• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

MoveOn.org ... "Shut UP!"

jsfisher said:
You wrote this:




That is a strawman. The fact you couched it as a question does not change the connotation; you erected a strawman just to knock it down.
Click to expand...
It wasn't an argument, it was a simple question asking you to elaborate on your objections to national health insurance.
 
Tokorona said:
First one is an appeal to authority, second is appeal to people. I'll take the CNN one on faith, but if so many people wanted it, it'd probably have broader support.

ETA: To make my own position clear, I am neither for or against health care right now. I'd like it, but I am unsure if I trust the government to actually administer it efficently.
Click to expand...
It would seem that rather than discuss the issues you prefer to toss out inapplicable logic rules and no countering evidence of your own.

Just what is extreme? Distance from the median is a pretty typical description. There is no "appeal to people" in those polls. The polls reflect mainstream American values. If MoveOn were extreme, their actions would reflect values far from the mainstream.

You have not proven your case that supporting national health care of some kind is extreme. You can throw out all the meaningless quibbles you want. You haven't demonstrated MoveOn is an extremist group. MoveOn represents mainstream Democratic Party values. The right wing is trying to weaken MoveOn by falsely painting them as extreme. Either you are in on it or you are duped by it.

----

As far as the "appeal to authority", again you use an inapplicable logic rule. If it makes you feel better, I'll say it is my opinion the outrage over the MoveOn ad is feigned. I base that on experience with Karl Rove's campaign tactics. If you are unfamiliar with the Karl Rove Playbook here are some links to familiarize yourself with Rove's tactics as evidenced in campaigns he has run over the years.

Frontline: Karl Rove - The Architect

CounterPunch: Exposing Karl Rove

The Nation: Bush's Hit Man

Seattle PI:Rove's dirty tricks: Let us count the ways

MSNBC: Bush’s Sleeper Cells

The point of these articles is not simply to badmouth the right wing, Rove or Bush. The point is to educate yourself to the techniques of manipulating perception and opinion. Maintain your own values, but don't let a preference for what you would like the world to be color your view of what the real world actually is. So you don't like John Kerry, that's no reason to believe the Swift Boat Lies. So you don't want national health insurance, that's no reason to believe the lie, MoveOn represents an extremist view.

It is to one's advantage to assess evidence accurately. It is only to the manipulator's benefit when they get people to believe false things. Even if you believe you are benefiting from the side that is doing the manipulating, an uniformed manipulated public is never going to result in the best outcome, whether it is going into a war under false pretenses or electing a leader who alienates the rest of the world. A lot of Republicans are as unhappy with the Iraq disaster and Bush's trashing of America's reputation as are Democrats.

I have for years been promoting increasing awareness of these tactics among skeptics. That includes all sales tactics and manipulative communication such as "framing" and manipulating the question in order to influence the discussion. You can review my 15 min talk at TAM 5 for more on this topic. The reason this is such a critical matter for critical thinking skills is knowing about the tactics helps one recognize when they are being used to manipulate beliefs. In a sense knowing about the tactics can serve to immunize one against their effects.
 
skeptigirl said:
So one rashly worded ad makes them radical? And from the claims here Moveon was radical before the ad in their opinion. This may account for your opinion (and it would be wrong) but it doesn't suffice for backing the claims Moveon is radical by others in the thread.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking for unsupported opinion which I've seen plenty of so far. I'm asking for supporting evidence.
Click to expand...

Rashly worded? As in "Ooops, sorry we are new at this...silly us, letting a negotiated $64,000 ad get through our ethics reviewers was just a silly slip. We have so much money for partisan politics to spend you know, and this just fell through the cracks. We really wanted to say we supported our troops. We are sorry for the offense. Wink wink wink."

Who are you trying to kid with your back pedaling?
 
skeptigirl said:
It would seem that rather than discuss the issues you prefer to toss out inapplicable logic rules and no countering evidence of your own.
Click to expand...

They apply. In any case, I had thrown some out, but this is also opinion based.

Just what is extreme? Distance from the median is a pretty typical description. There is no "appeal to people" in those polls. The polls reflect mainstream American values. If MoveOn were extreme, their actions would reflect values far from the mainstream.
Click to expand...

As I have no idea where, how and what kinds of questions were on the polls, the polls aren't a reliable source of how people feel.

You have not proven your case that supporting national health care of some kind is extreme. You can throw out all the meaningless quibbles you want. You haven't demonstrated MoveOn is an extremist group. MoveOn represents mainstream Democratic Party values. The right wing is trying to weaken MoveOn by falsely painting them as extreme. Either you are in on it or you are duped by it.
Click to expand...

