"Teachable Moments" come in many forms.
I remember the press a few years ago hounding then-President George W. Bush to tell them about any "mistakes" he had made in office. Meaning, of course, tell us how you screwed things up in Iraq, Afghanistan, the U.S. economy, or any other area where liberals disagree with your policy choices.
Notwithstanding the silliness of the question — which is akin to the job interview question "tell me about your weaknesses," whose proper answer is "I suffer fools poorly" — it seems in retrospect that Bush's only "mistake" was his choice of language in offering an answer. Instead of saying something like, "I thought it was the job of the press to point out a [Republican] president's so-called mistakes," all he had to say was "there were certain things about the prosecution of the war on terrorism, domestic economic policy, etc. that, in retrospect, I should have recalibrated." Period, punctuation mark, end of story. I mean, it worked for the present occupant of the White House, didn't it?
What a difference a few years (and a "D" describing your party affiliation) makes! Fast forward to 2009 where the President of the United States simultaneously admits he has no real knowledge of an incident which, coincidentally, involves a personal friend of his, and from this foundation transitions into an immediate condemnation of the other party's actions. The real "stupidity" here is stating emphatically things about that which you, yourself, have already admitted knowing nothing of real substance. And when called to account for this, instead of an apology, simply consult Webster's Dictionary for the appropriate substitute language. Then voila! Suddenly we're discussing "teachable moments" instead of the racial pandering of an agenda-driven president.
Instead of endlessly recounting the "details" of the now famous Arrest-Heard-'Round-The-World to search for my own teachable moments, I'd like to step back for a moment and look at this demagogic mess from a different perspective. Forget Gates, Crowley, Obama — they are just the vehicles for a whole series of teachable incidents that illustrate a deeper theme I've written about previously. Namely, honest discussion and debate is impossible with the Left.
Let's take four inter-related trains of thought I've seen advanced by our friends on the Left these past few days. Some have to do with Gatesgate. Others apply to racial matters in general. All are completely disingenuous in the way they both frame the debate, and argue their position.
We'll start with the most frequent stupidity, to borrow our President's favorite non-calibrated word. In a world where feelings are an appropriate substitute for actual knowledge, and where all that is needed to understand a technical term is a kind heart and good intentions, we've been treated these last few days to an explosion of armchair attorneys who — having read excerpts of a legal statute — are now prepared to rule somewhat definitively on a point of law. There's no need to go to law school to understand torts, contract law, civil procedure, or any of those annoying little details. Just find a phrase that has the word "public" in it, conclude that one cannot obviously be in a public place if they are in their "home," and suddenly you're an expert on Disorderly Conduct laws in the state of Massachusetts.
Of course, applying a layman's knowledge of the law to a person standing on their porch shouting to the public produces confusing imagery, so it's best to just forget about all that law school stuff and rely on your own common sense. It's the same kind of common sense that finds the right of privacy in a Constitution that contains no such language; but remember here the point is to pop off about the stupidity of police actions (which requires a strict layman's understanding of the law), not to justify abortion (which requires a not-so-strict reading of the Constitution).
The point is, for those who tend to miss these kinds of points, offering one's opinion about whether Officer X was "justified" or not in arresting "Citizen A" on a specific legal charge is just that. Your opinion. It carries no more or less weight than my opinion. Basing your opinion on a news account, or a layman's appreciation of the law, makes it no more valid an opinion than mine, no matter how earnestly you express your thought.
All of which leads to my next observation. There are some folks who supplement their opinions with the opinions of other people, hoping to out-opinion everyone else's opinion on a matter. To the extent they cite a credible legal source, more power to them. Of course, it gets a little complicated when the opposing opinion-generator cites a credible legal source of their own. But ignoring for the moment that one man's credible source is another man's partisan hack, all this really does illustrate my main point again. If the purpose of raising the issue is to debate the actual merits of a Disorderly Conduct case, then unless you were there, have a legal background to analyze the relevant statutes, a thorough understanding of that state's criminal and civil law and other relevant expertise, all you are generating is an opinion. And opinions, like I've said many times before, are like the exit points of the human digestive system. Everyone has one.
Unfortunately, those armchair attorneys who focus on the merits of legal matters rarely bother to cite references to actual legal analyses. Instead, more often than not we get treated to guilt-by-association links. Officer Crowley filed a police report alleging disorderly conduct against Professor Gates. Link to reports of police misconduct in other cities in other circumstances. When called to task for mixing apples with oranges, state there was no intention to say that Officer Crowley filed a false police report, only to show that false police reports have been filed (by other officers in other cities).
Now this is one of the most dishonest ways to argue a point that can be made. Ignore the specifics of a particular officer's background (has he personally been accused of misconduct before, does he in fact teach courses on racial profiling, etc.?). Instead, point out that some cops, somewhere else in the United States, do bad things. The only association is that both men (in this case, Crowley and certain out-of-control Chicago or Philadelphia cops) are law enforcement officials. And when called on this despicable practice, simply contend that the examples of other officers' activities are true, and that no direct comment on Crowley was intended.
Smearing the actions of Person A by pointing to the practices of an unrelated individual in the same field is a tried-and-true strategy meant to distort a situation, rather than inform a discussion. If someone had contended that police officers never lie, then it's a valid point to be raised. But in the absence of this claim, or in the absence of additional evidence that shows that the preponderance of all police officers are prone to lying, then it's a straw man meant to misdirect the discussion, not advance it. This tactic is no more acceptable than pointing to Jason Blair every time one reads a news account they disagree with, or linking to an instance of scientific fraud every time someone offers a scientific claim.
All of which leads to the third teachable moment. We start with armchair attorneys applying a layman's understanding of the law to a specific legal charge. From that we transition to guilt-by-association as a substitute for dealing with actual facts. This then brings us to a subtle re-definition of terms to make a point. My most recent favorite is, "Should 'mouthing off to a cop' be illegal?"
We all use language imprecisely at times, myself included. In discussing disorderly conduct in general (not a specific DC law in a specific state in a specific circumstance), the term "mouthing off" is an appropriate substitute for endlessly repeating the technical-legal language. But when one elevates this shorthand language to a potential criminal act ("Should 'mouthing off to a cop' be illegal?"), we have an association that would have made the 1930s German Ministry of Propaganda proud.
Take a specific law (Disorderly Conduct) with specific terms to define what constitutes disorderly conduct, and apply it to a discussion of a specific incident in time. Then, substitute a colloquial expression for those key terms, and ask if this colloquialism should be "illegal"? Of course "mouthing off" to a cop should not be a crime. (Stupid yes, criminal no). But unlike the premise of the question, mouthing off has never been assigned criminal status. Disorderly conduct has.
If the conversation can be moved away from "was a crime actually committed" — something the courts decide, not we with our opinions — to a generalized oversimplification, "Should 'mouthing off to a cop' be illegal?", then the discussion can be turned to other equally irrelevant points and conclusions. I wouldn't ask a person "Should drinking be illegal?" during a debate on the proper application of DUI laws. This kind of reductionism is insulting to the intelligence of those actually wishing to debate a matter, instead of bloviate about their pet political philosophy.
Which brings us now to the fourth link in this chain, and my personal all-time favorite. In an article about "White Guilt," one commentator actually wrote: "Get your fact straight. Since you have not, you do not deserve any other comment!" That was it — the sum total of the entire criticism. To which someone responded, "If the facts aren't 'straight,' you have the obligation to point out the errors." At which point the original commentator replied, "If in fact [the author] did not know the facts to begin with, she should have refrained from writing this essay until she had completed her research."
That was it. No Point X is incorrect for Reason Y. The article was wrong, period, and it's up to everyone else to acknowledge this, and then correct those unnamed "mistakes" which made it wrong. We, who conceivably find no errors, must now root out suspected errors and identify them ourselves, at which point the person making the generalized claim will now comment to collaborate our findings. If we fail to see any "errors," then we are simply enabling the spread of shoddy, error-ridden research; these "errors" being so egregious that they do not deserve any further comment. If I'm not mistaken, I think this is how the Chinese government secured confessions during the Cultural Revolution.
For sheer Chutzpah, this approach deserves to be in a category by itself. Sadly, though, it's just a logical extension of armchair legal analysis/guilt-by-association/substituting common language for legal terms. All of it adds up to the same basic observation.
Taking the Crowley-Gates-Obama controversy as an example, if you want to argue details, know and understand the details. Don't guess, hypothesize, suppose, or apply your own standards to legal terms. Anything less is an opinion. If all you want to do is offer a personal opinion, find a different venue. The Daily Kos and Huffington Post are ready and waiting to hear from you.
