Originally posted by DoubleStreamer
What the "record" shows is that I've asked you in two different threads now to back up your characterizations, and in both threads, you've responded by making excuses, and trying to spin your failure to defend your own statements as if it's somehow my problem.
Originally posted by crimresearch
No, what the record clearly shows is that you have asked me to back up statements that YOU made, and falsely claimed represented my position.
Wow. It's gettin' deep in here. With the above statement, you've made it quite clear that this isn't just a matter of mere incompetence, but also of blatant dishonesty. The record shows exactly what I said it shows. I asked you to back up the following characterizations that YOU made:
"dictating people's religious tenets to them"
"the freedom to be a religious bigot, and to laugh at the religious beliefs of Quakers"
"given the stated libertarian promises to lock people up and seize property in the name of liberty"
See, the words of yours I just quoted are what are commonly known as examples of getting things
wrong. And quoting you as I just did is the way to make a point about what someone else has said, not to simply keep
describing what they said in your own words, with your own spin, as you have been doing.
And good luck finding anyone else in this forum who is willing to go on record stating that you have backed up
any of these characterizations, or who will dispute that they are, in fact,
your words.
And your assertion that I have falsely claimed
anything is, of course, false itself. Yet again, you've made such an assertion without citing anything in my own words to support it.
What, exactly, in my own words, is one of these false claims?
Since each of us is more or less accusing the other of misrepresentation, it should be somewhat revealing which of us is clearly better prepared to cite the other's words in order to make their points.
Of course, we would also be able to examine all of this more closely and honestly if you would respond
directly to at least
some of the points I've raised, and actually
answer questions I've asked. For instance, here's one that you ignored from before -
You're not denying that the quotes I attributed to you are accurate, are you? (It's a simple matter of answering "yes" or "no", and then we can examine that point further, if necessary.) And if that question isn't enough to make the point, there are several more where it came from.
And you are still dodging MY requests that you provide proof that I said any of the things you want me to defend,
What kind of proof do you need? I asked you if I was quoting you accurately, and you couldn't even manage a direct answer. That should make it clear to anyone who's doing the "dodging". So let's try this again ...
Did you say "dictating people's religious tenets to them"? ("yes" or "no", pick one)
Did you say "the freedom to be a religious bigot, and to laugh at the religious beliefs of Quakers"? ("yes" or "no", pick one)
Did you say "given the stated libertarian promises to lock people up and seize property in the name of liberty"? ("yes" or "no", pick one)
while ignoring those who point out that I did provide direct and verifiable links to the only assertion I did make...direct and verifiable links that you ignore...
But what is relevant is that no one has pointed out that you have backed up
the comments I've been asking about. See, if I'm wrong about that, the way to put me in my place would be to clearly identify who has done so, and provide a supporting quote from them. I won't be holding my breath.
Sorry, you've had every chance to show that you have any skills in the arena of logical discourse, and all you've done is make a fool of yourself with your squirming, fabrications, and side stepping
And projecting your inability onto others who are actually having a discussion about the matter isn't going to work on a skeptics forum.
Uh-huh. Let's review.
You've posted misrepresentations (which I have clearly identified, and will gladly do so again), while accusing
me of doing so, and not once in any of your posts have you managed to come up with a single direct quote by me to support any claims of misrepresentation or fabrication. You just keep making assertions, hoping nobody else is following closely enough to notice your incompetence when it comes to backing things up. (So much for your "skills in the arena of logical discourse").
And far from "side stepping", I've responded directly to everything you've posted to me - and I mean
everything - while you've ignored many of my points and questions (they usually call
that "side stepping", by the way), all of which are directly relevant to things you've posted (examples provided on request). I've also asked that you actually
quote the statements you're talking about, particularly when accusing me of things, rather than simply relying on your own bungled paraphrasing. And that request, too, has gone ignored, which
also qualifies as dodging/sidestepping.
Now, what was that you were saying about "projecting"?
And as if all that's not enough, if you're going to say stuff like "given the stated libertarian promises to lock people up and seize property in the name of liberty", do you really think I'm concerned that anyone is going to sincerely think that
I'm the one making a fool of himself in this discussion?
But hey, if those magically missing links to your so-called 'quotes' ever come back ( minus any editing on your part), feel free to post them.
What "links"? I quoted you, and I've done so
again in this very post. How many times do I have to keep reminding you of what you said? Do you want dates, times, what?
If you dispute that the words attributed to you are in fact
your words, then
plainly say so. But stop trying to create the impression of some kind of failure on my part for not bothering to provide a link to prove that you said something, when
you can't even manage to go on record disputing that you did. Once again,
do you deny that the quotes I've attributed to you are, in fact, you words? If you do, then clearly identify which ones I got wrong, and then you or someone else can give me a lesson in exactly how to link to a specific spot in a specific thread, and I'll be happy to oblige.
And if you admit that I've quoted you accurately, but think the intended meaning suffers because of some "editing" on my part, nothing is stopping you from providing the quotes yourself, with greater context, to take a closer look a whether this is what I've done. Never mind, I'll save you the trouble ...
From the "liberal hypocrisy" thread:
Now it may be an extreme reading of libertarian doctrine, but I suspect that if you actually do a little research on libertarianism outside of the LP, you might find one or two libertarians who support the notion that government/political parties ought not to be dictating people's religious tenets to them.
And this was an entire post of yours from later in the same thread:
Ah yes...freedom...the freedom to be a religious bigot, and to laugh at the religious beliefs of Quakers...this has been an interesting interlude...outing a liar and a bigot in the same thread...time well spent, I'd say.
And from earlier in
this thread:
Now I haven't heard of a politician yet who wasn't willing to insist that locking people up, taking their land, etc. was perfectly compatible with the idea of 'liberty'.
That word falls as trippingly off the lips of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot as it does the lips of Reagan, Carter, Ashcroft, Byrd, or the mayor of Philadelphia.
The cry of 'Liberty' has been misused, and worked to death, and does not have any political capital.
So how are libertarians any different in that regard?
Well, given the stated libertarian promises to lock people up and seize property in the name of liberty, along with current actions such as driving without a license, turning blue, using oaths of membership, and not showing up in court to take responsibility for one's actions, you'll just have to excuse a few folks for being skeptical.
Now, if that's enough context for you, would you like to take a shot at finally explaining the highlighted characterizations?
And if you bother to respond again, do you suppose that, rather than simply continuing to try to project your own failures onto me (including the thing about projecting), you could
first go back to my initial post in this thread, and directly take on some of those initial points/questions I raised, and which you ignored, and do so in a way that will clearly demonstrate that you're capable of defending your own statements? Because after all this time, if you can't even do that much, I would think you'd be too embarrassed to respond further at all, let alone to keep hurling criticisms at anyone else.