Do you have some sort of quotes from anyone but Clinton who supports this, incidently? I'm curious, because as far as I had heard, only Clinton is supporting nationalized health care.


----

As far as the "appeal to authority", again you use an inapplicable logic rule. If it makes you feel better, I'll say it is my opinion the outrage over the MoveOn ad is feigned. I base that on experience with Karl Rove's campaign tactics. If you are unfamiliar with the Karl Rove Playbook here are some links to familiarize yourself with Rove's tactics as evidenced in campaigns he has run over the years.
Click to expand...

Clinton is an authority, and you are appealing to his words. Applicable? Yes.

Frontline: Karl Rove - The Architect

CounterPunch: Exposing Karl Rove

The Nation: Bush's Hit Man

Seattle PI:Rove's dirty tricks: Let us count the ways

MSNBC: Bush’s Sleeper Cells
Click to expand...

Okay, so I've got time to look at them. I'll briefly comment on each link in seperate.

FIrst link: Seems to be ..well, slightly more dirty than your average campaign. So, uh, Rove is a demogauge. Okay!

Second link:
Counter Punch about us said:
We aren't side-line journalists here at CounterPunch. Ours is muckraking with a radical attitude and nothing makes us happier than when CounterPunch readers write in to say how useful they've found our newsletter in their battles against the war machine, big business and the rapers of nature.
Click to expand...

No bias there, right? :rolleyes:

Article said:
He's America's Joseph Goebbels.
Click to expand...
Ignored.

Third link: Okay, now that IS interesting.

Fourth link: A short but interesting recount of stuff that we're meant to think he did, but half of it's implied.

Fifth link: JUst. what. You mean, the Democrats have nothing like this? (That's sarcasm, what do you expect? political fighting gets quite dirty.) (The link's also from 2004.)

The point of these articles is not simply to badmouth the right wing, Rove or Bush. The point is to educate yourself to the techniques of manipulating perception and opinion. Maintain your own values, but don't let a preference for what you would like the world to be color your view of what the real world actually is. So you don't like John Kerry, that's no reason to believe the Swift Boat Lies. So you don't want national health insurance, that's no reason to believe the lie, MoveOn represents an extremist view.
Click to expand...

Right.

It is to one's advantage to assess evidence accurately. It is only to the manipulator's benefit when they get people to believe false things. Even if you believe you are benefiting from the side that is doing the manipulating, an uniformed manipulated public is never going to result in the best outcome, whether it is going into a war under false pretenses or electing a leader who alienates the rest of the world. A lot of Republicans are as unhappy with the Iraq disaster and Bush's trashing of America's reputation as are Democrats.
Click to expand...

Right again.

I have for years been promoting increasing awareness of these tactics among skeptics. That includes all sales tactics and manipulative communication such as "framing" and manipulating the question in order to influence the discussion. You can review my 15 min talk at TAM 5 for more on this topic. The reason this is such a critical matter for critical thinking skills is knowing about the tactics helps one recognize when they are being used to manipulate beliefs. In a sense knowing about the tactics can serve to immunize one against their effects.
Click to expand...

Sure, I can agree to that. Just what did the last three paragraphs have to do with your point?
 
Elind said:
Rashly worded? As in "Ooops, sorry we are new at this...silly us, letting a negotiated $64,000 ad get through our ethics reviewers was just a silly slip. We have so much money for partisan politics to spend you know, and this just fell through the cracks. We really wanted to say we supported our troops. We are sorry for the offense. Wink wink wink."

Who are you trying to kid with your back pedaling?
Click to expand...
Are you saying the ad all by itself makes MoveOn radical? Because that is pretty narrow slice of evidence to judge a 3.3 million member group by.

And I don't think the amount of money spent makes mistakes unlikely. Just look at Bush's trillion dollar Iraq mistake. That amount of money didn't help his judgment too much.

On the other hand, I and a few million other people are simply not outraged by the ad. I am outraged by the waste of time the surge appears to have been and the failure of Bush to admit he was wrong and needs expert help, not simply firing people until he finds someone who will go along with the failed program.
 
skeptigirl said:
Are you saying the ad all by itself makes MoveOn radical? Because that is pretty narrow slice of evidence to judge a 3.3 million member group by.
Click to expand...

So you admit the ad was "radical", as in, they showed their colors?

And I don't think the amount of money spent makes mistakes unlikely. Just look at Bush's trillion dollar Iraq mistake. That amount of money didn't help his judgment too much.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. That was not just a little ad in a series that slipped through.

On the other hand, I and a few million other people are simply not outraged by the ad.
Click to expand...
Yes we see that. So why apologize for it?