If you want to want to use the controversy as a means to discuss broader issues (race relations in general, or the right to dissent and free speech in a Constitutional Republic), then argue the principles — not the circumstances of a particular case. If you want to bring in examples to bolster your point of view, put the examples in perspective instead of smearing by association with unrelated cases.
The fact that I've had to spend an entire article stating these simple truths only underscores how difficult real dialogue with opposing political points of view has become today.
RE; Teachable Moments
Correct on all points. This is standard fare for what passes as ‘dialog’ from liberal/progressives
1). Redefine the terms of the debate
2). Find the exception and ‘personalize’ the PC opinion.
3). Question the validity of the ‘original’ action
4). Issue ‘generalized’ blanket condemnation of all opposing points of view.
This is the standard ‘debate’ playbook from liberal/progressives. The only thing missing is the final two components; which in my opinion are;
5). Assign the most pejorative term possible to the dissenter, thereby rendering any further conversation on the subject uncultivated.
6). Declare victory
I will add that this method makes true debate between conservatives and liberal/progressives literally impossible. Not because there are not two legitimate sides to the discussion; but because one party to the debate refuses to listen to anything outside PC liberal/progressive dogma.
Instead, point out that some cops, somewhere else in the United States, do bad things. The only association is that both men (in this case, Crowley and certain out-of-control Chicago or Philadelphia cops) are law enforcement officials. And when called on this despicable practice, simply contend that the examples of other officers’ activities are true, and that no direct comment on Crowley was intended.
Um… no. To raise the possibility that the police report could be false.
Well, the article I was replying to assumed that Crowley was telling the truth and Gates was lying. No basis for this was given aside from the occupations (officer and Harvard professor) of the people involved. Pointing out that police officers can lie, too, doesn’t seem at all unwarranted under those circumstances.
And hey, oddly enough, there have been some later developments.
Um … no. Rewriting history (or in this case, a comment thread), is just another form of dishonest debate.
I don’t make it a practice of identifying the author of a particularly silly thought, since it’s the idea I’m focusing on, not the individual making it. However, if the author of the comment wants to out themselves, who am I to object?
This is the sum total of Raymond’s original comments before I offered mine.
“[Regarding the statement that] ‘Sgt. James Crowley said quite another in his incident report …’ [here are two links]: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/03/why_the_police_must_be_videota.php http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20090720_Store_video_catches_cop_bullying_woman.html?viewAll=y “
Now, having offered my comments, Raymond wants to retroactively tell us what he really implied by giving us these two links without further comment, so as to respond to what I actually said about the subject.
It’s an interesting approach. Say nothing of substance, and when challenged, offer the substance we all should have intrinsically understood from the non-substantive comments.
I rest my case.
Oh, and the phrase ‘mouthing off to a cop’ is in quotes because it was, well, a quote. (Okay, technically, ruminator said “mouth off to a cop”, and I changed the verb to a gerund.) If redefinition of terms was going on, it wasn’t by me.
I also linked to an actual decision by a judge. (9th district, so you probably disagree, but hey, “another man’s partisan hack” and all.)
Phil, I think you may have painted Dr. Goebbels with the paintbrush meant for the much more offensive media of today. This is the same media and supporters that think Ted Kennedy is something more than the weak younger brother seeking approval instead they call him the Lion of the Senate however more appropriate would be the Cowardly Lion of the Senate.
What always seems to bounce around in these threads is the attempt to follow your script and the added points from Milbrat so that feelings and opinions can be interjected as fact rather than deal with the distressing realities.
Great article although those it was aimed at will be unable to understand that you have offered a summation of the points you have made many times when the liberal/non-progressive gives the slight head fake and attempts to divert the thread in a way only the governor in the Best Little Whorehouse in Texas could do.
When I read some of the comments my head hurts and I wonder why facts are important to me.
Not commenting on everything about a situation, not writing everything you might have to say at the first possibility, removes any chance of discussing or expanding on a topic later. That’s evidently Dr. Jackson’s standard.
Thankfully, he’s only the prosecutor here. His case – his rewriting of history – gets to be answered by actually reading what I wrote.
Hey, this really is a teachable moment!
Notice the way that criticizing someone for offering nothing more than two links to unrelated incidents by other law enforcement officials becomes “Not commenting on everything about a situation”.
Once again, another perfect illustration why honest debate is impossible with the Left.
A ‘teachable’ moment indeed! I’ve already learned something from Mr. Ingles. My original post included the six points of ‘dialog’ according to the Church of Liberalism. They were;
1). Redefine the terms of the debate.
2). Find the exception and ‘personalize’ the PC opinion
3). Question the validity of the ‘original action.
4). Issue generalized ‘blanket’ condemnation of all opposing points of view
5). Assign the most pejorative term possible to the dissenter
6). Declare victory
After reading Mr. Ingles post #4, and Post #6; I find I must adjust my original comment
1). Redefine the terms of the debate.
2). Find the exception and ‘personalize’ the PC opinion
3). Question the validity of the ‘original action.
4). (NEW) Continually move the ‘goalpost’ of the discussion further with each response, so as to deny any set response as debilitating to the original liberal premise.
5). Issue generalized ‘blanket’ condemnation of all opposing points of view
6). Assign the most pejorative term possible to the dissenter
7). Declare victory
Thank you Mr. Ingles!
Actually, Dr. Jackson, you underestimate me – it was seven links. Eight, counting the link I posted the next day, from a story that had shown up that very day.
And I gave the context when I posted them – the author wrote “Sgt. James Crowley said quite another in his incident report” without ever considering even the possibility that it could be wrong or incomplete. As I noted back on that thread, I should have known that, without painstaking and longwinded disavowal of every possible way my words could be misinterpreted, I was just opening myself up to my words being twisted, but I didn’t have time until later to compose a long block of text.
And really, lunch is over now, so I won’t have a chance to post again until tomorrow, most likely. Ah, well, I can look forward to some wry amusement then, no doubt. Have fun!
Oh, wait, one last thought. I just realized that Dr. Jackson may be misquoting me deliberately, not just out of unfamiliarity with HTML. He’s posting the actual URLs from what I said, not the text they were linked from. What I actually wrote was:
…with the last seven words being links to separate examples of police falsifying reports. That adds a little context to exactly what was being commented on, no?
Once again, this is the sum total of Raymond’s original comments before I offered mine.
“[Regarding the statement that] ‘Sgt. James Crowley said quite another in his incident report …’ [here are two links]: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/03/why_the_police_must_be_videota.php http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20090720_Store_video_catches_cop_bullying_woman.html?viewAll=y “
Now, having offered my comments, Raymond wants to retroactively tell us what he really implied by giving us these two links without further comment, so as to respond to what I actually said about the subject.
Now we are treated to the thought that offering more than two initial links to unrelated activities by different individuals would have subjected Raymond to the criticism that he was being “longwinded”.
And we are further asked to believe that linking to the unrelated actions of police officers in other cities was in itself sufficient “context” to cast doubt on the actions of a specific officer (Crowley) who has a specific history of not filing false reports, teaching classes on racial profiling, etc. In other words, as I stated in my article, ignore the actual circumstances of Crowley’s life to smear his actions in a specific case by linking to the unrelated actions of other individuals in other situations.
It is impossible to have an honest debate with the Left.
>“And, of course, police never ever file false incident reports.”
[From the above article] “Smearing the actions of Person A by pointing to the practices of an unrelated individual in the same field is a tried-and-true strategy meant to distort a situation, rather than inform a discussion. If someone had contended that police officers never lie, then it’s a valid point to be raised. But in the absence of this claim, or in the absence of additional evidence that shows that the preponderance of all police officers are prone to lying, then it’s a straw man meant to misdirect the discussion, not advance it. This tactic is no more acceptable than pointing to Jason Blair every time one reads a news account they disagree with, or linking to an instance of scientific fraud every time someone offers a scientific claim.”
I’m always willing to keep an open mind about things, especially what it means to provide “context” about something.
As a public service for those of you, like Raymond, who don’t want to be accused of being “longwinded” when someone uses “science” to challenge a position you hold, here is a Raymond-approved retort you can use to cast doubt on any scientific claim. No other verbiage is apparently needed to provide this ‘contextual’ analysis.
And, of course, scientists never ever fabricate their findings. http://www.seattlepi.com/business/88624_bell261.shtml
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf
In keeping with the Ingles-template, I’ve limited my initial links to two unrelated cases. If anyone asserts that you are slandering-by-implication, just follow up with this comment:
“I was just raising the possibility that [the scientific study in question] could be false”.
If you get challenged for the intellectual dishonesty of such an approach, simply say:
“the [article/position] I was replying to assumed that X was [telling the truth/a correct position]. Pointing out that scientists can lie doesn’t seem at all unwarranted under those circumstances.”
I guess we can learn from the Left after all!
A Teaching Moment; Both Parties Have Their Fanatics
I would speak to a larger issue here: This not being the first time that Mr. Jackson has addressed the subject of the futility of debate.
35% of Democrats believed George W. Bush had advance knowledge of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. 28% of Republicans believe Barack Obama isn’t a ‘natural born’ citizen of the United States.
These two items of interest speak to the most polarized among us. The statistics are each based on past conducted polls. Neither is an exact measure. Yet, lots of liberals accept the “birther” poll at face value. Lots of conservatives take the “truther” poll on face value as well. The conclusion: you can’t reason with arch partisans of either political stripe.
“The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” was the title of historian Richard Hofstadter’s famous Sixties essay. “I call it the paranoid style,” he wrote, “because no other word adequately evokes the sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy.”
An arch partisan’s loyalty is to faith, not fact. They will defend a belief in the face of the facts. Differences in environmental policy, the debate of the existence or not of ‘rights’ to health care, living wages, and family planning services. Should civil protections be accorded or not to victim’s groups, illegal aliens, and enemy combatants; are impossible to deliberate. The most tenuous sets of improbable circumstance invariably trump logic. It’s useless to attempt to refute the argument. It’s like trying to debate with those who still believe the earth is the center of the universe; and by my observation, about one third of each political party seems to fervently believe in the ‘earth as center’ theory.
The results of poll after poll stir up larger questions concerning polarization. Neither party can wholly disavow their own fanatical fringe. That extreme segment could be reasonably defined as comprising up to 30% of each of the two major parties. And that means this ‘extreme’ segment is endemic to our politics.
The causes of this polarization are numerous. Gerrymandering of congressional districts by both parties over the decades has created both liberal and conservative strongholds. The result has been a more polarized Congress as representatives in ‘safe’ districts lurch even further toward the ‘hard core’ of their party. As an aside; I would offer a comment on union representation as given to me by my brother-in-law, a life-time UAW member. He said “Only about 20% of the membership was interested enough in union business to attend all the shop meetings. Unfortunately, it was invariably the most radical 20% of the membership. This often resulted in some of the most ‘limiting’ work rules and ‘expansive’ grievance/benefit packages” Such districting, when coupled with the evolution of the adversarial process (which most representatives being lawyers first, ascribe to) into a take-no-prisoners, scorched earth political process that often more resembles mortal combat than moral discourse.
If this holds true within politics, one can easily see how a dedicated radical contingent of either political persuasion can send a majority of party members over the edge. This radical 30% are the ones that stand on street corners and protest, show up en mass at rallies and Town Hall Meetings, and are constantly being featured on local TV News broadcasts. Some are promoted by the press and some excoriated, depending on the issue, but few are ignored.
Today, thanks to the internet, likeminded people may share travel destinations or join dating services to be matched only with other likeminded people. These people literally never experience anything outside their defined political comfort zones. Every night, one segment gets its reporting exclusively from Fox News while the other group only watches MSNBC. Political web sights and blogs ensure that, if one deliberately chooses to do so, they will never be exposed to anything other that their preferred political point-of-view. And the more time people spend around likeminded individuals, the more extreme their views tend to be.
Ideology, it seems, has much in common with other types of addictive behavior. If we review the 2008 election, we have almost 130 million ballots cast. Assuming that the most radicalized among us would absolutely make it to the polls, then nearly 40 million American political addicts exist. Add to those numbers 535 Congressional and Senatorial ‘enablers’ and we have a recipe for disaster. Whichever party comes to power; somebody gets their political ‘fix’ in the terms of policies, payouts, and legislation; while the other side spirals into the political equivalent of substance ‘withdrawal’. All the signs are there, the despondency, the alternating bouts of extreme sadness then rage, and the inevitable accusations of inadequate ‘product purity’.
Remember back in 2004 when Bush was reelected to the White House? Scores of Hollywood progressives promised to leave the country! A ‘national malaise’ was reported by the MSM to be affecting large portions of the American population.
Physiatrists reported large upswings in the number of patients complaining of depression, despondency, and unresolved anger; which these doctors ultimately tied to the results of the 2004 general election. This illness was eventually identified by psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer as BDS, or Bush Derangement Syndrome. Krauthammer defined Bush Derangement Syndrome as “The acute onset of paranoia, in otherwise normal people, in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush”. Can anyone deny that a similar reaction has lately captured the most dedicated segment of the far right? This addictive component possessed by a dedicated following of each political persuasion is, in my opinion, the explanation for the demise of reasoned political debate.
Milbrat,
Are you complaining that certain kinds of people have conviction of principle? Are you suggesting that the “great middle,” because they have not made up their minds, are superior in some way?
If I happen to believe someone is wrong about an issue, does it mean I am automatically at fault? If I believe that there is a general lack of truth, critical thought, or open-mindedness on the other side of the issue, does that mean I am the extremist?
milbrat:
Your observations are the kinds of things I hoped the comment section to the IC articles would generate. For the most part they do, when people take the time to analyze an issue instead of simply react to it (or give us their opinions-based-on-their-feelings as a substitute for critical thought).
While neither side of the political spectrum is pure, as you point out, I do think there is one telling difference. Just harkening back to my own experiences, when the fanatical Right tried to tell us a couple years back that “race matters” in evaluating the intrinsic worth of a human being, I and others fought that bilge http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/09/11/in-their-own-words-the-undisguised-racism-of-the-far-far-far-right/
We didn’t excuse, ignore it, understand-but-not-sympathize with it, or pretend it didn’t exist. We confronted it directly, and in an unmitigated fashion. I contrast this with our friends on the Left who routinely enter discussions with equally distasteful thoughts, but who are never taken to task for it by anyone else on the Left. Occasional expressions of disdain for uncivilized behavior, or laments that these people could have chosen their words better, are weasel words, not condemnations.
There are other areas of disagreement where the subject matter is more legitimate (such as, was Bush right or wrong about the War in Iraq, immigration policies, politics and religion, etc.). Where such disagreements exist on the Right, this disagreement provides the foundation for an intelligent debate (how do you know X?; what are the constitutional underpinnings/implications of Y?, etc.). This kind of discussion furthers a search for the truth of a matter, and is a welcome thing. I contrast this with the somewhat typical approach of the Left that we’ve all seen to often, summarized quite nicely in your “7 points”.
Maybe the best example of the difference between the Right and Left is the way Mountain Man responded to your observations in comment 15, vs. the dodging, weaving, re-definition and misdirection we’ve come to expect from those identified with the Left.
Rarely (if ever) are my articles designed to state a proposition, declare the debate over, and walk away. More often than not they’re a way to formulate a position I think is defensible, and then attempt to defend it against legitimate criticism. But as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, while I can have a great discussion with someone about the meaning of the constitution, the wisdom and consequences of a particular policy prescription, and/or the true nature of human morality, I can’t have a real debate with someone who slanders by innuendo, makes up their own definitional terms and refuses to defend them in the face of competing criticism, or keeps changing the nature of the discussion every time one of their points is attacked. Or, as I’ve pointed out in the past, debate someone who has supposedly “read” my article and wants to respond to it, only to find out that they read only select parts of it, and then filled in the rest with their own theories about the matter while attributing all these thoughts to my position.
You can’t have a legal opinion if you’re not a legally trained person. I apologize.
ruminator: You can have any opinion you want about any subject. That’s what an opinion is; a personal conclusion. You just can’t offer a legal judgment unless you have legal training, or can cite someone who does (and knows the facts of the case in dispute, as well as the relevant law of the city or state where the incident occurred).
[Actually a person “can” do any/all of the above. This is a Constitutional Republic, and they don’t need my permission to offer any comment they want. It’s just when they do, I and others will tend to point out the superficiality and silliness of thinking this way].
Regarding offering an analysis (vs. a layman’s legal opinion). If you have personal experience and/or training in an issue, then your conclusion carries more intrinsic weight than someone who’s just popping off with an opinion. Since analyses by definition are not concrete conclusions or legal judgments, they invite discussion and debate. The issue then is how well a person offering or attacking an analytical position can support their case.
All I object to is people who think that feelings are analysis, who believe that strongly held feelings carry equal weight with someone who actually has a background or experience with that issue, who think that citing what other people do in other situations somehow has intrinsic relevance when discussing a specific event, and so on, and so on.
I don’t so much think that strong feelings substitute for analysis as that I may be prone to speculation without going through all of the steps. Good work Dr.
Anyone notice the intellectual dishonesty here? The Crowley/Gates situation was a classic “he said/he said” situation, where two people give different accounts of the same event. At least one of them must be wrong. The article I commented on assumed Crowley was telling the truth and Gates was lying, based solely and exclusively on the fact that Crowley’s a police officer. I pointed out that police officers can and do lie and make mistakes. (And gee, as I’ve pointed out a couple times already, it turns out that Crowley actually does appear to have misrepresented elements of the situation in his report. Perhaps deliberately, but quite possibly not.)
Now, Dr. Jackson’s ignoring the whole ‘contesting accounts’ aspect of it. Here’s how he characterized it:
If Gates (and Lucia Whalen) weren’t disputing that report, then it would certainly be out of line to question its validity based on examples of other false police reports. But they are disputing it, and when there’s a dispute, you can’t just shut that down by assuming that police never lie. That’s intellectually dishonest. (As I said when Dr. Jackson first started misrepresenting things, “sadly, police testimony can’t be automatically trusted, especially when the situation gets politicized.”)
Note that he even mischaracterized my reply – I didn’t “state there was no intention to say that Officer Crowley filed a false police report, only to show that false police reports have been filed (by other officers in other cities)”. I was stating that we shouldn’t just assume that Crowley’s report was the unvarnished truth because he’s a police officer, since that’s not a guarantee of truth. (And, at the risk of harping on things, it turns out that Crowley’s report does contain inaccuracies at the very least.)
He then takes his false portrait of what I said and tries to parody it with a “Raymond-approved retort you can use to cast doubt on any scientific claim”. Of course you can’t legitimately question a particular scientific study by pointing out that scientists make mistakes. But let’s take a more analogous situation – a case where two teams of scientists, working from the same data, reach very different conclusions.
You know – when there’s actually a dispute.
You can’t just shut that dispute down by saying that “The WMAP team has some of the best data analysts in the world, with a large group and a formal process for error checking, consistency and verification of results.”
If you tried, someone could then legitimately point to cases where many prominent scientists all made basic errors. (BTW, the guy at the article I linked isn’t guilty of that shutting down – he’s taking the possibility that the WMAP team made a mistake seriously.) That’s the sort of thing I was actually doing. But that doesn’t fit the story Dr. Jackson has in his head, so he leaves out key elements of the actual situation and misparaphrases what I actually wrote.
(Note, also, Dr. Jackson’s own sweeping generalizations. Even if I had done what he’s claimed, how exactly would that support the idea that “It is impossible to have an honest debate with the Left”? Unless his “Left” consists of just me… and sometimes I wonder.)
Hey, milbrat – I think you’d enjoy reading this study: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2003-09138-003
“Four studies demonstrated both the power of group influence in persuasion and people’s blindness to it. Even under conditions of effortful processing, attitudes toward a social policy depended almost exclusively upon the stated position of one’s political party. This effect overwhelmed the impact of both the policy’s objective content and participants’ ideological beliefs (Studies 1-3), and it was driven by a shift in the assumed factual qualities of the policy and in its perceived moral connotations (Study 4). Nevertheless, participants denied having been influenced by their political group, although they believed that other individuals, especially their ideological adversaries, would be so influenced. The underappreciated role of social identity in persuasion is discussed.”
As this article put it, “In an illustrative recent study, subjects were asked their opinion about a social welfare policy, which was described as being endorsed either by Democrats or by Republicans. Although the subjects sincerely believed that their responses were based on the objective merits of the policy, the major determinant of what they thought of the policy was in fact whether or not their favored political party was said to endorse it.”
Mountain Man,
I’m certainly not ‘complaining’ that certain kinds of people have ‘conviction of principle’. I myself may be described as such a person. I hold some core beliefs, such as the respect for all life, from conception to natural death, as inviolate. However; holding this belief doesn’t mean that I damn all persons to hell and refuse to debate persons that hold opposing beliefs. Granted; they will not sway my opinion, but I still recognize that it IS only my opinion; and that others are free to express theirs.
Unswerving dedication to principle is not in of itself dangerous. It is the refusal to even consider debate over such an issue that I believe is both foolish and dangerous. The extreme segment of each political party that simply refuses to even acknowledge the ‘opposing’ opinion’s right to expression is the issue. For example;
Why is it that some liberal/progressives believe they can sit down and talk with the Iranians, the Taliban, the North Koreans, and the Palestinians: Yet they routinely refuse to converse with conservatives on ANY issue; claiming “republicans cannot be reasoned with!” Are we really supposed to believe that liberals have more in common with Mid-Eastern Muslims than they do with Mid-Western residents of the United States? Somehow; they believe they have the capacity to converse with the most radicalized people on the planet, but simply cannot even begin to speak with fellow Americans that live across the street.
This is, in my opinion shameful. In a free society we should always be open to reasoned debate, this is how we progress. I can debate my philosophy regarding ‘respect-for-life’ without shouting, condemning the other side, or throwing up my hands and declaring the opponent a knuckle-dragging, mouth breathing, troglodyte.
As you yourself stated, conviction of principle does not equate to lock-step behavior. A persons’ belief “That there is a general lack of truth, critical thought, or open-mindedness on the other side of the issue…” does not make one an extremist. It makes a person the participant in one side of the debate. What makes one an extremist is the absolute refusal to even engage in debate by declaring an issue to be completely settled regardless of fact.
Then there are those who engage in the points I eneumerated in postings #’s 1 & 8. This is the ‘disengunious’ debater. This is the ‘ends-justifies-the-means’ debater. The person that ‘pretends’ to debate while his/her real ambition is make such a confusion of things that the opposing side finally throws up its hands and says “I give up! We’ve wandered so far afield of the original premise that further debate is useless.” They then declare themselves the winner saying “I won ’cause you blinked first! Neener, neener, neener!” While such may make them feel superior, it seldom moves the subject forward, and utlimately accomplishes nothing. Listening Mr. Ingles?
>Anyone notice the intellectual dishonesty here? The Crowley/Gates situation was a classic “he said/he said” situation, where two people give different accounts of the same event. At least one of them must be wrong.
** Yes, that’s why Raymond linked to examples of political activists/academics making false charges as well as the police in Boston and Philadelphia lying. Oh wait. He only linked to select police in other cities lying, even though two sides were in this dispute. Hmmm.
>The article I commented on assumed Crowley was telling the truth and Gates was lying, based solely and exclusively on the fact that Crowley’s a police officer. I pointed out that police officers can and do lie and make mistakes.
*** This is why honest debate is impossible with a Liberal. Once again I remind everyone that Raymond’s entire “comment” consisted of two links (strung together as he noted by the phrase “And, of course, police never ever file false incident reports” — which I again note implicitly challenges Crowley’s credibility not Gates, even though Raymond now wants to say that doing this was to point out that “The Crowley/Gates situation was a classic ‘he said/he said’ situation, where two people give different accounts of the same event. At least one of them must be wrong.” If one of them must be wrong, why are the links devoted exclusively to the police?
>(And gee, as I’ve pointed out a couple times already, it turns out that Crowley actually does appear to have misrepresented elements of the situation in his report. Perhaps deliberately, but quite possibly not.)
*** Once again, all the additional “context” Raymond keeps referring to came after he gave us two links questioning police actions in other cities with no additional analysis, and after I pointed out how silly these initial comments were. The fact that Raymond chose later to actually define what he said he meant, and provide additional reasoning to support that version of his claim, is not the subject of the dispute. It’s the simple fact that it’s a dishonest, deceptive practice to simply cite the actions of other people in other circumstances to smear the actions of a specific person in a specific circumstance.
>I didn’t “state there was no intention to say that Officer Crowley filed a false police report, only to show that false police reports have been filed (by other officers in other cities)”. I was stating that we shouldn’t just assume that Crowley’s report was the unvarnished truth because he’s a police officer, since that’s not a guarantee of truth.
*** Actually, no. You didn’t “state” anything. You gave two links to unrelated actions by other police. All your backtracking, clarifying, additional explanations etc. came after I pointed out how dishonest it is to do this. That’s when you supplied all the additional verbiage to tell us what really meant and what was supposedly intrinsically understood by linking to unrelated events by other officers in other cities.
> Of course you can’t legitimately question a particular scientific study by pointing out that scientists make mistakes.
*** Of course not. That kind of smear is reserved exclusively for challenging the actions of one police officer in one city, by citing references to other police officers in other cities.
>If you tried, someone could then legitimately point to cases where many prominent scientists all made basic errors.
*** Interesting how scientific fraud is reduced to making “errors”, not deliberate deception. The first link I provided in my Raymond-approved template linked to deliberate deception http://www.seattlepi.com/business/88624_bell261.shtml. Scientists, as we all know, have no agenda other than a dispassionate search for the truth, while the police of course are always suspected of lying (or in Raymond’s language, we should never arbitrarily dismiss that possibility when talking about the arrest of an academic — who, incidentally, merited no links pointing out how other academics [or citizens in general] lie about what they do).
>Even if I had done what he’s claimed, how exactly would that support the idea that “It is impossible to have an honest debate with the Left”? Unless his “Left” consists of just me… and sometimes I wonder.)
*** You are indeed a prime example Raymond, and since you outed yourself in this comment section, I’m more than happy to give credit where credit is due. The comment sections of IC are filled with others on the Left who have adopted equally dishonest ways of debate, and if they choose to join the discussion here, I’ll be glad to comment again on what they say (and how they say it) too.
Raymond;
Thanks for the link…interesting reading
Ruminator — Re #19: my comments about opinions and analysis were not directed to your comments here, just general observations. I find what you say provocative (in a good way) for the most part, even though I don’t necessarily agree with a lot of your conclusions. You at least appear to come to them sincerely and legitimately, and where we disagree, I’m happy to debate the issue.
I’d rather have an intelligent discussion with someone I disagree with who at least seems to approach debate honestly, than spend my time endlessly pointing out the obvious things a person said (or didn’t say) that he now attempts to forget, omit, re-define, or just plain lie about so as to confuse the discussion rather than advance it.
Milbrat: Regarding this link, it’s pretty common stuff (and has been for decades) in political science http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2003-09138-003 Though things are a bit more complicated than the abstract suggests.
This is one of the reasons why I rail against simply citing links as if that fact has intrinsic meaning. It has to be placed in a broader context and understanding of real life. If the person offering the link has no real understanding of the issue, the link is meaningless as an instructive tool — or as a way to comment on a particular issue at hand.
Party ID is not necessarily the fundamental indicator here. Political philosophy is. In the US, there’s a tendency for the parties to broadly coalesce along ideological lines, but unlike European parliamentary systems, there’s a lot of divergence. Southern Democrats have little in common philosophically with San Francisco Democrats, for example; Rockefeller Republicans with Fundamentalist Christians, etc.
The problem with psychological studies of political actions is that they ignore the fact that politics is about power, personal ambition (or the lack thereof), as well as ideology. I guarantee you that southern Democrats do not share Nancy Pelosi’s political outlook or philosophy, even though they may support her nomination as Speaker and support certain legislation she proposes. If they are seen as opposing her they can lose key committee assignments, have their bills tabled, be denied congressional campaign funds or even find themselves with a primary opponent.
The proper calculation therefore is core philosophy (which can be a life-long process of acquiring, reinforcing, or even questioning and changing), influenced by the formal structure of power (i.e. who has power over you), peer pressure in among your cohorts (think the way the Press operates), and personal ambition (a willingness to buck the system/friends and risk being ostracized for your beliefs).
Taken together, you have a more complete picture of why people do/don’t act certain ways than the abstract suggests.
I actually wrote about this a few years back in http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/07/31/an-even-more-inconvenient-truth-the-myth-of-man-made-global-warming/ This is a better way to describe how people actually form and act on their beliefs.
I had a conversation with an acquaintance of mine not too long ago about the legacy of Pope John Paul II. This man was not Catholic, but he admired the pope (as did I) for the positive role he played in human affairs. Religion aside, he said that John Paul II was a great man who was universally admired, and as evidence he cited the fact that “at his funeral, most people in St. Peter’s Square weren’t even Catholic. They simply came to pay their respects to a truly great man.”
I could see that his sentiments were genuine, and I wasn’t trying to pick a fight about an inconsequential matter, but I was very intrigued about his statement regarding the crowds in St. Peter’s Square. So I asked him, “How do you know that?”
“What?” came the puzzled reply.
“How do you know that most people in St. Peter’s Square weren’t Catholic?”
He thought for a moment, then said, “Well, that’s what the commentator on TV said.”
So I asked, “How did he know that?”
My friend was a little taken aback. He’s an intelligent, highly educated . He isn’t given to making wild pronouncements about politics or culture, and may even be a Democrat for all I know, though he seemed a little too sincere and consistent in his beliefs to tar him with that accusation. No, by all accounts he’s the kind of guy you’d take at his word and not think any more about it, so it caught him off guard when I continued to challenge the credibility of his information.
He thought for a moment longer and replied, “I suppose he, or someone on his staff, spoke to some of the people in the square.”
“How many people?” I persisted. “There were over 100,000 people in St. Peter’s Square, not to mention the crowd spilling out into the adjoining streets. Do you think he interviewed 10, 20, 200, a thousand? Was it a scientific study with random samples, or just the people along the edge he could get closest to?”
My friend thought again, this time long and hard, and finally said “I don’t know. I doubt if it was more than a handful of people, and I don’t think it was a scientific study.”
“So why did you believe him?”
His answer, in essence, consisted of two parts. The TV commentator was a respected figure. There was no reason to believe that he didn’t have a solid foundation upon which to base his conclusions — whatever they might be. And, the notion of John Paul II as a universal figure rather than simply a Catholic religious leader was perfectly consistent with his own preconception of the pope. Therefore the statement made sense. It seemed reasonable, at least on the surface, and it came from an authoritative source, so there was no reason to doubt it.
The truth is, there was no way short of a scientific study based on a randomly selected, statistically-valid sample of the crowd that this statement could be proven. It may have been true, or it may not have been. There was simply no way of knowing.
But there were no disclaimers accompanying the commentator’s statement to indicate that it was merely an opinion. In the words of the famous Greek philosopher Anonymous, opinions are like the exit point of the human body’s alimentary canal; everyone has one.
Instead of a learned judgment based on all the relevant pieces of information, it should be characterized for what it really was: complete conjecture disguised as fact.
It’s my belief that honest people with good intentions fall into this same intellectual trap when buying-into the hyperbole of the Left on man’s supposed responsibility for global warming. Unlike the alarmists who advocate this theory — and who, I contend, deliberately manipulate or misinterpret data to promote their positions — these people have a sincere desire to protect the environment. They are willing to change any personal “destructive” behavior that is said to harm the environment, and will support policies that will supposedly repair this damage. They don’t question the underlying assumptions that the activists use to draw their conclusions, and they accept at face value the often draconian solutions these activists maintain are the minimum requirement for sound environmental policy.
Why is this? Why would otherwise rational, intelligent people accept the notion that a car’s exhaust is heating the Earth to a dangerous level, but never once ask how this conclusion was derived, whether there are other factors that better account for this phenomenon, or whether the Earth is really warming at a rapid rate — or getting hotter at all?
The answer, I believe, can be traced to our shared value system, which provides a common frame of reference to address these and other issues. It is the shorthand, connect-the-dot reasoning we all engage in to navigate through daily life. Critical thought is only needed when the matter at hand is something unique, and we’ve been talking about – and worrying about — global climate change for at least 40 years.
These values and reference points are not bestowed upon us at birth, like Moses receiving the Holy Tablets. Rather, they are taught to, absorbed by, and reinforced within each individual through a life-long process that begins with our earliest years and extends throughout the remainder of our life. For example, we’re all taught from an early age that the environment is fragile. As children we write school papers on this subject and participate in community projects to “save the environment.” When we get older, we get our news from journalism school graduates who show us pictures of melting ice caps or drought-stricken farmland and talk about the importance of driving hybrid cars, practicing resource conservation, and signing the Kyoto Treaty.
As adults we happily segment our garbage to cut-down on environmental pollution, and set our thermometers at uncomfortably high or low levels to “save energy” — thereby reducing the nasty, dirty fossil fuel emissions needed to produce our electricity. The world, and our role in it, is put clearly in focus, as are the notions of “good” or “bad” behavior regarding our treatment of the environment.
This common frame of reference allows us, as a group, to make certain judgments that are universally accepted. Windmills are good. Solar energy is better. Conservation is best. The internal combustion engine, to quote Al Gore, is an example of man seeking to “artificially enhance our capacity to acquire what we need from the earth . . . at the direct expense of the earth’s ability to provide naturally what we are seeking.” By manufacturing “millions of internal combustion engines [that] automate the conversion of oxygen to CO2, we interfere with the earth’s ability to cleanse itself of the impurities that are normally removed from the atmosphere.”
