bad. You got me here. Here is an example though:

"apologize the world over for America; or gut the military and missile defense because of some dangerously egotistical notion that they have the magic to turn evil into goodness with their charisma and eloquence or, even worse, because they refuse to recognize evil in the world, except as emanating from the United States."

I'm liberal and I haven't apologized the world over for American nor did I gut the military and missile defense. Last time I checked I didn't have the egotistical notion that I could turn evil into good with my charisma or eloquence. Sounds like he is talking about Obama. So yes, hasty generalization. You could even take it further and say its the fallacy of composition: The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference.

Ahh, this has been discussed ad nauseum in this forum; Obama actions show that he supports infanticide (specifically, allowing a baby born in a botched abortion to die outside the womb). If he supports that, it is pretty clear that he supports partial birth abortion as well (which could also be called "exterminating a baby in the womb".

Precisely what abortion is; exterminating a baby in the womb. Just because he doesn't call it "pro-choice" does not mean he is mischaracterizing it. What you are doing is making a distinction without a difference.

Sorry wrong again. Being pro-choice does not mean supporting only infanticide or only abortion for that matter. It supports the freedom of choice. Amongst those choices is life. So to say they support exterminating babies in the womb is an exaggeration and a distortion, like it or not. On the positive side it does appear that you agree with me that at least some portions of this article attribute claims about Obama to all liberals.

...where is the association? There needs to be an association for there to be guilt by association.

"Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy

Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument.

This form of the argument is as follows:

A makes claim P.
Bs also make claim P.
Therefore, A is a B. "

Liberals are extreme because they like thuggish Third World dictatorship – prosecute previous administration officials... Liberals are extreme because they employ the sinister tactics of radical Saul Alinsky. These are associations. The attacks make an association/link between liberals and Saul Alinsky and thuggish third world dictatorships.

No, that is precisely what the ideology of socialism (egalitarianism, progressivism, "democratic" socialism, whatever you want to call it) tries to do; to perfect the human condition. There is also a dedicated effort to remove religion from the public sphere; secular humanism (another philosophical idea).

It is only a "straw man" if you are ignorant of the philosophies involved.

Please prove to me that we liberals consider government a quasi-deity. Sorry, its a distortion. By the way, your little remark at the end is a personal attack, a fallacy.

No, again accurate if you have an understanding of the philosophies/ideologies involved and an understanding of the historical track record of those philosophies/ideologies.

In short, they view humans as generally good, which is not realistic. When reality meets there idealistic views, they lose faith in humanity and start to impose their agenda to change human nature to fit their view so that their agenda can work. You see this very dramatically in most any modern totalitarian country (socialist countries, fascist countries). You see a much more "pleasant" version of this in the socialist democracies of Europe. And we are seeing it here in this country as well.

Prove that liberals diminish the dignity of our fellow human beings. You have data that shows that people on any kind of welfare feel their dignity has been diminished. Please show me the data.

You contradict yourself as well. How can an individual view humans as generally good yet have lost faith in humanity? How can liberals change human nature, better yet, why would liberals change human nature if they view humans as generally good? Your position also contradicts the article. The article states liberals have little faith in their fellow humans, but you say they see humans as generally good?

Here is the definition of a tu quoque argument:

Tu quoque is a Latin term that describes a kind of logical fallacy. A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions.

What claim is Mr. Limbaugh, specifically, trying to disprove by showing that it applies equally to the person(s) making it? If that is not there, then this claim is simply meant to show both the disingenuousness of the actions of the dems as well as their unjustifiable double standard.

If only you had read a little further. From your wiki source:

Inconsistency version

This form of the argument is as follows:

A makes claim P.
A has also made claims which are inconsistent with P.
Therefore, P is false.

This is a logical fallacy because the conclusion that P is false does not follow from the premises; even if A has made past claims which are inconsistent with P, it does not necessarily prove that P is either true or false.


Yet a more complete definition which is the one I'm using:

Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3. Therefore X is false.

Liberals according to the article claim that vouchers are not a good idea and this of course is an extreme point of view, the article says liberals actions aren't consistent with their claims. This of course leads to the conclusion:

Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

The article tries to prove how extreme not supporting vouchers is by pointing out that the dems actions aren't consistent with their stance.

Somebody found the logical fallacy website and is throwing them all against the wall in the hopes that some will stick.

Throwing them all against the wall? That's a bit of a stretch.

Don't worry though, I provided more details so that even you can understand them. Though you might give me the dreaded 'tl;dnr'.

...said the head cheerleader.

No that would be your hero.Aww...how cute, two "NO U!" ripostes in the same response. :rolleyes:

Grow up TommyB.

Let's break it down, Marcus never asserted that Limbaugh didn't graduate fourth grade, nor did he say this diatribe was written by a 4th grader. So you've successfully disproven something that isn't there... can we say strawman. Furthermore the mere fact that Limbaugh is a lawyer and therefore mastered the 4th grade along with his other academic achievements would only support his ability to create a "4th grade-level' diatribe. If you had said something to the effect that he never even got passed 3rd grade, then I would say you disproved the fact that this is a 4th grade level diatribe. If you never mastered 3rd grade then its unlikely you can operate at a 4th grade level.


So, first it was an appeal to authority, and now it is a straw man as well?

Is seems fossten was right and that you are simply throwing any fallacy claim you can against the wall to see if it sticks.

I will admit that you do have a point here, though. I may have been a little hasty in responding and wrongly interpreted what he said.

However, there are two points you have to consider...

First, the interpretation I went with was the only way, IMO, that his comment is at all disprovable and, thus, valid.

Second, I WAS BEING FACETIOUS!!! Notice the smiley?

Let's get real now though, Marcus was attacking the veracity of the article, calling the article a 4th grade-level diatribe.

Calling it a "4th grade level diatribe" only "attacks the veracity" through fallacious reasoning; specifically judgmental language:Judgmental language is a subset of Style over substance fallacy and Red herring fallacies. It employs insultive, compromising or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgement.

Marcus in no way tries to logically discredit the substance of the article.

You defend said 4th grade level diatribe's veracity by saying no way he is a lawyer. If you had read a little further down the page on your source you would have seen the following:
Believing something because it is attributed to an honored profession.
So yes, appeal to authority.

So now you are mischaracterizing what an appeal to an authority argument is by quoting from the wiki page out of context. Here is what the page says an appeal to authority is.appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.

...This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim is not necessarily related to the personal qualities of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false).

...There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, the fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism: It can be true, the truth can merely not be proven, or made probable by attributing it to the authority, and the assumption that the assertion was true might be subject to criticism and turn out to have actually been wrong. If a criticism appears that contradicts the authority's statement, then merely the fact that the statement originated from the authority is not an argument for ignoring the criticism.

I never argued that what he said was correct BECAUSE he was a lawyer. Simply citing an authority and/or pointing out that he is an authority is not an appeal to authority argument. You have to claim that what the authority says is true BECAUSE they are an authority for the argument to be an appeal to authority.

In fact, as I had already pointed out, Marcus never attacked the substance of the article, so there was no need for me to defend the substance by making an appeal to authority argument. I was simply countering his fallacious, substanceless and, frankly, petulant point.

You are, by implication, mischaracterizing what I was saying; a straw man fallacy on your part.

Again, Marcus attacks the veracity of the article.

If he is attacking the veracity of the article, he is doing so through fallacious means. He is not attacking the substance of the article.

Yet you expect this from him?

The burden of proof is on the person making the initial critique. He has to make a substantive and valid critique; necessitating that the critique attack the substance of the article and that the critique be both logical and disprovable. Until he does so that (and he still hasn't), the burden of proof is on him.

That is all I expect. If he wants to go line by line, or simply point out a few specifics that is his prerogative. But he didn't offer any substance, only smearing.

My bad. You got me here. Here is an example though:

"apologize the world over for America; or gut the military and missile defense because of some dangerously egotistical notion that they have the magic to turn evil into goodness with their charisma and eloquence or, even worse, because they refuse to recognize evil in the world, except as emanating from the United States."

I'm liberal and I haven't apologized the world over for American nor did I gut the military and missile defense. Last time I checked I didn't have the egotistical notion that I could turn evil into good with my charisma or eloquence. Sounds like he is talking about Obama. So yes, hasty generalization. You could even take it further and say its the fallacy of composition: The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference.


Is he talking about liberals? He is pointing out what conservatives are not. It seems he is talking about conservatives, not liberals. He is pointing out what side of the isle extremism comes from, and in doing that it is relevant to point out examples from the other side of the isle. That doesn't mean that he is saying all liberals or even all liberal politicians.

And, in the context of the article, it is abundantly clear that he is referring to the actions of politicians. So, in pointing to yourself as a liberal you are citing a red herring and mischaracterizing what he is saying.

Sorry wrong again. Being pro-choice does not mean supporting only infanticide or only abortion for that matter. It supports the freedom of choice. Amongst those choices is life. So to say they support exterminating babies in the womb is an exaggeration and a distortion, like it or not. On the positive side it does appear that you agree with me that at least some portions of this article attribute claims about Obama to all liberals.

Abortion is exterminating a baby in the womb. It seems you are trying to deny that, which is nothing more then spin. If you want to justify that as a necessary evil at times that is one thing, but to deny the facts is irrational.

And, in talking about the infanticide thing, I am talking about a specific bill that Obama voted against in the Illinois Senate that would have prevented doctors from letting a baby die after being born in a botched partial birth abortion. So the infanticide I am talking about is directly tied to the attempt to kill a viable baby inside the womb.

And no, I am not agreeing with you that portions of the article attribute claims about Obama to all liberals. That is a false premise that you are attempting to inject to mischaracterize the article, as I have already pointed out.

Liberals are extreme because they like thuggish Third World dictatorship – prosecute previous administration officials... Liberals are extreme because they employ the sinister tactics of radical Saul Alinsky. These are associations. The attacks make an association/link between liberals and Saul Alinsky and thuggish third world dictatorships.

More straw man mischaracterization.

First, it doesn't matter who they "like" (punctuation is important). ;)

Second, Limbaugh is not arguing that the tactics are radical or thuggish because they are used by these people, which is how you are mischaracterizing it. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Guilt_by_association_as_an_ad_ hominem_fallacy) is what guilt by association as an ad hominem is:Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument
Limbaugh is not attacking the tactics because of there similarity to anything.

It the case of the third world thing, he is simply citing the most obvious example of those thuggish tactics as a means of explaination.

In the case of Alinsky, he is point out where those tactics stem from; specifically his Rules for Radicals and his activities in Chicago. Again a means of explanation by citing the history of those tactics.

The tactics are radical and/or thuggish on their own and Limbaugh isn't arguing otherwise.

Please prove to me that we liberals consider government a quasi-deity. Sorry, its a distortion. By the way, your little remark at the end is a personal attack, a fallacy.


Can you say "shifting the burden of proof"?

Considering your ignorance when it comes to the various philosophies here (that is not a personal attack, it is an observation based on your arguments here), it would take way to long to bring you up to speed to be able to explain it to you.

Basically, they work to make government into into the provider/caregiver for everyone, the arbiter and ultimate authority of truth and justice, the ultimate authority and planner of society and the means of changing human nature.

And no, that last comment wasn't a personal attack. Actually it was a kind gesture toward you. Given your comment you are either A) ignorant of the philosophies involved here or, B) unwilling to consider what is being said. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were simply ignorant in this area as opposed to being irrational.

FYI: a personal attack is not, in and of itself, fallacious. It is only fallacious if it is aimed at discrediting an argument or idea.

Prove that liberals diminish the dignity of our fellow human beings. You have data that shows that people on any kind of welfare feel their dignity has been diminished. Please show me the data.


Again, shifting the burden of proof as well as raising the goalposts. Your standard is completely arbitary and is nothing more then busy work aimed at avoiding rebuttal. Also, no quote at all, let alone in context, so I have no idea what he is talking about.

You contradict yourself as well. How can an individual view humans as generally good yet have lost faith in humanity? How can liberals change human nature, better yet, why would liberals change human nature if they view humans as generally good?

Again, a lack of understanding of basic political philosphy. ALL political philosophies make certain key assumptions about human nature. In fact, it can be argued that is the core of any philosophy and what the rest of the philosophy stems from. Modern liberalism assumes that humans are generally good and (depending on the specific philosophy) can improve or "evolve". When those assumptions about human nature are shown to be wrong, there is a cognitive dissonance between the ideology and reality. Ideologues become jaded with humanity and attempt to force humanity to fit their false notions of humanity. This is where totalitarian regimes come from.

Liberals according to the article claim that vouchers are not a good idea and this of course is an extreme point of view, the article says liberals actions aren't consistent with their claims. This of course leads to the conclusion:

Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

The article tries to prove how extreme not supporting vouchers is by pointing out that the dems actions aren't consistent with their stance.


Limbaugh is not trying to disprove their claims. He is simply showing them to be hypocrites (not toward the end of disproving their claim).

Your claims of fallacy in this thread (other then that one point) are based in either a mischaracterization of what is being said, or of the fallacy you are claiming (straw man fallacy) and/or an ignorance of what is being said or the fallacy you are claiming.

Jeez, you guys are discussing Marcus' "4th grade diatribe" comment as though it were something other than an immature, idiotic, pejorative blatt from an angry knee-jerk.

Denial, denial, denial. If you believe it, it is so. You seriously want to criticize my lack of punctuation? C'mon, and yes I saw the smiley face.

So you admit to being facetious, or should I say, FACETIOUS!!! In other words, you were appealing to ridicule, another fallacy. Then you further admit to "First, the interpretation I went with was the only way, IMO, that his comment is at all disprovable and, thus, valid."

So you mischaracterize and distort his claim in order to dismiss it. Sure sounds like a strawman.

Calling it a "4th grade level diatribe" only "attacks the veracity" through fallacious reasoning; specifically judgmental language:

Judgmental language is a subset of Style over substance fallacy and Red herring fallacies. It employs insultive, compromising or pejorative language to influence the recipient's judgement.

Marcus in no way tries to logically discredit the substance of the article.

Isn't that what I said? I said you can question the way he went about attacking the veracity of the article, but not that fact that its what he was doing. Furthermore, and most importantly he doesn't have to logically discredit the substance of the article. The article makes a bunch of claims you so boldly stated were "factually backed up and accurate". Where are the facts and proof of their accuracies. You know the burden of proof is on the article not Marcus.

In fact, as I had already pointed out, Marcus never attacked the substance of the article, so there was no need for me to defend the substance by making an appeal to authority argument. I was simply countering his fallacious, substanceless and, frankly, petulant point.

You are, by implication, mischaracterizing what I was saying; a straw man fallacy on your part.

Examples of appeals to authority

[edit] Arguments

* Referring to the philosophical beliefs of Aristotle: "If Aristotle said it was so, it is so."
...
* Believing something because it is attributed to an honored profession, as in: "This doctor recommends (brand-name) aspirin" or "Bankers recommend that people have six months' wages in a savings account".


As I've established, Marcus attacked the veracity of the article with his comment. Then you replied "Fourth grade level diatribe from an attorney that is factually backed up and accurate". Clearly you are attempting to persuade individuals to believe something because it is attributed to an honored profession. Limbaugh is a lawyer, article is factually backed up and accurate (which we have yet to see), it can't be a pile of horse manure.

I never argued that what he said was correct BECAUSE he was a lawyer. Simply citing an authority and/or pointing out that he is an authority is not an appeal to authority argument. You have to claim that what the authority says is true BECAUSE they are an authority for the argument to be an appeal to authority.

See the example above from your source that I put in bold. Where in those examples is something claimed to be true because the authority says its true? Nowhere. You don't have to "...argued that what he said was correct BECAUSE he was a lawyer.", in order for it to be an appeal to authority. You simply have to "therefore claim B is true, or has its credibility unduly enhanced as a result of the proximity and association. "Fourth grade level diatribe from an attorney that is factually backed up and accurate"... sure sounds like an appeal to authority. If it walks like a duck and sounds like one....

Here, I'll break it down further using your definition:

If a criticism appears (Marcus calling it a P.O.S article full of fallacies) that contradicts the authority's statement (all the unproven claims in the article), then merely the fact that the statement originated from the authority(limbaugh is a lawyer) is not an argument for ignoring the criticism (its a pile of horse manure).

If he is attacking the veracity of the article, he is doing so through fallacious means. He is not attacking the substance of the article.

Correct, but attacking the veracity of the article is exactly what Marcus is doing.

The burden of proof is on the person making the initial critique. He has to make a substantive and valid critique; necessitating that the critique attack the substance of the article and that the critique be both logical and disprovable. Until he does so that (and he still hasn't), the burden of proof is on him.

That is all I expect. If he wants to go line by line, or simply point out a few specifics that is his prerogative. But he didn't offer any substance, only smearing.


No, the burden of proof is not on the person making the initial critique. The burden of proof is on the individual making the claims. C'mon you know this. I've seen you use it before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, either positive or negative, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven

Further, what you are trying to do now is this which I've seen you throw around here before so you should be familiar, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof:

"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true."

Bottom line, Marcus has to prove nothing. The article makes bold claims that must be backed up, and they clearly aren't, otherwise I suspect you would've already inundated us with links to the facts.

Is he talking about liberals? He is pointing out what conservatives are not. It seems he is talking about conservatives, not liberals. He is pointing out what side of the isle extremism comes from, and in doing that it is relevant to point out examples from the other side of the isle. That doesn't mean that he is saying all liberals or even all liberal politicians.

And, in the context of the article, it is abundantly clear that he is referring to the actions of politicians. So, in pointing to yourself as a liberal you are citing a red herring and mischaracterizing what he is saying.

Let the back-pedaling begin. "Conservatives aren't the extremists"... who is then? "Mainstream conservatives are routinely mischaracterized as extreme by liberals and squishy Republicans, when it is America's liberals who are, by any fair measure, more extreme."

Another way to interpret what you are saying is that Limbaugh makes an argument from ignorance then?

Commonly in an argument from personal incredulity or argument from ignorance, the speaker considers or asserts that something is false, implausible, or not obvious to them personally and attempts to use this gap in knowledge as "evidence" in favor of an alternative view of his or her choice.

Abortion is exterminating a baby in the womb. It seems you are trying to deny that, which is nothing more then spin. If you want to justify that as a necessary evil at times that is one thing, but to deny the facts is irrational.

And, in talking about the infanticide thing, I am talking about a specific bill that Obama voted against in the Illinois Senate that would have prevented doctors from letting a baby die after being born in a botched partial birth abortion. So the infanticide I am talking about is directly tied to the attempt to kill a viable baby inside the womb.

And no, I am not agreeing with you that portions of the article attribute claims about Obama to all liberals. That is a false premise that you are attempting to inject to mischaracterize the article, as I have already pointed out.


I never attempted to define abortion. Good job of building that strawman. I clearly stated that Pro-choice does not equal pro abortion. Here you go, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_choice:

Pro-choice describes the political and ethical view that a woman should have complete control over her fertility and the choice to continue or terminate a pregnancy. This entails the guarantee of reproductive rights, which includes access to sexual education; access to safe and legal abortion, contraception, and fertility treatments; and legal protection from forced abortion.

The claim in the article is an exaggeration and distortion of the pro-choice view.