I am outraged by the waste of time the surge appears to have been and the failure of Bush to admit he was wrong and needs expert help, not simply firing people until he finds someone who will go along with the failed program.
Click to expand...
Changing the subject are we? Why wasn't the ad just another attack on Bush, instead of his employee? Why this concern about the latest aspect of this war, as in "surge"? Were you not saying the same thing before the surge?
 
Tokorona said:
They apply. In any case, I had thrown some out, but this is also opinion based.

As I have no idea where, how and what kinds of questions were on the polls, the polls aren't a reliable source of how people feel.
Click to expand...
You can present any evidence you want to show MoveOn is radical. You have yet to do so. I have presented evidence they are not extremist. You can ignore the evidence, you still haven't anything to back up your claim except the fake attack by the Republicans trying to portray MoveOn as radical. That portrayal maybe playing well to the right wing base. To the rest of us it is an unconvincing claim and your failure to be able to support it with any evidence is an clue as to why it is unconvincing.

Tokorona said:
Do you have some sort of quotes from anyone but Clinton who supports this, incidently? I'm curious, because as far as I had heard, only Clinton is supporting nationalized health care.

Clinton is an authority, and you are appealing to his words. Applicable? Yes.
Click to expand...
No, that wasn't the purpose of using the citation. It was to provide evidence that a number of people are of the opinion the outrage over the ad is being hyped (feigned if you will) as a persuasion tactic to try to neutralize the impact of the questioning of Petraeus' report.

Tokorona said:
Okay, so I've got time to look at them. I'll briefly comment on each link in seperate.

FIrst link: Seems to be ..well, slightly more dirty than your average campaign. So, uh, Rove is a demogauge. Okay!
Second link:
No bias there, right? :rolleyes:
Ignored.
Third link: Okay, now that IS interesting.
Fourth link: A short but interesting recount of stuff that we're meant to think he did, but half of it's implied.
Fifth link: JUst. what. You mean, the Democrats have nothing like this? (That's sarcasm, what do you expect? political fighting gets quite dirty.) (The link's also from 2004.)
Right.
Right again.
Sure, I can agree to that. Just what did the last three paragraphs have to do with your point?
Click to expand...
There are volumes of citations delving into Rove campaign strategies and tactics. Some of his strategies have been very successful. Of those, some have been deceitful and dirty. One means of deceit is to act outraged at any attack. If you took the time to read about Rove, you'd find that was a very common strategy of his. If you think the other side has something on you, act outraged at the accusation especially if it is true. If the accusation was false you could just refute it. If true you have to distract the masses and feigned outrage is an excellent tactic.

As far as what this has to do with the discussion, the discussion is about the feigned outrage. Since the right wing uses that tactic often, I have no reason to believe the outrage over the MoveOn ad is anything but business as usual for the NeoCons. It serves to manipulate the masses. I am not so easily manipulated since I have been immunized by educating myself to the propaganda strategies. It's all about marketing and has been since the first political campaign in history.

What's changed is the marketers have conducted so much research into manipulating people, they are now even better at it than ever before and they were good at it before. It's dangerous and it's one reason I promote skeptic principles. To counteract the influence.
 
Last edited:
Elind said:
So you admit the ad was "radical", as in, they showed their colors?

Rubbish. That was not just a little ad in a series that slipped through.

Yes we see that. So why apologize for it?

Changing the subject are we? Why wasn't the ad just another attack on Bush, instead of his employee? Why this concern about the latest aspect of this war, as in "surge"? Were you not saying the same thing before the surge?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you are saying anything new here, Elind. I said no such thing about the ad showing any MoveOn colors. I have said consistently MoveOn is not a radical group, criticizing Petraeus is not a radical position, and the wording of the ad has been used as a distraction to change the subject from the message of the ad. In other words it is a simple attack the messenger strategy.

Not everyone is outraged, nor are they so distracted. The NeoCons aren't going to stop their campaign of feigned outrage just because it isn't working as well as such campaigns have in the past. They don't have much else to offer. OTOH, the campaign is working on some people as evidenced by the cowardly Democrats who were reluctant to dismiss the outrage. They'll come around. Many people are wising up to the outrage tactic. It is losing its effectiveness, little by little. You can only use it so much before the phoniness shows.
 
Typical woo tactic. When your efforts fail simply claim that they will succeed in the future.

It was a dumb move.
 
RandFan said:
This is the equivilant of "you got pwned". It's simply rhetorical.

Do you have any evidence or perhaps an argument?
Click to expand...

Why don't you try having some sort of position, just as an example. So far, all you've had is a misplaced declaration of a logical fallacy.
 
JoeEllison said:
Why don't you try having some sort of position, just as an example. So far, all you've had is a misplaced declaration of a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
You are errecting strawman arguments that you can attack.

End of story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom