Oz

Do you remember in the same discussion when I asked whether you had been abducted by extraterrestrial aliens? And Oz responded:

ERROR#003 At RespTroll
INVALID_INPUT
TROLLERR /troll

On ‘Danner’s Fury’, Patrick hurtfully inquired:

Is that the same “General Betray Us” who Ozzie and friends have scapegoated as the warmongering master of torture? Curious choice for a new spokesman.

Hi Patrick!

Oz

And then Patrick responded:

ERROR#54 At GoSub RespAccusation
DIV by Zero Error
FATALERR EndProg

Being lectured about “the capacity to make fine distinctions” by a man so stupid or incapable of comprehension that he read an article about pragmatism in electoral strategy as it relates to a political party and took half a sentence of it which was intended to be nothing more than a passing comparative reference and tried to turn it into a serious point of debate is ironic beyond hilarity.

Hi Patrick! My stupidity and incapacity of comprehension is legendary, I admit. As far as you know, anyhow.

The reason I responded to Dr. Jackson’s non sequitur about religion is because it is the only part of the article that seemed even vaguely interesting.

By the way, Patrick, remember that thread where you claimed that I and “my friends” despised David Petraeus?

And then, I asked you to provide the slightest evidence of that? And then you waited a long time, and then said nothin’? Any luck yet substantiating your baseless accusation?

I’m drawing the conclusion that my actual arguments are so bullet-proof that you guys are reduced to making random, baseless accusations that you can’t back up in any way. That’s why I’ve renamed you ‘Intellectual Con-Straw-vative’.

Because you have to make up stuff. In case that’s not obvious. I’m probably over-explaining now, sorry.

Thanks Patrick!

Oz

the question as I understand it, is, has support for 0bama declined? Therefore, in order to determine that, you would have to compare races in which 0bama was either a candidate or a factor of some sort.

In that sense, yes, your comparison would probably be the better one. I was thinking in terms of whether, as a demographic matter, in absolute terms, lower voter turnout generally favors Republicans.

Sounds like you are saying, in a roundabout way, that lower turnout does favor Republicans

What I meant is better understood given the context I was thinking in – which I mentioned above. What I was saying was that Obama may have been a “spoiler” in the 2008 elections, such that the phenomenon you observe (lower turnout favoring Republican candidates) may have been the exception and not the rule. That is why I said it may be more instructive to observe this trend over a longer historical electoral timeline.

If neither party meets the needs of the voters, then the only option is for the people to rally behind new leaders (like Reagan between 1976-80) who will “take over” one of the two parties. Any other strategy (i.e. supporting or creating a third party) won’t be successful on a national level…If the best you can get from this exercise is 5% of your agenda, you either need to work harder between elections to convince more people that your ideology is the correct one, or re-think your ideology.

I understand that, but my fear is precisely the consequence you observe: “If the best you can get…is 5%, you need to work harder…or re-think your ideology”. If, indeed, a demographic shift, such as what Pat Skurka describes, takes place and we find conservative/limited government/individual rights/constitutionalist ideology in an absolute minority such that we cannot convince either party to represent it any better than, say, 5%, our only option is to “re-think our ideology”. That, for me, is not a real option at all. The ideology is either good or it isn’t, regardless of whether or not it is popular. If we get to such a point, we are stuck with the tyranny of the majority and are essentially unable to participate in the traditional political process. As I said, this obviously isn’t the case… yet. But if it did get to that point, it would test the theoretical limits of pragmatism in this area.

The point is that you have a caricature of religious people that has little basis in reality.

I do? I don’t recall saying anything about religious people that could be reasonably called a ‘caricature’. I may have said some dismissive things about certain types of religious fundamentalists (ie, young earth creationists, evolution-deniers), but in general, I have nothing against religious people and don’t believe I’ve caricatured them or have a straw man construction of them. Where did I do that?

The distinction between having (and presumably describing) a ‘religious straw man’ and ‘making a straw man argument’ seems as thin as homeopathic soup to me. But perhaps I just lack the capacity to make fine distinctions.

You’ve previously accused me of failing to address the substance of arguments. I’ve asked for an example sixty times now, at least, and yet you remain oddly reticent. Probably it’s doomed to ask you again to substantiate it once again, but I am nothing if not a cock-eyed optimist.

Oz

Your persistent immature tactics (“No I’m not, you are!”) Are diversionist and puerile. You do nothing to advance the debate. You fail to adress the substantial points of others’ arguments.

You have already said that you are making this up as you go along, whereby I conclude that nothing you say carries any weight or validity.

And with a self-satisfied wave of your hand you conclude that you have “won.”

Fantastic. Go home.

When you’re done boxing your religious straw man, let me know.

Well, I certainly wouldn’t want to be in the position of using straw man arguments!

That would make me a hypocrite, since I’ve gone as far as renaming this site “Intellectual Con-STRAW-vative” — due to the preoponderance of that particular fallacious tactic on this board. In my opinion, of course.

So, help me out of this jam, Mountain Man. Explain in what way I have employed a straw man argument, and I shall promptly correct it, if true.

Oz

I once heard a MSM news reporter make the politically correct statement, “This family was a victim of domestic violence” as though it struck from the sky as lightning would, and therefore no one was responsible. And so, since liberals* have promulgated the idea that no one is responsible for their actions, I wonder where their* idea of “man-made” disasters came from.

* This assumes that MSM reporters are liberals.

When you’re done boxing your religious straw man, let me know.

You must live in the same dream world as Pelosi: “From our perspective we won last night,” Pelosi told reporters…

From my perspective you have yet to act like an adult.