It the case of the third world thing, he is simply citing the most obvious example of those thuggish tactics as a means of explaination.

In the case of Alinsky, he is point out where those tactics stem from; specifically his Rules for Radicals and his activities in Chicago. Again a means of explanation by citing the history of those tactics.

The tactics are radical and/or thuggish on their own and Limbaugh isn't arguing otherwise.

What? Huh? Where does he cite an example of thuggish tactics? Didn't see it, please show me the third world country and its leaders Limbaugh cites as an example. Why is there a need to point out where those tactics came from if they are as you say radical on their own? You are correct about one thing though, he is not attacking the tactics, he's attacking the views of American liberals as extreme by attempting to associate them with thuggish 3rd world countries and Alinsky.

Can you say "shifting the burden of proof"?

Considering your ignorance when it comes to the various philosophies here (that is not a personal attack, it is an observation based on your arguments here), it would take way to long to bring you up to speed to be able to explain it to you.

Basically, they work to make government into into the provider/caregiver for everyone, the arbiter and ultimate authority of truth and justice, the ultimate authority and planner of society and the means of changing human nature.

And no, that last comment wasn't a personal attack. Actually it was a kind gesture toward you. Given your comment you are either A) ignorant of the philosophies involved here or, B) unwilling to consider what is being said. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were simply ignorant in this area as opposed to being irrational.

FYI: a personal attack is not, in and of itself, fallacious. It is only fallacious if it is aimed at discrediting an argument or idea.

Can you be more wrong? Considering your ignorance of fallacies, clearly demonstrated by your lack of understanding and implementation, I guess you can. This is not a personal attack, just an observation from the arguments you make.

No, I'm not shifting the burden of proof, as established earlier, a claim is made in the article which you state is factually backed up and accurate. It is on you to prove this, at a minimum the author of the article is required to prove it.

The explanation you give in no way supports that liberals view government as a quasi-deity. This is an exaggeration and distortion.

You are also wrong about a personal attacking only being fallacious "if it is aimed at discrediting an argument or idea." It does a pretty good job of "poisoning the well".

Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say.

In your response to "Prove that liberals diminish the dignity of our fellow human beings. You have data that shows that people on any kind of welfare feel their dignity has been diminished. Please show me the data." You said:

Again, shifting the burden of proof as well as raising the goalposts. Your standard is completely arbitary and is nothing more then busy work aimed at avoiding rebuttal. Also, no quote at all, let alone in context, so I have no idea what he is talking about.

Again, didn't shift proof of burden, the claim in the article is not backed up. Your understanding of the burden of proof fallacy is really lacking.

Now you say you have no idea what he is talking about? How can you not know what he is talking about, yet defend it. Where is the accuracy you so boldly claimed this article possessed? It is a clear distortion.

Again, a lack of understanding of basic political philosphy. ALL political philosophies make certain key assumptions about human nature. In fact, it can be argued that is the core of any philosophy and what the rest of the philosophy stems from. Modern liberalism assumes that humans are generally good and (depending on the specific philosophy) can improve or "evolve". When those assumptions about human nature are shown to be wrong, there is a cognitive dissonance between the ideology and reality. Ideologues become jaded with humanity and attempt to force humanity to fit their false notions of humanity. This is where totalitarian regimes come from.

Huh? Modern liberalism assumes that humans are generally good when those assumptions are proven false they become jaded with humanity and force it to fit what they already assume to status quo? Makes no sense. I believe 1+1=2 but the reality is 1+1=3, so I become jaded and I try to force 3 to be 2 though I know for a fact that 3 is not 2, but I believe it is. I believe humans are good by nature, but I know they are not. Wow, it is so clear, you can know something yet believe something completely different. Thanks for the lesson.

Regardless, your argument contradicts the article. The article assumes liberals to have little faith in humans, you assume that liberals have the opposite view, yet know otherwise... a paradox if you will.


Limbaugh is not trying to disprove their claims. He is simply showing them to be hypocrites (not toward the end of disproving their claim).

Wrong again. He is not trying to show them to be hypocrites, he is attempting to prove that the views are extreme. Did you read the article, that is the whole premise. Let's break it down again:

Also, the fact that a person's claims(vouchers suck) are not consistent with his actions(sending their kids to elite private schools) might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.(or extreme in this case)

Your claims of fallacy in this thread (other then that one point) are based in either a mischaracterization of what is being said, or of the fallacy you are claiming (straw man fallacy) and/or an ignorance of what is being said or the fallacy you are claiming.

Just keep saying to yourself "There's no place like home, there's no place like home..."

Just for the record, the "fourth grade-level diatribe" was aimed at Limbaugh's style, i.e., "Conservatives aren't the ones who...". It's very much akin to a child's "I know you are but what am I" taunt. How educated Limbaugh is is irrelevant.

The "strawman" statement was aimed at the substance of the "article". That is, his mischaracterizing the motives of "liberals", as in they are evil, America-hating, terrorist-cheering, child-killers. That is indeed the substance of his diatribe.

I could have easily disputed the entire thing by just listing each accusation out and appending the phrase "and neither are liberals" to each one, and used the same exact amount of evidence as Limbaugh did. But I didn't feel the need to waste my time.

By the way, I'd like add another logical fallacy to the long list that applies to most of your posts Shag, as evidenced in this thread:

Argumentum verbosium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity)

Proof by verbosity is also used colloquially in forensic debate to describe a logical fallacy (sometimes called "argumentum verbosium") that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and that is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument is allowed to slide by unchallenged. It is the fallacy epitomized by W. C. Fields' quote: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull."

Just for the record, the "fourth grade-level diatribe" was aimed at Limbaugh's style, i.e., "Conservatives aren't the ones who...".
We're aware. It's still a stupid comment. It's very much akin to a child's "I know you are but what am I" taunt. How educated Limbaugh is is irrelevant. You just gave me a 'NO U!' in this thread. Funny you didn't notice your own childish taunt.

Just for the record, the "fourth grade-level diatribe" was aimed at Limbaugh's style, i.e., "Conservatives aren't the ones who...". It's very much akin to a child's "I know you are but what am I" taunt. How educated Limbaugh is is irrelevant.

The "strawman" statement was aimed at the substance of the "article". That is, his mischaracterizing the motives of "liberals", as in they are evil, America-hating, terrorist-cheering, child-killers. That is indeed the substance of his diatribe.

I could have easily disputed the entire thing by just listing each accusation out and appending the phrase "and neither are liberals" to each one, and used the same exact amount of evidence as Limbaugh did. But I didn't feel the need to waste my time.

By the way, I'd like add another logical fallacy to the long list that applies to most of your posts Shag, as evidenced in this thread:

Argumentum verbosium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity)

Proof by verbosity is also used colloquially in forensic debate to describe a logical fallacy (sometimes called "argumentum verbosium") that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and that is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument is allowed to slide by unchallenged. It is the fallacy epitomized by W. C. Fields' quote: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull."

Thanks for clarifying your intentions, looks like Shag and I misinterpreted them, or as Shag would say "mischaracterized, distorted" your intentions.

Shag bullying people around with his fallacies gets old, especially when he is often guilty of doing the same. He always says he's in search of the truth or some crap like that, yet the only ones he ever calls out are those he disagrees with. If you truly are in search of truth call everyone out. Don't hold those you disagree with to standards you yourself and those you agree with don't follow.

Personal attacks are also a trademark in Shag's counter arguments. He claims that they aren't a fallacy unless they are intended to disprove something. What a load of crap, they clearly attempt to discredit an individual in future debates.

Regardless, I'm done. THERE IS NO WAY FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO DEFEND THIS ARTICLE AS A LEGITIMATE FORM OF DEBATE OR PROOF OF ANYTHING.

I'll try to keep things short in the future. I was just trying to highlight the bull Shag uses to baffle us.

Shag bullying people around with his fallacies gets old, especially when he is often guilty of doing the same. He always says he's in search of the truth or some crap like that, yet the only ones he ever calls out are those he disagrees with. If you truly are in search of truth call everyone out. Don't hold those you disagree with to standards you yourself and those you agree with don't follow.

At least Shag knows how to identify the fallacies properly. :rolleyes:

THERE IS NO WAY FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO DEFEND THIS ARTICLE AS A LEGITIMATE FORM OF DEBATE OR PROOF OF ANYTHING.Oh, I see, using the argumentum capitalizatium fallacy.

Hey, let me try:

LIBERALS ARE ALL STUPID.

Wow, that's really effective, aztec. I never realized it was so easy to win a debate. Thanks for teaching me that. :rolleyes:

nice aztecknight. good to see somebody own shag in shags style of arguement.

Shag bullying people around with his fallacies gets old, especially when he is often guilty of doing the same. He always says he's in search of the truth or some crap like that, yet the only ones he ever calls out are those he disagrees with. If you truly are in search of truth call everyone out. Don't hold those you disagree with to standards you yourself and those you agree with don't follow.

Personal attacks are also a trademark in Shag's counter arguments. He claims that they aren't a fallacy unless they are intended to disprove something. What a load of crap, they clearly attempt to discredit an individual in future debates.

i'm sure many have come to the same conclusions. thanks for the entertainment.

At least Shag knows how to identify the fallacies properly.

i wouldn't say that. anything that disagrees with him is a fallacy.

You just gave me a 'NO U!' in this thread. Funny you didn't notice your own childish taunt.My response was commensurate with the maturity level of the person I was responding to.

My response was commensurate with the maturity level of the person I was responding to.Yet another 'NO U!"

Going for the record? :rolleyes:

The article makes a bunch of claims you so boldly stated were "factually backed up and accurate". Where are the facts and proof of their accuracies.

Did I ever say that the claims were factually backed up in the article? The fact of the matter is that the article is an op-ed piece. To expect it to be backed up with facts in the article is inappropriate given the format, especially with an op-ed covering such a broad range of issues. More moving the goalposts it seems.

Your actions are abundantly clear here. You are not interested in any honest discussion or in understanding the points in the article; you are only interested in rationalizing your political prejudice and out-of-hand dismissal of points that counter your prejudice. When I actually defend those points you turn to harassing me and attempt to turn my own tactics against me by any means necessary. This leads to your dishonest distortions of the arguments in question and/or a distortion of the fallacies you are accusing me of.

Of course you will, as you have done before, claim that I am doing the same thing when the fact is that I am very careful not to that. While others have thrown that claim at me, they can never logically back it up. They either simply make a broad accusation with no specifics, or they do what you do; distort the argument to make it fit the fallacy and/or distort the fallacy to make it fit the argument. That is what all the examples you cite are doing, as I have pointed out. I am not going to keep going through and correcting your distortions. They are clear for all to see.

The fact that you are not interesting in understanding the points in the article is made all the more obvious on the human nature/philosophy things. If you were really interested in understanding and considering the point, I would take the time to explain it to you. but in every comment you have made on it you have provided a rational to dismiss it. A rational that, as I have pointed out, is based in utter ignorance. Even when that is pointed out, you still are more concerned with justifying your dismissal of the point then in stepping back and trying to first accurately understand the point and give it consideration.

In short, you are acting like a belligerent little teenager. You are attempting to rationalize your prejudices and disregard for opposing views and attempting to harass and attack anyone who tries to reasonably counter you. All distortions of me as being in "denial" or "bullying" or any other attempt to dishonestly marginalize me only further demonstrate my point, as does the fact that you are so single-mindedly set on turning my own tactics against me that you will use distortion and dishonesty to do so.

Just for the record, the "fourth grade-level diatribe" was aimed at Limbaugh's style, i.e., "Conservatives aren't the ones who...". It's very much akin to a child's "I know you are but what am I" taunt. How educated Limbaugh is is irrelevant.

Yes, so it was, by your own admission a substanceless critique; a fallacious style over substance argument.

The most foolish thing I did was actually respond to such a childish outburst.

FYI: fossten nailed it when he characterized it as "an immature, idiotic, pejorative blatt from an angry knee-jerk."

By the way, I'd like add another logical fallacy to the long list that applies to most of your posts Shag, as evidenced in this thread:

Argumentum verbosium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_verbosity)

Proof by verbosity is also used colloquially in forensic debate to describe a logical fallacy (sometimes called "argumentum verbosium") that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and that is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument is allowed to slide by unchallenged. It is the fallacy epitomized by W. C. Fields' quote: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull."

Well, since you seem to think simply because a post is long it qualifies as this type of fallacy I am trying to keep it shorter. ;)

But, simply because a post is long doesn't mean that it is this type of fallacy. In fact, the standard as laid out in that wikipedia link is so vague and general as to allow both arugments that are simply long by nature but not illogical and arguments that are aimed at avoiding refutation through verbosity to be classified as fallacies. Obviously, we need a more specific standard with which to judge and this (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4074) is the best I could find:The practice of burying you with so much information and misinformation that you cannot possibly respond to it all is called proof by verbosity, or argumentum verbosium.
In fact, most of my long posts are actually countering these type of Argumentum verbosium posts. So, of course they are going to be long. However, I take tremendous care to not make fallacious arguments to back up my claims factually when needed, to keep the "BS"/ unneccessary points to a minimum and to not provide "disinformation". So, while my posts may be long, they are not fallacious. But at least I now know precisely what to call hrmwrm's "wall 'o' text" posts.

Frankly, I am disappointed in you. For a while you were doing well here and making very relevant, well thought out posts. Now you have reverted to basically the irrational, angry, childish outbursts that used to be your norm and the norm of far to many liberals on this forum.

It is clear that you are aiming to do what aztecknight is doing here and simply trying to dishonestly turn my own tactics against me like a petulant teenager.

The post of yours that started all this out was a substanceless childish outburst and when called on it, you couldn't provide any specifics. If you had done what you said and simply taken every assertion in the article and added the phrase "and neither are liberals" it would have been an argumentum verbosium argument as it would have been aimed at providing too much info to be countered so your point would stand unchallenged. The fact is that you couldn't provide any specifics. For your criticism to have been valid a simply accusation of the claims as strawmen, even if you specify which claims those were, wouldn't have been enough. You would need to show specifically how each claim was a strawman (and adding, "and neither are liberals" is not specific; it would have just been childish).

Frankly, I think you, like aztecknight, are too ignorant to even understand a good number of the claims. So your claims that the points were strawmen would have been disengenuous as well as being childish.

Unfortunately, you and aztecknight demonstrate why it has been so hard to have any honest conversation with libs on this forum; they don't want to consider opposing points of view, and when called on their dishonest/disengenuous techniques to rationalize their political prejudices' and out-of-hand dismissals they act like petulant children. If you can't move beyond schoolyard logic then you are incapable of honest conversation. :rolleyes:

Did I ever say that the claims were factually backed up in the article? The fact of the matter is that the article is an op-ed piece. To expect it to be backed up with facts in the article is inappropriate given the format, especially with an op-ed covering such a broad range of issues. More moving the goalposts it seems.

Backpedal, backpedal, backpedal.

When I actually defend those points you turn to harassing me and attempt to turn my own tactics against me by any means necessary. This leads to your dishonest distortions of the arguments in question and/or a distortion of the fallacies you are accusing me of.

Defend? When? Where? You tried to dispel my critiques of the article, never defend its claims. I gave you the definition of burden of proof go read it. It's not up to us to prove the claims.

In short, you are acting like a belligerent little teenager. You are attempting to rationalize your prejudices and disregard for opposing views and attempting to harass and attack anyone who tries to reasonably counter you. All distortions of me as being in "denial" or "bullying" or any other attempt to dishonestly marginalize me only further demonstrate my point, as does the fact that you are so single-mindedly set on turning my own tactics against me that you will use distortion and dishonesty to do so.

More personal attacks keep it up Mr. "I take care not to make any fallacies in my arguments."

But, simply because a post is long doesn't mean that it is this type of fallacy.

Correct, the lack of substance and logic in your posts do, i.e. 'Liberals believe something they know is absolutely wrong'. Makes a lot of sense.

Frankly, I am disappointed in you. For a while you were doing well here and making very relevant, well thought out posts. Now you have reverted to basically the irrational, angry, childish outbursts that used to be your norm and the norm of far to many liberals on this forum.

More personal attacks, more poisoning the well. You do such a great job of not committing fallacies, how could I have been so wrong.

Unfortunately, you and aztecknight demonstrate why it has been so hard to have any honest conversation with libs on this forum; they don't want to consider opposing points of view, and when called on their dishonest/disengenuous techniques to rationalize their political prejudices' and out-of-hand dismissals they act like petulant children. If you can't move beyond schoolyard logic then you are incapable of honest conversation.

More fallacies. I have to say you may not have a good grasp on their application, but you sure know how to put them into practice.

Shag let it go. It's over. Your attempt to defend this article is all we need to know you have absolutely no integrity.

At least Shag knows how to identify the fallacies properly. :rolleyes:

Oh, I see, using the argumentum capitalizatium fallacy.

Hey, let me try:

LIBERALS ARE ALL STUPID.

Wow, that's really effective, aztec. I never realized it was so easy to win a debate. Thanks for teaching me that. :rolleyes:

You haven't been paying attention. Shag does not know how to identify the fallacies properly. I tried to present enough details so that even you could understand. Alas, I have failed. Well, I refuse to dumb it down more. Go my child, go be blissful in your ignorance.

I remember a course I took that taught out of a book written by George Lakoff.

You haven't been paying attention. Shag does not know how to identify the fallacies properly. I tried to present enough details so that even you could understand. Alas, I have failed. Well, I refuse to dumb it down more. Go my child, go be blissful in your ignorance.You spent your time arguing whether or not a lawyer was qualified to muster a 4th grade diatribe. And you call me ignorant? :bowrofl:

I remember a course I took that taught out of a book written by George Lakoff.

what book - I bet it was Moral politics : What Conservatives Know that Liberals Don't

You brought him up why?

And shag - ever get to looking at that paper I reference regarding findings that show that if either side is going to read opposing viewpoint it would be liberal? And I have been searching for the Ohio State research paper - but still haven't come up with it?

I wonder if it is mainly conservative college students who breach the 'line' and read opposing viewpoint because they are so attuned to it anyway. As you mentioned, you are required to read quite a lot of left leaning material in college. When do the 'blinders' appear?

You brought him up why?

Was that directed at me?
I mention that because George Lakoff is essentially a professor of language and propoganda, he founded a "progressive think tank," and he's one of the gurus of the academic left in this country.

Teaching out of his books is a perfect example of precisely what Shag was talking about.

I wonder if it is mainly conservative college students who breach the 'line' and read opposing viewpoint because they are so attuned to it anyway. As you mentioned, you are required to read quite a lot of left leaning material in college. When do the 'blinders' appear?

How clever, a "When did you stop beating your wife?" type question.
Concentrate and ask again.

Was that directed at me?
I mention that because George Lakoff is essentially a professor of language and propoganda, he founded a "progressive think tank," and he's one of the gurus of the academic left in this country.

Teaching out of his books is a perfect example of precisely what Shag was talking about.

How clever, a "When did you stop beating your wife?" type question.
Concentrate and ask again.

What book did you read by Lakoff? Was it in a political science class?

And, if you want to reframe my question - please do...

What book did you read by Lakoff? Was it in a political science class?

And, if you want to reframe my question - please do...
I just laugh when I think of what his name rhymes with.