No one laughs at the main theme of this passage which presumes to know intrinsically — just like the idiot savant — what man “needs” from the Earth, and what is an “artificial enhance[ment of his] capability” to acquire natural resources “at the direct expense of the earth’s ability to provide naturally what we are seeking.” No further justification is required to support these value-laden judgments, because they’re not seen as expressing anything controversial. They’re just obvious statements about obvious matters that are plainly obvious to any thoughtful, thinking individual.
From this basis it’s a logical conclusion that cars are “interfering” with the natural state of affairs of Mother Earth, which leads to an equally obvious policy objective to deal with this cancer. As for the finite-supply of fossil fuels that are mined, drilled, and otherwise gouged from the Earth to feed these poison-producing internal combustion engines, they serve only one purpose: to make Dick Cheney richer, and help George Bush justify an illegal, immoral war against Saddam Hussein whom we’re all glad is out of power, even though Bush lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction and ought to be impeached.
Because our schools, celebrities, TV anchorpersons and other opinion leaders accept these observations as fact, who are we to disagree? Since 1975 (my earliest memory on this subject) I’ve been told repeatedly that the world is running out of oil. There’s only so much dead-dinosaur juice in the ground, and it will all be gone in 20 years or less. Thirty years later, the same 20 year prediction is still being made. If we don’t switch to hybrid cars, solar powered electricity, or wind-driven generators, we’ll use up all the world’s oil by 2030, or 2040, or 2050, or [pick a date] sometime in the near future.
And when all the oil is gone, and coal is too dirty to burn, and nuclear power is too unsafe to produce, where will we be? Ergo, we need to start changing our lifestyles NOW!
At no point in this conventional-wisdom analysis does anyone stop and say, “but wouldn’t there be plenty of oil if we’re willing to pay $100 a barrel to recover it?” …
Wow. This is genuinely breathtaking. Dr. Jackson writes:
and
And he writes this even though he quotes me directly, where I explicitly noted that “The article I commented on assumed Crowley was telling the truth and Gates was lying, based solely and exclusively on the fact that Crowley’s a police officer.” I didn’t have to impugn Gates’ honesty or call it into question, the article itself already did that.
And again he doesn’t accurately report what I did say, short as it was. He claims You didn’t “state” anything. You gave two links to unrelated actions by other police. But all you have to do is see the actual comment (which I linked to back in comment #2 in this very thread, and quoted in full in comment #10) to understand what I was stating. At least, if you don’t actively want to misunderstand. (Heck, as I’ve noted before, he can’t even be arsed to count the correct number of links – there were actually seven. But ‘attention to detail’ doesn’t seem to be a tool that Dr. Jackson wants to use here. He might come to a conclusion he doesn’t want to reach.) Once again, Dr. Jackson argues against what he wishes I wrote rather than what I actually wrote.
The only error I will cop to is not remembering that context and sarcasm can and will be deliberately ignored or misinterpreted on IC, if there’s any opportunity for it. I should have waited until I had time to write a full essay – but I figured that surely my point was obvious, no?
Off to do productive work, now. Have fun, y’all!
It’s a little sad, really, that a man thinks that it’s legitimate to comment on the substance of a specific case [“The Crowley/Gates situation was a classic ‘he said/he said’ situation, where two people give different accounts of the same event. At least one of them must be wrong” by linking to the unrelated actions of other officers in other circumstances.] by pointing to the unrelated actions of other individuals.
And further, insisting that tying these links together with the phrase “And, of course, police never ever file false incident reports,”, is all the “context” we need to understand that what he really meant was “by linking to many other cases of police filing false reports in the past, I wasn’t claiming that meant that this report is automatically false. I was pointing out that it’s hardly unthinkable that it could be.” http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/07/23/is-henry-louis-gates-jr-above-the-law/#comments Comment 18
So, the purpose of the link was to show the theoretical possibility that Crowley’s report may not have been completely accurate, while specifically not commenting on Crowley himself, the actual details of the case in question, or anything in Crowley’s past that might justify or question such a conclusion. Note: commenting later , after the silliness of this approach has been highlighted, doesn’t negate the fact that the original comments were exactly as described.
What brilliant, insightful, analytical musings: Crowley may or may not have been accurate in what he said because other police officers in other circumstances occasionally have not been one hundred percent truthful.
With Raymond, there is never an opportunity to actually debate the merits of an issue. Instead, all the time is spent quoting him back his own words, which he wants to retroactively re-write or re-define to mean something else (or in addition to) what he actually said, so as to further obfuscate the simple point.
As I stated in my essay: Smearing the actions of Person A by pointing to the practices of an unrelated individual in the same field is a tried-and-true strategy meant to distort a situation, rather than inform a discussion. If someone had contended that police officers never lie, then it’s a valid point to be raised. But in the absence of this claim, or in the absence of additional evidence that shows that the preponderance of all police officers are prone to lying, then it’s a straw man meant to misdirect the discussion, not advance it. This tactic is no more acceptable than pointing to Jason Blair every time one reads a news account they disagree with, or linking to an instance of scientific fraud every time someone offers a scientific claim.
It’s all just another typical excursion into Raymondland.
Kind of a lengthy way of asking how you can argue facts with someone to whom facts mean nothing because he has a movement.
P. S. Anyone ever try debating a Muslim?
>how you can argue facts with someone to whom facts mean nothing because he has a movement?
*** Bowel, or political? In certain cases, there is no distinction.
PS: In keeping with the new way to argue one’s point, here is a related but unrelated link. ofhttp://www.metro.co.uk/weird/article.html?in_article_id=4878&in_page_id=2
Wait, the original article did exactly what you’re accusing me of to Gates – assuming he was lying with no justification given – but you didn’t pounce
on that?
Note that that’s not ‘assuming he’s lying’. It’s pointing out that he could be lying, or even just ‘not… one hundred percent truthful’. Considering that, again, the article made that unwarranted assumption – based soley on Crowley’s report – pointing out that police reports aren’t infallible is entirely in line.
Even if what I wrote had been open to the interpretation you want to give it (and, really, I think you’re stretching way past what’s reasonable), it was open to other interpretations – such as the one I’ve provided. The way to handle it was to ask, and get clarification. You know, like ruminator did with you above in this very thread.
But no, you assume malice aforethought. That’s how the discussions with you seem to go. If I say something, I must actually have meant something else. When I say no, that’s not what I wrote, you say that I’m “mak[ing] up [my] own definitional terms” or whatever. (Unlike when you confuse “precise” and “accurate”, or dodge direct questions.)
I think we could have a fascinating discussion if you ever decided to address what I actually write instead of arguing with the fantasy version of me you appear to have in your head. But it doesn’t look like that’s to be.
I’m tempted to answer Raymond with a link that shows people who hold similar beliefs to him could be lying — of course not suggesting that Raymond is lying, only that it’s theoretically possible to interpret his dissembling as lying , even though I’m not actually assuming that he’s dissembling, only pointing out that others have dissembled about similar things — but irony is lost on the ironic.
Phil
Coming late to this thread. Seems everything’s been said. So I’ll repeat that it’s, as usual, a great thread
Nevertheless, I’d like to pick up on sedonaman’s #29 & 30, maybe because I can’t resist making some comment!
Obama reflexively attacked the Cambridge cops without having any facts because he knew that his peeps would “understand” immediately since they would, also reflexively, supply the “details” from their playbook, which says that in Black perp vs. White cop situations, the cop will always act from racial motives rather than according to proper police protocols. For them it’s always The Scottsboro Boys or 1967, “In The Heat Of The Night”.
This occurs in other arguments where one [moi] says that the Dems’ Health Care whatever is bad & then goes into some detail, esp. regarding rationing, in order to actually, you know make an argument beyond bumper stickers & someone replies, thinking he is playing his trump card, “Oh yeah, well the Republicans hate the poor & will take away all our health gains so far, so my money’s with the Dems every time.” For them it’s always the 1930s & The Grapes of Wrath.
(In this specific case re my mentioning rationing, some will say, apparently having been alerted by the DNC talking points that I’m “harming Health Care Reform by such a wild exaggeration”, citing that site that debunks Urban Legends, which has apparently noted (I didn’t check after our conversation) that the Bill – which changes hourly, but nevermind – contains no provision stating that “rationing will be imposed”. If true, this, um, dishonesty is an example of why the lawyerly phrase “the whole truth” is not just another example of a lawyerly pleonasm & why the SEC rule prohibits not only the obvious, that is, “false & misleading statements” but “statements, which while true are misleading in context”. But I digress.)
And sedonaman thinks Muslims argue with a deep religious fervor!
But, depending on the audience, the reflexive speaker, either as here the racially-divisive Obama or in my example the self-anointed compassionate Dem will both resonate with the audience their trying to reach. Just depends on how large that audience is.
Obama got burned (or I think he did) because a majority of the country, even tho they knew that there is an unwritten “Contempt of Cop” rule which some cops abuse, kinda, sorta, pieced through this event, albeit without having all those pesky facts either, & decided that Prof Gates was acting more elitist than Black victim, especially with a Black cop present.
But the MSM has pretty much declared that The One has brought us together & so maybe he has trumped.
God help us.
FI
PS: The “Contempt of Cop” (unwritten) rule is that citizens in an occurrence who sneer at an investigating cop & give him ACLU “Arrest For Dummies” slogans, do so at their peril, however much they believe that cops are Nazis without the jackboots & however officious the cop may be. Yes, the resisting arrest & disorderly conduct charges will probably will be dropped later, & maybe your suit against the authorities may be successful, but is that what you want?
OOPS make that
“audience they’re trying to reach”
Mr. Ingles,
I can’t make heads or tails out of your conversations with Dr. Jackson.
It’s okay, ruminator. I don’t recognize my own words once Dr. Jackson’s goes and tells me what I really think despite what I actually write. (Compare what I say there to this, especially the section on “Proof of God”.)
Mr. Ingles,
After you have completed your dance, remaking what you originally posted, there is no one who can recognize your words.
Interesting isn’t it how I cited the sum total of Raymond’s two original comments (which consisted entirely of two links with the bridge phrase “And, of course, police never ever file false incident reports”), and even having cited the totality of his comments exactly as Raymond wrote them, the only defense he has for criticisms of his silly position is that “I don’t recognize my own words”.
There weren’t any “other words” until after I criticized the intellectual vacuity of Raymond’s initial approach, at which point retroactively he attempted to inject meaning and context into his two links of what other police officers did in other situations in other cities (while still ignoring officer Crowley’s actual history).
Once again I refer you to what I wrote above: “Smearing the actions of Person A by pointing to the practices of an unrelated individual in the same field is a tried-and-true strategy meant to distort a situation, rather than inform a discussion. If someone had contended that police officers never lie, then it’s a valid point to be raised. But in the absence of this claim, or in the absence of additional evidence that shows that the preponderance of all police officers are prone to lying, then it’s a straw man meant to misdirect the discussion, not advance it. This tactic is no more acceptable than pointing to Jason Blair every time one reads a news account they disagree with, or linking to an instance of scientific fraud every time someone offers a scientific claim.”
I amend my previous statement that “It is impossible to have an honest conversation with the Left”, since there are some people on the other side who have actually attempted to engage in a real discussion, and I shouldn’t tar them with an over-broad generalization. So, given Raymond’s latest-in-a series of convoluted, dissembling comments, I’ll amend this to say “It is impossible to have an honest conversation with Raymond. “
Just a couple quick notes:
(1) Dr. Jackson still can’t count past two. (Seriously, Dr. Jackson – go back to the original comment and click on each word. See how many different pages come up.)
Now, since you apparently can’t even understand plain English when I tell you that you’ve miscounted, and where, and how, why should anyone trust your evaluation of any of my other points?
(2) I’m the one who actually paid attention to Crowley’s behavior, and posted followup that showed that, astonishingly, his police report did in fact contain misstatements (at best).
(3) Dr. Jackson still hasn’t acknowledged that the original article I commented on was actually guilty of what he accuses me of. But that was by a fellow ‘conservative’, so it’s not a teachable moment. Or perhaps it teaches the wrong lesson.
Though I’ll have to agree, it’s apparently no longer possible for you to have an honest conversation with me. It’s a shame, I really enjoyed our first exchange.
This is the sum total of Raymond’s original comments before I offered mine — with the bridge phrase “And, of course, police never ever file false incident reports”:
“[Regarding the statement that] ‘Sgt. James Crowley said quite another in his incident report …’ [here are two links]: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/03/why_the_police_must_be_videota.php http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20090720_Store_video_catches_cop_bullying_woman.html?viewAll=y “
Now, having offered my comments, Raymond wants to retroactively tell us what he really implied by giving us these two links and a bridge comment, so as to respond to what I actually said about the subject.
It’s an interesting approach. Say nothing of substance, and when challenged, offer the substance we all should have intrinsically understood from the non-substantive comments.
The article I wrote above, where I referenced this strategy of smearing people by pointing to the unrelated actions of other people in other incidents, was a direct reference to Raymond’s two initial comments, which remained just the two links until I pointed out the silliness of this approach, at which point he retroactively filled in the “context” of what he really meant (honest!) by giving just two links to the unrelated actions of other individuals in other circumstances.
I can re-post this inconvenient fact as many times as necessary. The debate isn’t about what Raymond said after I called him on this despicable practice, it’s about the despicable practice itself — namely:
“Smearing the actions of Person A by pointing to the practices of an unrelated individual in the same field is a tried-and-true strategy meant to distort a situation, rather than inform a discussion. If someone had contended that police officers never lie, then it’s a valid point to be raised. But in the absence of this claim, or in the absence of additional evidence that shows that the preponderance of all police officers are prone to lying, then it’s a straw man meant to misdirect the discussion, not advance it. This tactic is no more acceptable than pointing to Jason Blair every time one reads a news account they disagree with, or linking to an instance of scientific fraud every time someone offers a scientific claim.”
I rest my case.
Again.
Prof Jackson,
well said, and well done. Your present discussion with Mr Ingles reminds me Leviticus 13,2-3:
2 When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, or a scab, or a bright spot, and it become in the skin of his flesh the plague of leprosy, then he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests.
3 And the priest shall look upon the plague in the skin of the flesh; and if the hair in the plague be turned white, and the appearance of the plague be deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is the plague of leprosy; and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean.
Prof Jackson thanks again for exposing the leprosy of some debaters with such clarity and simplicity. I hope Mr Ingles can yet be healed.
Besserman:
I learned a great lesson several years ago when I went through a deposition on behalf of a company I worked for. We were owed a half a million dollars that the other company didn’t want to pay us, despite a contract that clearly obligated them. They contended that we hadn’t done our job properly, abrogating their responsibility to pay.
The problem for the other guys was, they wrote a memo to me saying I had done a “great job” on the account. When my attorney asked the author of this email about it, he pounded the table, shouted, refused to answer, brought up other irrelevant information, and tried to direct the conversation to another issue. My attorney patiently waited for him to finish his dissembling, then asked the same question again.
This went on for several rounds. Every time the other guy tried to dodge and weave, instead of simply acknowledge a simple, obvious truth, my attorney returned the discussion to the original issue.
In this instance, if someone genuinely believes that someone may not be telling the truth about a matter, then you look at what the specific person actually did or said they did in that particular circumstance (taking into account their specific background/propensity for lying or acting truthfully), and you challenge or question those actions. You don’t question the credibility of Person A by pointing to the unrelated actions of other individuals in other circumstances. That’s a dishonest way to debate.
Addressing these substantive matters in later comments after you’ve been called on this despicable practice doesn’t negate what you’ve originally done. Saying “my original two comments on this matter were not a fair, honest way to debate the matter” is an honest admission of error, at which point if there’s still interest, the additional arguments that person went on to raise about Person A’s untruthfulness can be discussed.
None of this is even arguable, which makes one wonder why such a straightforward, obvious point continues to be ‘debated’.
Like Dennis Praeger often says, I’m not after agreement in a debate. I’m after clarity. But clarity is impossible when one side dissembles, ignores the silly comments they themselves made when these silly comments are pointed out instead of admitting the point, refuses to acknowledge they made an error when the error is obvious, and so on, and so on.
By the way, we won our half million.
Suppose someone had said “I believe, based on these newspaper article reports that there is a fairly pervasive habit of lying by policemen in their written reports. Though I wouldn’t say it happens a majority of the time, the exgtent of it causes me to favor the Professor’s version of events, in the absence of any obviously implausible statement by either man.”
This would then be attacked as an unsupportable bias, or perhaps as a bias that is the result of another bias (antiAmericanism), or just stupidity. But not as intellectual dishonesty.
