Originally posted by melon:
You are pathetic. I'm not trying to make this out into some macho contest, and I honestly don't give a fuck about who "wins." Reading the consensus of most of the messages here, I wouldn't say that you've won; it's just that your responses are so ridiculous that they are unanswerable--much like Rush's own rhetoric. How many times and in how many manners can I reiterate that those rating statistics are misleading? Even in elementary school, we are taught to question graphs and statistics, but I see you were sleeping during that. You don't care...it's all about ego to you.
And, in typical fashion, we've strayed from the original topic to some dumb ass thread about Rush Limbaugh. I'm tired of arguing to a post. You've obviously got your mind set and opinions formulated, and I don't even know the point of arguing this further. I'm just repeating myself, attempting to knock some sense into you, when you are clearly not receptive to ideas. It's a contest to you--much like our court system, where the object is not to discover truth, but to see who can trick the other side into stumbling. A laugh a minute, but since I'm concerned with finding truth amongst the ruins, I had best start looking elsewhere. I'm finished with this discussion. Period.
If others, besides Bubba, wish to comment in earnest, I'll be happy to respond.
Melon
Oh, you're finished with this discussion, are you?
I remember that I also tried that,
once or
twice, agreeing to stop discussing politics with you; I would stop IF you stopped. You didn't, choosing instead to return to your infuriating style of shoddy debating.
And now you say you're tired of debating me, conveniently coinciding with the moment that I've caught you in a serious error of logic. How nice.
I'm tired of debating you, too. I have tried to end it, allowing you to post what you will on the assumption that you would do the same to me. (If you noticed, I did not respond to your posts until you first broke the agreement to stop arguing.) That hasn't worked.
I will again extend this offer to stop this. If you agree to stop replying to my posts, I will resume my practice of ignoring you.
Until you agree, I will continue to question every statement you make.
(You misread my posts far too often; it seems only fair that I nitpick at yours.)
You say that we are to question statistics. Yes, we are supposed to be be skeptical, but numbers cannot be rejected simply because they are numbers. You seem to go from the true observation that "some statistics are misleading" to the fallacy that "all stats are misleading", and you simply can't say that logically.
I didn't "sleep through that class", but I don't reject all stats out-of-hand. Neither do you, as I've noticed.
That said, I asked for evidence that would overturn the seemingly overwhelming statistics of 600 stations, 20 million listeners a week, and a record-breaking new contract. You provided anecdotal evidence of your own hometown (one that appears to be a town dominated by usually liberal unions), vague comments about how statistics are misleading, and that's about it.
Sorry, that's not enough to overturn my evidence.
Yes, this issue is very off-topic (though an error made on an off-topic point is still an error), but I think it clearly demonstrates that you won't admit when you overstep your bounds.
I occasionally say something that seems quite outrageous. Sometimes I mean it as written. If it was miswritten, I correct it. If it was poorly explained (as was my opinion of Moore at the beginning of this thread), I elaborate. And if I simply overstated something, I apologize and move on.
You implied that Rush has been rejected by the "general consensus", deemed an extremist who is "not even worthy of listening to" - and the way you presented this point made you look supremely confident that you were right, and that Rush's rejection as an extremist is very nearly self-evident.
And yet, your only evidence is the fact that your town seems to have rejected Rush, making the fallacy of trying to extend that local feeling to the entire country; and the fact that ratings stats can be manipulated and are often misleading - committing the mistake of saying that numbers' manipulation MUST be true simply because it COULD be true.
You overstepped your ability to defend your argument, I think, and the fact that you don't admit that is telling.
I too search for the truth, but I try to restrict myself to arguments that are logical, well reasoned, and well defended. To do otherwise would keep me stumbling in the dark world of feelings, opinions, and relativism.
Truth, whenever it is found or appears to have been found, must be tested through debate.
One person says, "I believe X, becuase Y."
Another person says, "I disagree, because Z."
And so on.
The truth will win in the end, especially if the armchair philosophers abide by such simple guidlines as not mischaracterizing previous arguments and not presenting arguments with a great deal of logic or evidence waiting behind it.
And, of course, the question of which argument wins is not one of "consensus" of a discussion, but a question of the merits of the arguments.
Asking for sufficient evidence (even on a minor point, particularly if the minor point seems to be made confidently, but on some very large assumptions) isn't playing games, keeping score, acting macho, or using courtroom tricks.
It's keeping you intellectually honest, melon.
As long as you continue to debate me, I will hold you to the high standards of demonstrating a reasonable amount of proof or logic behind your arguments.
And if you REALLY want out of debating me, permanently, say so - and keep your word.
