I have just lost a ton of respect for Rush....

[Salome]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
And it's damn time that you either do the same or shut the hell up.

and you wonder why she doesn't feel like debating with you?

watch it a bit or @#$@# the %#@$@ up yourself

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

 

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:

Originally posted by joyfulgirl:
And by the way, not only have I listened to Rush, I've met the blubbering idiot, along with a long list of your idols. I used to work for his publisher.
[This message has been edited by joyfulgirl (edited 03-19-2002).]

I'll ask you this question: If you've ever actually HEARD Rush say things that you consider racist, why didn't you tell us about those, rather than quoting from a liberal website known for its conservative-bashing? It would lend more credence to the idea that you actually based your statements on fact rather than hearsay.

Would it? You don't even know me. I doubt my personal experience would carry a great deal of credence with you when your opinion is already written in stone. But for what it's worth, no, he said nothing racist in my presence. He was just arrogant and full of himself. I disliked his personality intensely.

Bubba, I can't talk to you. I do not find your observations "astute." You have a need to be right. I don't. I find you to be a bully and I will not debate with a bully. I disagree with 80s 99% of the time, but at least he is a nice person. I don't think you are.

[This message has been edited by joyfulgirl (edited 03-19-2002).]

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by Salome:

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
And it's damn time that you either do the same or shut the hell up.

and you wonder why she doesn't feel like debating with you?
watch it a bit or @#$@# the %#@$@ up yourself

Salome, here we go again. I can't believe this is turning into the same exact thing that the "Fighting Whities" thread turned into, but it is. In that thread, someone called one person of a two person argument to the carpet for insults, ignoring the fact it was the other person who started it. Same thing is happening here. Joyful girl accused Rush Limbaugh of being a racist. When I asked for proof, she quoted something from an article, rather than discuss what she had actually heard herself. When Achtung rebuked those points (without insult, by the way), she responded by calling us "the weakest link", and totally ignored Achtung's arguments. When Achtung told her basically to argue the facts or shut up, you jump all over Achtung. That's weird, man. Weird.

 

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by joyfulgirl:
I've met the blubbering idiot, along with a long list of your idols.

Hahaha.. Blubbering Idiot.. I think I read that one back in the day of the Howard Stern vs Rush Limbaugh Magazine Articles...

I found this quote again Relevant .. by Rush Himself.

"On Wednesday, I took a call from a self-described California liberal named Bob. He was a great guy, and as he went to great pains to explain, he never once called me names, which set him apart from 99% of the liberals who call the program. I mean, I put liberals and others who disagree with me at the front of the caller rotation. So why waste this big showbiz break with name calling? If we conservatives are so easy to defeat, then challenge on the issues."

A Valient attempt Sweetie.

With The DittoCam Blasting in the Background,
L.Unplugged



[This message has been edited by Lemonite (edited 03-19-2002).]

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by Salome:
and you wonder why she doesn't feel like debating with you?

watch it a bit or @#$@# the %#@$@ up yourself

I've given two carefully delineated replies and I've been told TWICE that the statements are self-evidently racist - no explanation, no facts, no reason.

Now is the time to either start putting forth legitimate arguments or stop asserting the unprovable.

Now, you apparently think we conservatives are more concerned with pursuasion than with finding "what the exact truth might be", but HOW ELSE do you arrive at the truth?

Oh, yeah. I guess you can print an article and say its truths are self-evident.

Now, if you have any substantive defense of the article or a reasonable response to mine, post it.

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-19-2002).]

 

[Salome]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
she responded by calling us "the weakest link", and totally ignored Achtung's arguments. When Achtung told her basically to argue the facts or shut up, you jump all over Achtung. That's weird, man. Weird.

I don't see how calling someone the weakest link is the same as telling them to shut the hell up
I don't know, maybe I am weird

I know people will never get to agree with each other in this forum
but in no way will I let things deteriorate into people basically telling others to fuck off
it's not impossible to behave when you don't agree

perfect example coming up

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Now is the time to either start putting forth legitimate arguments or stop asserting the unprovable.

now, was that so much more difficult?

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Now, you apparently think we conservatives are more concerned with pursuasion than with finding "what the exact truth might be", but HOW ELSE do you arrive at the truth?

I don't think all conservatives are this way
but from what I've seen I do think some people in this forum (and - yes bubba - you definitely are one of them), both conservative, libberal or whatever don't accept any topic as a possibility to communicate but as a possibility to bulldozer over other people's opinions

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Now, if you have any substantive defense of the article or a reasonable response to mine, post it.

I have said nothing on this topic so far, because I don't know enough about the people concerned and I'm not going to start now

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

 

[joyfulgirl]

I apologize for the "weakest link" comment. I do not apologize for laughing myself silly when I wrote it.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by chain:
That says it all!

Anyone who would ask this question just does not get it, probably never will.

And, thus, you won't attempt to explain it.

And while I address EACH AND EVERY highlighted point in that original article, you mention only one of my responses, ignoring my brave investigative journalism about such hard-to-find facts as the population of the St. Louis metropolitan area and the actual existence of race riots prior to the release of Spike Lee's Malcolm X.

How convenient.

Look at stand-up comedians: a LOT of them make broad generalizations about races.

White comedians generalize about whites, and they're not racists - or are they?

Black comedians generalize about blacks AND whites, and they're not racists - or are they?

(Don't believe me: consider Jeff Foxworthy and pretty much any comedian on Showtime at the Apollo. Oops, I just made a generalization about black comedians; MUST be my latent prejudices!)

If they are racists, your definition is so broad and hyper-sensitive that EVERYTHING must be a sign of predujice and oppression, from the color of Band-Aids to the fact that Christianity preaches about being washed "white as snow".

If they AREN'T racists, then why make an exception for Limbaugh? Is it because he's a white guy making a generalization about blacks?

(HELL, he's not even doing that; he's making a humorous - NON-SERIOUS - generalization about POLICE SKETCHES about blacks.)

If it's because he's white and Jesse Jackson's black, I believe you're exhibiting prejudice yourself.

And if it's because you think Rush is a serious political commentator and not a comedian, you don't "get it". Rush has ALWAYS asserted (I even heard this again today) that his show is a combination of the serious debate of issues and an irreverant sense of humor.

"Tell the truth and people will not like you, tell the truth when they know you are right and they will hate you"

Is that why I'm being called a "bully" and an "angry white male"?

 

[chain]

First Mr. Bubba,

I would like to pay you a sincere complement. A while back in a different thread concerning the confederate flag, you stated that if it offended minorities you thought it should not be displayed.
Most of my friends who reside quite a bit south of the Mason Dixon line give weak arguments about Southern pride, culture, etc. I expected something similar from you, and was pleasantly surprised.

Your postings reveal you to be a huge Rush fan, I was once, I now hear what many others hear, (Joyful, etc)

Re: "Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

Here is a thought, go up to 5 or 6 random people (not your like minded peers, include some people of color) and ask them to respond to this remark.


If you are not comfortable repeating it, then print it out on paper and present it that way.


Let?s call it a home study assignment for a, sociology? or media? class.


Regards,

Chain

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by joyfulgirl:
I said I was offended by Rush's tendency to make racial comments and I base that on several things I have read, the above article being one of them. To me, the article is credible. To you, it is not. There are many such articles, and if I didn't have a job I could find them all, quote them to you, and then you would have the same response, that they are taken out of context by "liberals" or that you still don't understand why they are racist.

For the record, I did not personally hear the context of these comments. But it was a big news story at the time and much-discussed. If there was some big point he was making, or a lesson I should know about, to put those comments in a non-racist context, I am happy to hear about it. If referencing articles written by journalists makes my argument null and void because I didn't hear it myself directly, then so be it. I don't care. I really don't, although we all base opinions everyday on things we read in the media--right or wrong--because few of us are in a position to have direct personal experience with every public figure and to be in every situation we read about. If a whole bunch of people heard Rush say those things and I didn't, and some of them wrote articles about it, I tend to believe they aren't lying though I am certainly willing to concede that they may have taken the comments out of context or didn't "get" his point.

In any case, I cannot spend all day researching to prove my point. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe this article is wrong. It's really okay with me since my self-esteem is not defined by how often I am right or wrong in online forum debates, and if being wrong builds a little humility, then I welcome it. But I do not care enough about this particular argument to invest anymore energy into it because it is futile with you. If you had responded with, 'Hmm, that's an interesting article--but I question the source and I also wonder if perhaps those comments were taken out of context--did you happen to hear the context yourself?" I might be willing to continue. But until you learn how not to attack like the insecure schoolyard bully, you are off my radar.

First off, how does that article have any credibility whatsoever?

* With proof so vague as what they provide, they claim IN THE HEADLINE that Rush is "A Man Who Has A Problem With People Of Color", conveniently ignoring the fact that these people he has a problem with are ALSO very liberal.

* Showing prejudice themselves, the authors call Limbaugh's audience "angry white males", ignoring the fact that A) there are women in the audience and B) there are non-whites.

* Offering complaints from two sports columnists, the "journalists" refuse to follow the tradition of finding "both sides of a story" and acknowledge that there are ACTUAL football owners and players (particularly the Pittsburgh Steelers as an organization) who love the guy.

It's not an article. It's an editorial at best; it's one-sided, dishonest propaganda at worst.


It's not a simple issue of "you think the article's credible, and I don't." Nor is this an issue where "we all base our opinions on things in the media, and none of us are in a position to directly judge."

Unlike a LOT of people in this forum, I LISTEN TO THE SHOW. OFTEN. AND I'VE BEEN A FAN SINCE 1988.

If you want an analogy... let's say you're saying "Star Wars is X". You've never actually seen any Star Wars movie, and you're basing this on a negatively slanted review of one of the four movies, a review that takes things SEVERELY out of context. Sure, you can say we're all influenced by such reviews and no one can really experience the films enough to know. But it's not true. I've seen all of the Star Wars films A LOT (having gone to the theaters to see some Star Wars movie or another some 27 times since 1997).

In this case, the argument that we're all just parrots of the media DOESN'T hold up.


Certainly, I may be biased towards defending Rush, but I'm also a much better position to remember the context and say WITH AUTHORITY when comments are taken out of context or are suspiciously lacking context.

Don't forget: it's not just me asserting things are out of context: I prove that some of the charges are ridiculous, like the bilge about East St. Louis, an area that holds LESS THAN TWO PERCENT of the metropolitan population - in a city that Rush knows well, given he grew up a few miles down the Mississippi.

Further, Rush Limbaugh's apparent racism was a big story in 2000 because some schmucks were threatening boycotts of ABC if he were to become an MNF analyst. BUT, the same stories that asserted a pattern of bigotry had to go to the same old vault of F.A.I.R. quotes from 1994, quotes that ARE taken SEVERELY out of context for the obvious purpose of discrediting Rush.

(In fact, I'd be SHOCKED if you could find even one article whose assertions of racism can't be traced back to F.A.I.R.)


Finally, if I think an editorial is completely worthless (as I believe this one is), I'm not going to lie to be diplomatic about it, "Interesting article, maybe out of context," etc. I'm going to be honest: from my OWN EXPERIENCE listening to the guy, I know the article is worthless.

Sorry if honesty makes me appear to be an insecure bully, but I'm not going to legitimize crap like that for the sake of looking open-minded.

And if addressing an article, point-by-point, when I know the work to be worthless, makes me look like a bully, well, I guess I'm a bully then.

But you know what?

THAT DOESN'T MAKE MY ARGUMENT ANY LESS VALID.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:

And if addressing an article, point-by-point, when I know the work to be worthless, makes me look like a bully, well, I guess I'm a bully then.
But you know what?
THAT DOESN'T MAKE MY ARGUMENT ANY LESS VALID.

Amen, Achtung.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by chain:
Re: "Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

Here is a thought, go up to 5 or 6 random people (not your like minded peers, include some people of color) and ask them to respond to this remark.


If you are not comfortable repeating it, then print it out on paper and present it that way.

Oh, I see. Let's be democratic about this, majority-rule and all that.

Okay.

From National Review Online, covering a January 1999 story about a D.C. mayoral aide:

"David Howard, Mayor Anthony A. Williams? chief public advocate has quit after using the word some staffers said they heard as a racial slur," was how the Washington Times began its coverage. The word: "niggardly."

Now, niggardly is a word that does mean miserly, and does sound a lot like, well, you know what it sounds like. But you see, niggardly is a word with Scandinavian roots. In 16th century Sweden a "nigard" was a miser. Now that other word is derived from the Spanish "negro," meaning black which in turn comes from the Latin denigrare which literally means "to blacken." This was also the original meaning of "denigrate," as well as a metaphorical use meaning to belittle or defame.

To my knowledge, I?m not sure the "n-word" ever meant parsimonious in any common American usage. But I?m not very familiar with the subtleties of the n- word. Where can I get up to speed? I know! I?ll just listen to virtually every rap song on the Billboard charts to learn how to use it properly.

What an unbelievable triumph for the forces of political correctness and deliberate ignorance. The news reporter last night could not even bring herself to use the word niggardly in her attempt to clarify the story! What we?re witnessing here in the capital is a man surrendering to the ignorance of his constituency and resigning (unlike someone else in the capital whose transgressions are pretty well understood by his constituents).

This poor schlub has resigned under incredible pressure for using a near homonym of a bad word whose etymology actually denigrates blond, blue-eyed cheapskates from the 16th century. Apparently the standard for resignation is not met by oh, I dunno, obstruction of justice, perjury, grubby sex with the help, smug lying to the American people, etc., but if you use a word that sounds like a racial slur -- watch out! You are out of here.

A LOT of people thought "niggardly" was a racial slur against blacks, enough to force a mayoral aide to resign in disgrace. Does that make it a slur?

Also, from a more recent article:

...a new poll published in Sports Illustrated suggests that Indian team names aren't nearly as offensive to as many people as the activists have let on.

The Peter Harris Research Group polled 352 Native Americans (217 living on reservations and 134 living off) and 743 sports fans; the results are published in SI's March 4 issue.

Here's the most important finding: "Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames, 81 percent of Native American respondents said no. As for pro sports, 83 percent of Native American respondents said teams should not stop using Indian nicknames, mascots, characters, and symbols."

The poll also found that 75 percent of Native Americans don't think the use of these team names and mascots "contributes to discrimination." Opinion is divided about the tomahawk chop displayed at Atlanta Braves games: 48 percent "don't care" about it; 51 percent do care, but more than half of them "like it." The name "Redskins" isn't especially controversial either; 69 percent of Native Americans don't object to it. As a general rule, Indians on reservations were more sensitive about team names and mascots, but not to the point where a majority of them ever sided with the activists on these questions.

Sports Illustrated writer S. L. Price reaches the obvious conclusion: "Although Native American activists are virtually united in opposition to the use of Indian nicknames and mascots, the Native American population sees the issue far differently."

So, actual Native Americans don't statistically care about the whole Indian mascot issue. Does that mean that those schmucks who DO object should simply shut up?

I await your response.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

And I almost forgot Salome...

Originally posted by Salome:
I don't see how calling someone the weakest link is the same as telling them to shut the hell up
I don't know, maybe I am weird

I know people will never get to agree with each other in this forum
but in no way will I let things deteriorate into people basically telling others to fuck off
it's not impossible to behave when you don't agree

Not weird, just inaccurate. I *actually* suggested she "back up (her) position with facts and logic" or "shut the hell up". Much closer to a call to "put up or shut up" rather than an attempt to silence an argument.

A bit harsh, maybe. But not as terrible as you make it appear.

If there are other things that make me appear to bulldoze over people, let me know.

 

[Salome]

come on Bubba, you just see every post as an opportunity to prove that you are right
that's it
the most positive outcome is (for example when you and Melon get at each other) that after 5 pages you decide that you agree to disagree
you show me any post where it almost seems that you are inclined to respect that other views might be as right as yours (since none of us knows the exact truth) and maybe I'll soften up on the bulldozer analogy

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

 

[Achtung Bubba]

When the issue doesn't much matter, I respect different opinions.

When I'm wrong about facts or what someone else said, I admit it.

When I clearly go too far in my use of figurative language or harsh language, I apologize.

When someone else makes a good point (regardless of whether I disagree), I point that out, too.

BUT what exactly do you want from me? Do you want me to say, "Great argument" when it's clearly not the case? To act like I'm less certain about my beliefs than I really am?

Do you want me to take my stance on what I consider to be a really important issue, typically a stance that I've already given a LOT of thought to, and just flush it down the toilet in order to concede that a much less thoughtful argument (or an argument based on beliefs or assumptions I don't hold) might be just as right as mine - all for the sake of playing nice?

It ain't gonna happen.

And I apologize for that, but I'm not sorry in the least.

I'm what you call an OBJECTIVIST. I believe there's a definite right and a definite wrong, that some positions are merely emotional, illogical, or based on things I do not hold dear.

I further believe that what I believe IS RIGHT (or much nearer to it than most opposing views here). Otherwise, I'd believe something else.

I think that, first of all, you wouldn't expect anyone else to forsake their own deeply held beliefs for the sake of playing nice. I also think you wouldn't do so yourself. And I believe many here are a lot closer to objectivism than they'll admit; otherwise, they wouldn't cling so dearly to their own ideas in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

AT THE VERY LEAST, I'M HONEST ABOUT MY BELIEFS.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

If there is nothing else, I'm done with this discussion.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by joyfulgirl:
Would it? You don't even know me. I doubt my personal experience would carry a great deal of credence with you when your opinion is already written in stone. But for what it's worth, no, he said nothing racist in my presence. He was just arrogant and full of himself. I disliked his personality intensely.

Bubba, I can't talk to you. I do not find your observations "astute." You have a need to be right. I don't. I find you to be a bully and I will not debate with a bully. I disagree with 80s 99% of the time, but at least he is a nice person. I don't think you are.

[This message has been edited by joyfulgirl (edited 03-19-2002).]

Personality aside, I believe the fact that you personally never heard Rush utter a single slur speaks volumes - as does the afore-mentioned fact that his call screener, one of his substitutes, and the man who performed his wedding ceremony happen to be black.

An arrogant (I'd say confident) personality does not make one a racist. You can dislike that person all you want, but to call him a racist on so little evidence is not called-for.

And I personally don't care what you think of me (nor do I honestly think you don't care about being right). If you don't find my arguments valid, accurate, or germaine, please explain HOW.

All I demand is what I myself bring to these discussions: arguments based in a great deal of evidence and logic.

 

[chain]

Joyfulgirl,

You are a voice of reason.


?I'd definitely like to see you list any racist remarks he has made.?


So you post a said requested list, and three angry white males get hopping mad.

"Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"
How exactly is this racist?
Anyone?


That says it all!

Anyone who would ask this question just does not get it, probably never will.


I now light a candle against the darkness.

Chain

?Tell the truth and people will not like you, tell the truth when they know you are right and they will hate you?

 

[joyfulgirl]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
Personality aside, I believe the fact that you personally never heard Rush utter a single slur speaks volumes - as does the afore-mentioned fact that his call screener, one of his substitutes, and the man who performed his wedding ceremony happen to be black.

An arrogant (I'd say confident) personality does not make one a racist. You can dislike that person all you want, but to call him a racist on so little evidence is not called-for.

And I personally don't care what you think of me (nor do I honestly think you don't care about being right). If you don't find my arguments valid, accurate, or germaine, please explain HOW.

All I demand is what I myself bring to these discussions: arguments based in a great deal of evidence and logic.

Bubba, I did not say Rush is racist based on my personal experience with him, which was, granted, limited but enough to know that not only do I disagree with his politics, I dislike his personality.

There have been many politicians and other public figures I have met through my work who were very pleasant to deal with, even though I disagreed with their politics. Dan Quayle is one example. Extremely nice person to deal with in a professional context. But I am not here to name drop, merely to point out that I am not committed to a particular opinion of anyone on a personal level just because I agree or disagree with their politics.

I said I was offended by Rush's tendency to make racial comments and I base that on several things I have read, the above article being one of them. To me, the article is credible. To you, it is not. There are many such articles, and if I didn't have a job I could find them all, quote them to you, and then you would have the same response, that they are taken out of context by "liberals" or that you still don't understand why they are racist.

For the record, I did not personally hear the context of these comments. But it was a big news story at the time and much-discussed. If there was some big point he was making, or a lesson I should know about, to put those comments in a non-racist context, I am happy to hear about it. If referencing articles written by journalists makes my argument null and void because I didn't hear it myself directly, then so be it. I don't care. I really don't, although we all base opinions everyday on things we read in the media--right or wrong--because few of us are in a position to have direct personal experience with every public figure and to be in every situation we read about. If a whole bunch of people heard Rush say those things and I didn't, and some of them wrote articles about it, I tend to believe they aren't lying though I am certainly willing to concede that they may have taken the comments out of context or didn't "get" his point.

In any case, I cannot spend all day researching to prove my point. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe this article is wrong. It's really okay with me since my self-esteem is not defined by how often I am right or wrong in online forum debates, and if being wrong builds a little humility, then I welcome it. But I do not care enough about this particular argument to invest anymore energy into it because it is futile with you. If you had responded with, 'Hmm, that's an interesting article--but I question the source and I also wonder if perhaps those comments were taken out of context--did you happen to hear the context yourself?" I might be willing to continue. But until you learn how not to attack like the insecure schoolyard bully, you are off my radar.


[This message has been edited by joyfulgirl (edited 03-19-2002).]

 

[Salome]

Originally posted by Achtung Bubba:
When I'm wrong about facts or what someone else said, I admit it.

When I clearly go too far in my use of figurative language or harsh language, I apologize.

When someone else makes a good point (regardless of whether I disagree), I point that out, too.

ah yes, I've seen you post this before

BUT what exactly do you want from me? Do you want me to say, "Great argument" when it's clearly not the case? To act like I'm less certain about my beliefs than I really am?

your beliefs?
I have no problems with your beliefs
my problem is that you when someone has a different OPINION (thought I'd use caps for once) then yours, you won't even accept it as an opinion

example:
I can't say I feel the article posted by Joyfulgirl shows that Rush Limbaugh is a racist

by no way does this mean that I feel the article is nothing more than vendictive slander
even though 'racist' is a pretty well defined term it is very well possible that some people will interpret the points mentioned in the article as evidence of racism and others don't

this has nothing to do with beliefs
it has nothing to do with facts
it has to do with different interpretations

and to say my interpretation is more right then anyone else's seems weird to me

I'm what you call an OBJECTIVIST. I believe there's a definite right and a definite wrong, that some positions are merely emotional, illogical, or based on things I do not hold dear.

mmm, that could also be the definition of opininated if you ask me

I think that, first of all, you wouldn't expect anyone else to forsake their own deeply held beliefs for the sake of playing nice.

like I pointed out before I indeed would never want you to not stand up for your beliefs
I don't feel beliefs have that much to do with most of the arguments in here though

If there is nothing else, I'm done with this discussion.

thank you for pointing that out
I feel so much better now

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

Bubba, would you provide us with three links to posts here on Interference where you acknowledge that you were wrong in a substantive way on any issue? Note my use of "substantive." An acknowledgement from you that you got an insignificant statistic wrong but that it doesn't speak to your larger point doesn't count.

Thanks,
MAP

 

[U2live]

can't believe all the typing involved over one of the most meaningless, boring, blowhards in the universe. Could this epitomy of the word narcissist actually mean that much to anyone? Doubt it.

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by Matthew_Page2000:
Bubba, would you provide us with three links to posts here on Interference where you acknowledge that you were wrong in a substantive way on any issue? Note my use of "substantive." An acknowledgement from you that you got an insignificant statistic wrong but that it doesn't speak to your larger point doesn't count.

Thanks,
MAP

I do not wish to continue this discussion, but neither do I have any desire to give the false impression - through my silence - that I'm somehow caught without words.

To answer your request, no, I won't provide any such links.

Why? Because they do not exist. In terms of the most substantive issues, I have not found myself on the wrong side of any issue in this forum. I have not encountered an argument pursuasive enough to convince me to reverse my views.

I will not post any links where I admit I'm substantively wrong because those links can't be found - and I can trace that directly to the fact that I believe I'm generally right.

I know many people believe that it's "weird" to actually think an opinion is either right or wrong, that there is no real truth, and that only interpretations exist.

I'm simply not one of those people.

I don't believe my opinions are right because they're MINE; I believe they're right becuase they are based on facts and logic, and because they hold up to careful scrutiny.

So, I don't believe I've ever been seriously incorrect in this forum.

I must ask, what does that prove?

(I know the response: that I'm arrogant, a "bully" and a "bulldozer".)

But seriously, HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE ADMITTED THAT THEY ARE WRONG?

Not very many, I can tell you that for damn certain.

As far as I can tell, there are essentially two groups here:

1. The objectivists who believe that truth does exist: in most cases, they think they're right and the other guy's wrong.

2. The so-called subjectivists who clam to believe that truth doesn't actually exist: they think nobody's right and nobody's wrong, and (I suppose) we should all go skipp merrily through the woods singing songs about trees and rainbows.

(Though, I suspect if subjectivists HONESTLY believed that truth doesn't exist, they wouldn't even try to offer any evidence to support their opinions and pursuade others to see thing their way.)

The fact remains: NEITHER GROUP OFTEN ADMITS THEY'RE WRONG.

Now, if you're done, I'm outta here.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Good job Achtung Bubba,
I'm glad you came back for one more post, to set the record straight. You have been unfairly lambasted by a couple of people who ought to be ashamed of the way they've carried on. But you're right, it seems in this world that if you stand by your convictions, you're a "bully" and "arrogant"...oh, let me rephrase that; if you stand by your CONSERVATIVE convictions, you're labeled a "bully" and "arrogant".

 

[Diamond The U2 Patriot]

Im with you Bubba.

Db9

ps-
you made me giggle about the subjective crowd 'skipping thru the woods'..

 

[chain]

Bubba,

A little help my friend.

Here IS how it is done.

I would like to pay you a sincere complement. A while back in a different thread concerning the confederate flag, you stated that if it offended minorities you thought it should not be displayed.
Most of my friends who reside quite a bit south of the Mason Dixon line give weak arguments about Southern pride, culture, etc. I expected something similar from you, ****(I WAS WRONG) and was pleasantly surprised.
Your postings reveal you to be a huge Rush fan, I was once, *****(I WAS WRONG) I now hear what many others hear, (Joyful, etc)

Re: "Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"

Here is a thought, go up to 5 or 6 random people (not your like minded peers, include some people of color) and ask them to respond to this remark.

If you are not comfortable repeating it, then print it out on paper and present it that way.

Let?s call it a home study assignment for a, sociology? or media? class.


It is painless and liberating.

Let me help you get started,

When the issue doesn't much matter, I respect different opinions. (were you wrong here?)
When I'm wrong about facts or what someone else said, I admit it. (maybe here?)
When I clearly go too far in my use of figurative language or harsh language, I apologize. (not wrong, you have)
When someone else makes a good point (regardless of whether I disagree), I point that out, too. (?)

Through my college studies I read Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead, and most of Atlas Shrugged.
Objectivism, is a neat, clean philosophy. It works perfectly in theory. But, as I explain to my students, it goes wanting in real world applications.


Regards,

Chain

 

[melon]

LOL...these threads are all the same, regardless of who debates in it. Hence why I consciously stopped arguing in it. Good day...

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by melon:
LOL...these threads are all the same, regardless of who debates in it. Hence why I consciously stopped arguing in it. Good day...

Melon

I find it funny.. 'LOL', that you make a point of coming into this thread and pointing out to all of us that 'Woo Hoo', You didn't post in here.. Hahaha.. That's very amusing Melon, feeling a little left out?...

L.Unplugged

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Chain,

Again, I have no desire to continue this discussion - as I have already said twice. Fact of the matter is, I'm soon taking a vacation from the forum to focus on work and other websites.

I would like to have ended these discussions on a civil note, but I believe I will make an exception for you.

Chain, what the fuck do you think you are doing?

Originally posted by chain:
It is painless and liberating.

Let me help you get started,

When the issue doesn't much matter, I respect different opinions. (were you wrong here?)
When I'm wrong about facts or what someone else said, I admit it. (maybe here?)
When I clearly go too far in my use of figurative language or harsh language, I apologize. (not wrong, you have)
When someone else makes a good point (regardless of whether I disagree), I point that out, too. (?)

Through my college studies I read Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead, and most of Atlas Shrugged.
Objectivism, is a neat, clean philosophy. It works perfectly in theory. But, as I explain to my students, it goes wanting in real world applications.

You know what else is liberating? Being completely honest: to be honest, you are an asshole.

You suggest that I'm wrong (i.e., lying) about the fact that I *do* in fact respect other opinions in matters of lesser importance, that I do apologize when I get facts wrong and misinterpret posts, and that I do concede when opponents make good points.

And all this is said without one TRACE of an explanation, reasoning, or evidence.

You then tell me this: "as I explain to my students, (objectivism) goes wanting in real world applications."

Tell me, when you explain this to your students, do you also simply assert it as fact - again without evidence OR logic OR even a rough explanation?

If you are as arrogantly presumptuous to them as you are to me, I'd be shocked to learn that they have any respect for you at all. And IF your students can think logically for themselves, I'm sure it's despite you, not because of you.

(And don't be too shocked that I'm this irate about this: did you actually think "as I explain to my students" is a sufficient substitute FOR AN ACTUAL EXPLANATION?)

Above ALL THIS, you present your idiocy as if you're proofreading my work, arrogantly suggesting precisely where I should apologize.

You may be a teacher somewhere else, but you're not a teacher here. And if you think arrogant comments on one's work is irritating when it comes from your teacher, it's INFURIATING when coming from a complete stranger who has offered, as far as can tell, NOTHING of substance to this debate.

Now, if I may be honest about one more quote:

Originally posted by chain:
Your postings reveal you to be a huge Rush fan, I was once, *****(I WAS WRONG) I now hear what many others hear, (Joyful, etc)

I don't believe you: what you're saying is that you were a "huge Rush fan" who now hears what other people hear - other people that don't actually listen to the show and simply quote a one-sided editorial that takes Rush completely out of context.

Uh-huh. Right.

Finally, you should end sentences with periods, not commas. I hope you share that little bit of wisdom to your students, and that they benefit from it.

[This message has been edited by Achtung Bubba (edited 03-21-2002).]

 

[Achtung Bubba]

Originally posted by melon:
LOL...these threads are all the same, regardless of who debates in it. Hence why I consciously stopped arguing in it. Good day...

Melon

It appears you consciously stopped the moment I asked for more definitive proof that conservatives are Nazis.

Convenient timing.