The debate would then have ensued such as:
Mr. “Right”: Your newspaper articles do not prove police are dishonest; they prove that human beings are fallible. This applies equally to the professor.
Mr. “Left”: Then where are the articles about college professors telling their students things that they know are not true, in order to aggrandize themselves?
And so on.
>Suppose someone had said “I believe, based on these newspaper article reports that there is a fairly pervasive habit of lying by policemen in their written reports. Though I wouldn’t say it happens a majority of the time, …
*** So far, we have an example of two personal opinions [one based on a subset of newspapers a person reads, and the second pure conjecture about how frequently this supposed action occurs.] Nothing wrong with this per se, as long as it’s recognized as a generalized opinion based on admittedly incomplete information, and from this basis a statement of pure conjecture is made (vs. someone citing an actual statistical study or other quantifiable research and analysis).
Once again, I have nothing against opinions. But opinions aren’t analysis, and one opinion is as valid as another opinion (that, after all, is what an opinion is all about), so citing opinions adds nothing to a debate.
>… the extent of it causes me to favor the Professor’s version of events …
*** There is no logical follow through here, other than to again express a personal opinion. Since this website is supposedly about more than simple opinions, it ads nothing to the conversation.
From the newspapers I’ve read, it seems to me that Liberals have no morals. I wouldn’t say this is true of every liberal, but based on the newspapers I’ve read, I’m now prepared to say that a specific person [President Obama] is immoral.
No one would accept such a silly equation. Why then should we accept any opinion-generated ‘conclusions’ about the actions of officer Crowley, Professor Gates, etc.? You can’t generate an analysis or dispassionate conclusion about the events of a particular case by citing opinions about (or even ‘evidence’ of) other cases involving other people.
You can’t use generalized information to comment on the veracity of a specific case.
>in the absence of any obviously implausible statement by either man.”
*** “Obviously” needs to be defined in detail, not assumed. There’s nothing inherently “obvious” about your “obvious” conclusion.
Again to an earlier point I made, if your purpose in commenting is to discuss the specific details of a specific incident, you should have a full set of details available before commenting (or as full a set as possible, which requires one to do more than simply read certain newspaper accounts). And if you are then going to uses these facts to comment on the “implausibility” of a statement by a particular individual (“either man”), then it makes absolutely no difference what other people did or didn’t do in other circumstances.
>This would then be attacked as an unsupportable bias, or perhaps as a bias that is the result of another bias (antiAmericanism), or just stupidity. But not as intellectual dishonesty.
*** No, it’s raw intellectual dishonesty. You’ve just said it’s ok to comment on the veracity of a specific individual in a specific case by citing newspaper accounts of what “other policemen” have done in other circumstances. That’s intellectual dishonesty.
If you don’t think that approach is intellectually dishonest, would you like me to comment on your motives and intentions in offering this opinion by citing what other commentators have done/said in other circumstances?
> The debate would then have ensued such as: Mr. “Right”: Your newspaper articles do not prove police are dishonest; they prove that human beings are fallible. This applies equally to the professor.
> Absolutely not! The newspaper articles don’t “prove” anything about police in general, and they certainly don’t “prove” anything about Officer Crowley by citing the actions of other police in other circumstances.
>Mr. “Left”: Then where are the articles about college professors telling their students things that they know are not true, in order to aggrandize themselves? And so on.
*** This is an equally absurd line of reasoning. If the issue is whether Crowley lied, deceived, omitted, misrepresented, etc., it doesn’t matter at all what other people in other circumstances have done.
If the issue is about not smearing people with guilt by association, then it’s a valid point to say not only is a smear against Crowley wrong, but a smear against the other side is wrong too. Which is why I wrote:
“Smearing the actions of Person A by pointing to the practices of an unrelated individual in the same field is a tried-and-true strategy meant to distort a situation, rather than inform a discussion. If someone had contended that police officers never lie, then it’s a valid point to be raised. But in the absence of this claim, or in the absence of additional evidence that shows that the preponderance of all police officers are prone to lying, then it’s a straw man meant to misdirect the discussion, not advance it. This tactic is no more acceptable than pointing to Jason Blair every time one reads a news account they disagree with, or linking to an instance of scientific fraud every time someone offers a scientific claim.”
I’ve gotten used to debates going like this here, but it’s quite sad. I say something, Dr. Jackson acts as though I’ve said something completely different. I correct the mischaracterization, and Dr. Jackson repeats the original distortions. At no point are the points I’ve tried to raise actually addressed.
It’s a particularly naked example here, about something even a five-year-old can confirm. Check the original comment. The word “police” is a link. The word “never” is a separate link to a different story. The word “ever” is another link. The word “file” links to a different story yet. And so on.
I’ve pointed this out above, in plain English. But still according to Dr. Jackson it’s “just two links”. We can’t even get “an honest admission of error” from him on something completely objective (and relatively trivial) like that.
Why point this out again? Because it’s a perfect illustration in miniature of what a ‘debate’ with Dr. Jackson is like. I used to think he just didn’t understand what I was writing. But no, it’s deeper than that. I hope it’s just unwillingness to understand, but I fear that it’s actually understanding, coupled with a deliberate effort to distort. I repeat: “[S]ince you apparently can’t even understand plain English when I tell you that you’ve miscounted, and where, and how, why should anyone trust your evaluation of any of my other points?”
It’s really sad when a point that isn’t arguable continues to be debated, namely:
“Smearing the actions of Person A by pointing to the practices of an unrelated individual in the same field is a tried-and-true strategy meant to distort a situation, rather than inform a discussion. If someone had contended that police officers never lie, then it’s a valid point to be raised. But in the absence of this claim, or in the absence of additional evidence that shows that the preponderance of all police officers are prone to lying, then it’s a straw man meant to misdirect the discussion, not advance it. This tactic is no more acceptable than pointing to Jason Blair every time one reads a news account they disagree with, or linking to an instance of scientific fraud every time someone offers a scientific claim.”
Once again, this is the sum total of Raymond’s original comments before I offered mine — with the bridge phrase “And, of course, police never ever file false incident reports”:
“[Regarding the statement that] ‘Sgt. James Crowley said quite another in his incident report …’ [here are two links]: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/03/why_the_police_must_be_videota.php http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20090720_Store_video_catches_cop_bullying_woman.html?viewAll=y “
These links were not about Officer Crowley, but about other “police”.
Once again, it’s a straw man meant to misdirect the discussion, not advance it. This tactic is no more acceptable than pointing to Jason Blair every time one reads a news account they disagree with, or linking to an instance of scientific fraud every time someone offers a scientific claim.”
You can’t make two initial comments that smear by innuendo, and then when the silliness of this approach is pointed out, retroactively fill in the “context” of what you really meant by giving just two links to the unrelated actions of other individuals in other circumstances.
And you can’t say that commenting on the actions of Person A by referencing the actions of Person B is actually a commentary on the actions of Person A. That’s dishonest.
I can re-post this inconvenient fact as many times as necessary. The debate isn’t about what Raymond said after I called him on this despicable practice, it’s about the despicable practice itself.
I rest my case.
Again.
And Again.
Oh, and 5 unrelated links instead of 2 unrelated links to the actions of other people in other circumstances only makes it more of a smear, not less.
Wow. Dr. Jackson still can’t get the count right.
Oh, well. I’ve already explained that I wasn’t engaging in the “despicable practice” (clarifying intent is not the same as “rewriting history”) and it’s pretty obvious Dr. Jackson’s either unable or unwilling to understand what I do write.
Even about small integers.
Actually, everyone pretty understands what you are doing, which is slandering by innuendo. 2, 5, 7, 9, 45 links about the actions of different people in different situations still amount to the same thing.
These links were not about Officer Crowley, but about other “police”.
Once again, it’s a straw man meant to misdirect the discussion, not advance it. This tactic is no more acceptable than pointing to Jason Blair every time one reads a news account they disagree with, or linking to an instance of scientific fraud every time someone offers a scientific claim.”
You can’t make two five, seven, nine, etc. initial comments that smear by innuendo, and then when the silliness of this approach is pointed out, retroactively fill in the “context” of what you really meant by giving just two links to the unrelated actions of other individuals in other circumstances.
And you can’t say that commenting on the actions of Person A by referencing the actions of Person B is actually a commentary on the actions of Person A. That’s dishonest.
I can re-post this inconvenient fact as many times as necessary. The debate isn’t about what Raymond said after I called him on this despicable practice, it’s about the despicable practice itself.
I rest my case.
Again.
And Again.
And Again.