Obama Derangement Syndrome

Upchurch said:
Okay, I don't even understand where the perceived insult is on this one. Pegging this guy as follower of Rand based on his word choice is discrediting him personally?

(You'll note that his actual argument has already been reasonably addressed (and discredited, imho).)
Click to expand...



Who said insult? I said that he is essentially /handwaving him off because he's a Rand supporter.

And I don't see how saying what he said could be seen as anything other than attacking the arguer, not the argument.

I'm not trying to start a problem here. For crying out loud, why in the world are simple cries of civility and keeping on point (and not attacking others personally) so objectionable? It's in the charter and rules, is it not? It bothers me when anyone does it. It bothers me when people just ridicule truthers instead of attacking their logic.

I imagine people coming here, seeing this as an educational foundation, and expecting to see riveting discussions and point/counter point debates. That's what I thought when I came here. But instead, anyone who is disagreed with is usually simply attacked or derrided. Everyone is way too full of themselves. They think they know everything, and people who disagree are idiots.

Ok, I'm rambling now.. sorry, it's a pet peeve, I really can't stand it.
 
Last edited:
Whiplash said:
Who said insult?
Click to expand...
Look who's playing semantic games now. :rolleyes:

Whiplash said:
And I don't see how saying what he said could be seen as anything other than attacking the arguer, not the argument.
Click to expand...
But the argument is Rand-ian. I don't see how identifying it as such could be anything other than addressing the argument, not the arguer.

Whiplash said:
What am I doing that is so objectionable?
Click to expand...
IMHO, you're playing the part of Chicken Little. Everything is seen as some sort of offense or outrage, so it is hard to take you seriously when yet another thing has offended and/or outraged you. For example, I pointed out that I don't understand how you see this as a personal attack on Bombastic Penguin and that is a personal attack on you.

Try growing some thicker skin or, at least, some perspective.
 
Upchurch said:
IMHO, you're playing the part of Chicken Little.
Click to expand...

picture.php
 
Cleon said:
Yeah, I would say that pegging someone as a follower of Rand discredits them. But that's just me.
Click to expand...

The Wierd think is I am a fairly strong supporter of A Free Market (though not a totally lasseiz faire one, which is where the Randians and the Libetarians go off the rails), but I find Ayn Rand's "Looking Out For #1 is the Highest Morality" and her statements that Compassion is "Anti Life" (Randian for EVIL) to be completly repugnant.
And she is a crappy writer anyway.
 
Upchurch said:
Look who's playing semantic games now. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


What? WHAT? I never said insult, or implied it even remotely. I said it was dismissive. You are reaching. It seemed to me it was pointless to just jump in and say "Yep, he's a Rand follower" in a dismissive way, rather than take the time to show him where he is wrong. And I tried to do so in a polite manner, saying that I didn't mean to be jumping down Dudalb's throat, and I even complimented him. I said that this is something I think that all people do, including myself, and that we should guard against it.

I'm sick of bending over backwards to meet people halfway and be nice and not getting a milimeter back in return.


But the argument is Rand-ian. I don't see how identifying it as such could be anything other than addressing the argument, not the arguer.
Click to expand...


Again, the impression I got from the post in question was that Dudalb was outright dismissing him simply because he is a Rand supporter. I'll even admit I may have been wrong to get that impression.

Look I understand that there are views around here that have been debated to death, and people feel that certain views or beliefs have been soundly trounced, and therefore are really only worthy of dismissal.

But not everyone who comes here is going to read through all the past stuff, or even be aware of it. It's disrepectful to just /handwave them without addressing their arguments. Even if just by pointing the previous discussions for them to read. It's not productive. It doesn't educate anyone. It doesn't help other newcomers to undestand why a position is wrong. It just looks like ridicule or dismissal. That is how I have felt since I came here. I expected something entirely different than what I see from many posters.


IMHO, you're playing the part of Chicken Little. Everything is seen as some sort of offense or outrage, so it is hard to take you seriously when yet another thing has offended and/or outraged you.
Click to expand...


I don't care if you take me seriously. I sincerely doubt that is the view held by everyone here. I don't take you very seriously either. Do you care?

The Chicken Little stuff is just childish. While this issue was minor, and an excuse for me to rant a bit (which I admitted), there have been many times I've made these arguments in the face of much more indefensible actions. Yet (not suprisingly) people who agreed with the demonization of the victims of those attacks bent over backwards to defend it.


For example, I pointed out that I don't understand how you see this as a personal attack on Bombastic Penguin and that is a personal attack on you.
Click to expand...


Is it? That one doesn't even phase me.


Try growing some thicker skin or, at least, some perspective.
Click to expand...


I've admitted I don't have the thickest skin. But that doesn't mean that every time I've made these arguments I've been wrong, or exceedingly alarmist, as you seem to strongly imply.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
My first impression? World Net Daily, with it's charming home page headline (as of this writing) Girl Scouts exposed: Lessons in lesbianism, is an automatic Source Fail.

Even if we ignore the lack of source credibility, the article itself is too vague and lacking in citation to be of any use. What else do you have?
Click to expand...

http://newsbusters.org/node/14077

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707130321

That's the general tone of all of the news stories on Tom Cryer; unless you can find me on that says otherwise.

If you can't find the law then you must acquit.

Whiplash said:
Who said insult? I said that he is essentially /handwaving him off because he's a Rand supporter.
Click to expand...

The assertion that I am a Rand supporter amounts to me pasting in Andrew Ryan quotes.

I imagine people coming here, seeing this as an educational foundation, and expecting to see riveting discussions and point/counter point debates. That's what I thought when I came here.
Click to expand...

Skeptical and logical thinking here are just ego bolstering slogans. I implore you to just imagine everyone here as CTers, until proven otherwise.

For reference, check out FlamingMoe's recent thread in the Social Issues section. It consisted of people wanking furiously over his signature, instead of discussing the thread topic.


Upchurch said:
Try growing some thicker skin or, at least, some perspective.
Click to expand...

Smells like:

Im_kind_of_a_big_deal.jpg
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
One? Here's three:
  1. http://jsiegel.blogspot.com/2007/07/tax-protestor-gets-off.html
  2. http://www.taxgirl.com/cryer-wins-one-sort-of/
  3. http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/002866.php

Also, your first story was written by "ThoughtPolice". Really?
Click to expand...

No where did they say that the court found a law that requires you to pay taxes. Jon Siegel doesn't even deny this. I'll ignore last (chuckle worthy jab at my Johnny Cockrin reference)and second link. The only person that Makes an argument there is Jon Siegel, so we'll focus on him. Fortunately, all of the cases I was going bring up are touched upon in this:

http://afreesociety.blogspot.com/2006/03/building-blocks-of-law-there-is-no-law.html

I really could care less if there's a law though, it wouldn't change my view on the income tax.
 
Not another "Tax Patriot?"
If you don't like the Income Tax,fine, work to have it repealed. But don't try this "I don't have to pay it" crap unless you really want to do some jail time or pay some really heavy fines.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
How will Obama be blamed for the death of Bin Laden?
Click to expand...

Probably:

  • For not telling the Pakistani government that the US was about to conduct a military operation on it's soil
  • For not taking Bin Laden alive
  • For collateral damage
  • For being black while presindenting
 
I don't think it would be out of line to blame him for it seeing as how he did approve it.

How it will be spun to make him look bad is a whole 'nother matter.
 
"Well JEEZ it took him long enough to follow up on Bush's work..." ;)

My prediction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom