"Who's On First?" -- Forvm Obama Supporters Edition
Here's what came of my efforts to get a straight answer to a straight-forward question, first on a few threads under diaries of others, then here http://theforvm.org/diary/brooks-and-b-rational/senator-obama-please-give-a-straight-answer and here, where I introduce the easy-to-use (or so one would think) multiple choice format http://theforvm.org/diary/spartacvs/open-thread#comment-107119
Actually, unlike the Forvm Obama Supporters version, the original, Abbot & Costello “Who’s On First?” above does not contain repeated logical errors, but it shows how frustrating it can be to go around in circles and it’s funny, so I’ve used it. A better analogy would be to an experience I had when I opened a bank account in Spain. My conversation with the bank guy went like this:
Q: What is the minimum deposit to open an account?
A: There is no minimum.
Q: So I can open an account with 1,000 pesetas?
A: No, you can’t open an account with just 1,000 pesetas.
Q: ok, so what’s the minimum?
A: There is no minimum.
Q: [At this point I realized that the guy may be required by law or bank policy to say “There is no minimum”, even if in practice there really was one] Is 50,000 pesetas ok?
A: Yes.
Below, for your entertainment, is a Q & A based on a true story, the story of my efforts to get a straight answer:
Q: I’ve presented a list of potential Obama positions, lettered A through G below. I think the items on the list are mutually exclusive and that the list is exhaustive (except for time period between C and E), meaning that if someone thinks they know Obama’s position, they should be able to tell me which position on the list is Obama’s position.
Possible Obama Positions:
A) I will NOT delay beginning withdrawals, even if I think doing so will jeopardize stability.
B) I WOULD delay, but after a few months, I'd begin withdrawals anyway even if I still think it would jeopardize stability.
C) I MIGHT delay, but after a few months, I'd begin withdrawals anyway even if I still think it would jeopardize stability.
D) I WOULD delay for a couple of years if I continued to think it would jeopardize stability, but after that, I'd begin withdrawals anyway even if I still think it would jeopardize stability.
E) I MIGHT delay for a couple of years if I continued to think it would jeopardize stability, but after that, I'd begin withdrawals anyway even if I still think it would jeopardize stability.
F) I WOULD delay as long as I thought withdrawals would jeopardize stability, period, even if that meant NEVER withdrawing.
G) I MIGHT delay as long as I thought withdrawals would jeopardize stability, period, even if that meant NEVER withdrawing.
So, which of the above are you saying is Obama’s position?
A: Clearly it’s answer C.
Q: So Obama’s position is that after few months, he WOULD withdraw even if he still thinks it would jeopardize stability (as opposed to delaying further)?
A: Not WOULD; He MIGHT.
Q: Well, “He MIGHT” means “He MIGHT NOT”, so you’re saying he might delay further. So are you saying E (or perhaps even G)?
A: No, his statements clearly indicate that he would not delay as long as a couple of years.
Q: So how long would he wait before beginning withdrawals anyway?
A: About a year at most.
Q: So after about a year he’d withdraw anyway?
A: He MIGHT.
Q: So he might delay further?
A: He’s made it clear that at some point we have to withdraw and turn responsibility over to the Iraqis.
Q: So what are you saying – might he delay beyond one year or would he begin withdrawal at about the one year point even if he still thought it would jeopardize stability?
A: He has been clear that he thinks we withdraw per his plan without jeopardizing stability.
Q: Sure, he thinks it’s more likely than not that he won’t face that scenario, but I’m asking you if he has indicated in even a somewhat clear way what he would do if he DID face that scenario. Do you think he has?
A: Yes, he’s been very clear. He would take into account conditions on the ground and make tactical adjustments if necessary.
Q: But that could be answer B,C,D,E,F, or G. Which are you saying it is?
A: He has a policy of flexibility, which is wise.
Q: Fine, but I’m just asking you if you have a good sense, based on Obama’s statements, of how long he might wait before withdrawing even if he still thought it would jeopardize stability. Do you?
A: I’m not a mind reader
Q: So are you saying you just don’t know what his position is – if there’s some time limit on how long he’d wait before beginning withdrawals anyway even if he thought it would jeopardize stability?
A: I told you I DO know what his position is because he’s been very clear. He plans to begin withdrawals immediately upon taking office and get most of our troops out over the course of 16 months, but may make adjustments to the timetable based on conditions on the ground in the interest of stability.
Q: But if he finds that beginning withdrawals immediately upon taking office would jeopardize stability, how long might he delay withdrawals before proceeding anyway even if he still thought withdrawals would jeopardize stability?
A: I told you: About a year.
Q: So after about a year, he would begin withdrawals even if he thought it would jeopardize stability?
A: Not WOULD. He MIGHT.
Q: We are going around in circles, but again, “He MIGHT” means “He MIGHT NOT”, so you’re saying he might delay further. So are you saying E (or perhaps even G)?
A: You are being unreasonable by demanding that people answer in the exact words you want them to.
Q: No, I’m just trying to get an answer, and vague, ambiguous language that could cover any of a number of answers is not an answer
A: Well, Obama’s position is one of flexibility, and that’s smart.
Q: Well, I’m asking you how much flexibility you think is in Obama’s position – how long he’d delay withdrawals in the aforementioned scenario.
A: He has been very clear: He would adjust to circumstances. He can’t know what those circumstances will be, so he cannot answer that question and you shouldn’t expect him to unless you want him to lock himself in to some inflexible policy.
Q: So is his position that it’s possible that he will encounter circumstances that fit my scenario and that he would delay withdrawals for a couple of years or even NEVER begin withdrawals if he continued to believe that withdrawals would jeopardize stability?>
A: No, I told you already that his position is that he would NOT delay that long (a couple of years).
Q: So at some point short of a couple of years, he would begin withdrawals even if he thought that it would jeopardize stability?
A: Not WOULD. He MIGHT.
Q: Man, we are really going around in circles because you keep using vague language and resisting giving an actual answer. Any chance you’ll actually give me an answer?
A: I have answered your question several times already. And everyone here has given you the a similar answer, so if you don't think so, it must be you. You just don’t want to accept an answer if it does not fit exactly what you want to hear. You are being unreasonable, tedious and condescending.
[Cue music]
--
- Brooks and B Rational's blog
- Login or register to post comments
90+ comments with BBr's fingers firmly planted in his ears. Seems more like a time for...
- Login or register to post comments
)ironic
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Satire.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )No, you see you charged me with something (fingers in ears) that I'm not guilty of, but you apparently are. That's irony. If you understand that now, good for you -- you learned something new today.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You've proven that countless times now haven't you? Sadly the rubes still don't get it. Alas....
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Since you're all lying partisans who'll do anything to avoid following logic or answering a straight question, I request that the rest of the arguments in this thread be written in formal Prolog, Coq, Twelf, Isabelle, or, if you're feeling adventurous, RDF logic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prolog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabelle_(theorem_prover)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Description_Framework
- Login or register to post comments
)Your snark aside, it might be helpful for folks to lay out all their key premises and ultimate conclusion so their flow of logic can be seen. Perhaps if everyone did that, a lot more people would see a statement of their own somewhere along the line and think "Oh wait, that premise might be invalid" or "Oh wait, that conclusion doesn't really follow from those premises", which could be followed by the thought "Whew! And I was just about to shoot my mouth off in a snarky way or grossly mischaracterize what I thought someone's point or argument or position was. I should think this through more and come up with something valid". Which of course would save me the time of pointing out such things.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )$ prolog
[code]Welcome to SWI-Prolog (Multi-threaded, Version 5.6.47)
Copyright (c) 1990-2007 University of Amsterdam.
?- [user].
|: Your snark aside, it might be helpful for folks to lay out all their key premises and ultimate conclusion so their flow of logic can be seen. Perhaps if everyone did that, a lot more people would see a statement of their own somewhere along the line and think "Oh wait, that premise might be invalid" or "Oh wait, that conclusion doesn't really follow from those premises", which could be followed by the thought "Whew! And I was just about to shoot my mouth off in a snarky way or grossly mischaracterize what I thought someone's point or argument or position was. I should think this through more and come up with something valid". Which of course would save me the time of pointing out such things.
ERROR: user://2:21:0: Syntax error: Operator expected
ERROR: user://2:23:0: Syntax error: Operator expected
ERROR: user://2:25:0: Syntax error: Operator expected
$ coqtop
[code]Welcome to Coq 8.1pl3 (Dec. 2007)
Coq < Your snark aside, it might be helpful for folks to lay out all their key premises and ultimate conclusion so their flow of logic can be seen. Perhaps if everyone did that, a lot more people would see a statement of their own somewhere along the line and think "Oh wait, that premise might be invalid" or "Oh wait, that conclusion doesn't really follow from those premises", which could be followed by the thought "Whew! And I was just about to shoot my mouth off in a snarky way or grossly mischaracterize what I thought someone's point or argument or position was. I should think this through more and come up with something valid". Which of course would save me the time of pointing out such things.
Toplevel input, characters 16-17
> Your snark aside, it might be helpful for folks to lay out all their key premises and ultimate conclusion so their flow of logic can be seen.
> ^
Syntax error: '.' or '...' expected after [tactic:tactic] (in [subgoal_command])
Toplevel input, characters 150-152
> Your snark aside, it might be helpful for folks to lay out all their key premises and ultimate conclusion so their flow of logic can be seen. Perhaps if everyone did that, a lot more people would see a statement of their own somewhere along the line and think "Oh wait, that premise might be invalid" or "Oh wait, that conclusion doesn't really follow from those premises", which could be followed by the thought "Whew! And I was just about to shoot my mouth off in a snarky way or grossly mischaracterize what I thought someone's point or argument or position was. I should think this through more and come up with something valid".
> ^^
Syntax error: '.' or '...' expected after [tactic:tactic] (in [subgoal_command])
User error: Unknown command of the non proof-editing mode
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )thanks. Wish I got the joke.
cheers/
(damned mexican keyboard(
--Me: We! -- Ali
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )check for tags in text before posting.
Also,
heh. he said coq.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Something you did screwed up all the formatting. Let's see if this post is also affected.
--Me: We! -- Ali
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )for a metasyntactic starting point. A lexicon should also be set forth, so the RDF has some metadata, otherwise your RDF description won't fly. Queries like isStable won't fly if you don't do your lexical work on Stable:description first.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )FYI, essay I think is worthwhile from people I consider serious thinkers on this issue, soon to be published in a respected journal http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/standing_down_as_iraq_stands_u.html
No comment. Not making any point. Just offering it.
- Login or register to post comments
).....who thinks Obama is anything other than another expediency-loving politician looking to get elected is a sucker, and there are always plenty of suckers around. :^)
--The ultimate result of shielding man from the effects of folly is to people the world with fools. -Herbert Spencer
- Login or register to post comments
).....who thinks McCain is anything other than another expediency-loving politician looking to get elected is a sucker, and there are always plenty of suckers around. :^)
Therefore, rotating out the party in power is a good idea (everything else being equal) so we can flush out the nonsense done over the last eight years.
The pendulum needs to swing.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I think this is more of what he is asking ...
http://theforvm.org/diary/brooks-and-b-rational/whos-on-first-forvm-obama-supporters-edition#comment-107703
--I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )with world-class speaking skills, bucketloads of charisma, who is pragmatic and probative rather than doctrinaire when it comes to solving problems, whip-smart yet good at delegating and with a keen eye for talent, who is probably greener than he should be at this point but who's nonetheless run one of the tightest, most effective, most exciting campaigns in recent memory, who may have a bit of an ego problem, and who represents someone who can credibly bridge the cultural canyons left in the wake of Civil Rights and Vietnam.
Suckers. :)
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )"world-class speaking skills"! Thank goodness! And gosh darn it, people like him! Thanks for the chuckle, J.
--The ultimate result of shielding man from the effects of folly is to people the world with fools. -Herbert Spencer
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The US Presidency is not the Prime Ministership of England. The US President is King and Prime Minister, Head of State and Chief Executive. Many people in their infinite *seriousness* underestimate the power and significance of the first role, where charisma and persona has the power to affect a country's view of itself.,, as Ronald Reagan did. (And I say that as one who despised his governing philosophy.)
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )who don't love expediency.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is that it expects world-class listening skills. Apparently, that's a little too much to expect at times.
Case in point: (redacted for comity)
--Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )We should all be president, because, as the superstar himself said, "We are the ones we've been waiting for." ooooh, it was thrilling just remembering and repeating that. I'm so inspired! I'm so excited, all I can say is "CHANGE"...as in, "That was so exciting, I have to go CHANGE my underpants".
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )“It was not the Godfather who stole our company colors and your rations from the supply truck. It was the enemy. And so I think, you should be really, really mad at them. Before we set off again let me remind you who your enemy really is … The Enemy.”
So stupid, yet so profound.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )? What is connection/parallel/implication ?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )in a motivational speech.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Actually, although I was making fun of it, and many others in the media and elsewhere have called it absurd -- such as David Brooks (probably my favorite columnist) saying essentially "If we are the ones we've been waiting for, then where have we been" -- I can see the sense in that line, if Obama is saying that people have finally gotten on the right track or taken the right actions, etc. As in, we've been waiting for ourselves to do X, or perhaps for the "real" us to emerge, etc.
I was just goofing on how so many Obama supporters have gotten carried away with the charisma thing and have been all psyched about Obama without being able to articulate why or say anything at all without every third word being some variation of "inspire" or "change".
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )as to re-phrase BnB's question ...
Think of it as a "Dream Sequence" ...
As of today, Barrack Obama is the President of the United States
You are part of his inner circle.
As a member of his inner circle you are, at this particular moment in time, standing directly behind him on stage. Obama is making a televised speech to the nation in front of a huge standing room only crowd. The sight is overwhelming. Through the din of the crowd comes Obama's voice-he is saying
"Ladies and Gentlemen", Obama says, "today is indeed a momentous day! For today, I am ready to announce my Withdrawal Plan for Iraq! Unfortunately, Michelle and I have a prior commitment at the Ford Theater so here's –––––– (fill in your name here) to tell y'all about it ...."
With that, Obama motions for you to come over and speak in front of the podium. As you walk over to the podium, you suddenly realize that you and Obama have never spoken about the Withdrawal Plan and that you're going to have to "wing it"! Your going to have use what Obama has said in the past to present a factual Withdrawal Plan right on the spot! With all the eyes of the world watching you begin ...
Or if you prefer ....
Obama entrusts you to make a Power Point presentation about his Iraq Withdrawal Plan. With only a few minutes to air time you suddenly realize the Bullet Point Header Page showing a point by point factual schedule of the withdrawal of American troops in Iraq, has not been written. There is no time to consult with anyone-you're going to have to "wing it". With thoughts of "why does this always happen to me?!" running through your head you type ...
Don't worry about the conditionals etc. BnB's got ya' covered. Trust, and learn to love BnB ... :)
--I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- Login or register to post comments
)I have instructed the Joint Chiefs to develop a plan in conjunction with the military command of our forces in the Iraqi theater, to begin withdrawing US combat troops from Iraq in accordance with a timetable that envisages having all combat units rotated back to the US within a period of 16 months. I have further instructed that a draft preliminary plan to achieve this objective be submitted to me by one month from today. At which time I, in conjunction with Congressional leaders and leaders of the Iraqi government, will draft a Presidential order to begin implementing the plan.
Questions?
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )..
--I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You're not wearing any pants!
--Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I was actually thinking of putting ...
With all the eyes of the world upon you, you look down and suddenly realize that you're only wearing your favorite "Fruit of the Loom" white briefs!
But I didn't want to disrespect BnB! I really had to fight the urge ...
--I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Make of that what you will.
--Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Here’s the thing, gents (and ladies). I come here with an intent to be reasonable and to make a good-faith effort to engage in substantive, rational discussion/debate, trying to make relevant, logical arguments and present appropriate questions, and responding directly and logically to questions and arguments of others.
Many here, on the other hand, seem to view their role as that of a campaign spokesperson talking with reporters in the “spin room” after a debate among/between candidates. Except that those actual campaign spokespeople are engaging in their spin, straw men, evasiveness, deliberate vagueness/ambiguity, subject-shifting, etc., because they are seeking to persuade an audience, whereas here there is no audience that is open to being persuaded. There are partisans on one’s “side”, to whom all the spin is just preaching to the choir, and there are partisans on the other “side”, who are not really listening and considering, or even discussing/debating in good faith, the arguments being presented. So it’s kind of like two teams of campaign spokespeople getting together alone in a room (i.e., with no audience) and hurling talking points over each others’ heads. Which they probably wouldn’t bother to do, except perhaps to practice their spinning skills. But that’s because they are professionals with a professional objective. I understand that others get emotional benefits from saying things that earn them the approbation of their fellow partisans, particularly in a community/clique, or that make them feel morally superior and/or better informed or insightful than the other side. And I understand that folks like to pick up good talking points / spin as ammo for debates elsewhere, which is why a lot of people listen to Limbaugh, get his newsletter, etc., so they are “armed” and ready to defeat those lousy, misguided or immoral liberals when they encounter them.
I understand all that. I just think most political blogs, and particularly ones like Forvm that are somewhat ideologically diverse (albeit heavily skewed), as well as the nation and the world, would be far better off if folks made a good-faith effort to be reasonable, reasonably objective, and to engage in truly responsive and logical discussion/debate.
But hey, it ain’t my playground or my football. And as has been pointing out to me, I may be tilting at windmills here. I have no illusions about the power of cognitive dissonance, particularly in certain types of people, nor about my ability to overcome it. I just take the liberty of trying. And yeah, I realize it really irritates people who don’t like the idea or are completely unable or unwilling to see that I’ve got a point and that it’s an important one.
(Cue expressions of Blanche DuBois-style offense at my "condescension" and suggestions that if I don't like it, I should just go away. But if anyone wants to stop and actually consider what I've said, feel free.)
- Login or register to post comments
)Not having had the pleasure of taking part in this little merry-go-round, it'd probably be best for me to keep out of this - but what the hell.
I think, generally speaking, when someone claims in the course of a political discussion to be the voice of reason, as opposed to the partisans, the ideologues and the hacks, the people with whom that someone is conversing tend to smell a rat. And - without weighing in on this particular case - they're usually right to do so. There's a particular kind of debater who will, in order to win an argument, try to shift the plane of discussion to the level of logical form: he'll point out, often times speciously, invalidities and incoherences, and then claim victory as if by default. (In discussions where the subject is partisan politics, this type will often, instead of claiming victory, bemoan the degenerate state of rational discourse, and wish, ever so fervently, that he might find an interlocutor who would just engage him in a rational way.)
Maybe this doesn't apply to you at all - but if people are suspicious of the pose you strike, it'd be well for you to acknowledge they have some reason for that suspicion (surely you've come across the type at some point or other). And maybe it'd be more productive if, instead of posing as the above-it-all interrogator (you can drop the scare quotes around "condescension," frankly), you put yourself forward as someone down in the muck with the rest of us - a guy with some prior political commitments, who doesn't come to any question with complete disinterest or detachment, but who's trying to make the best sense of things he can.
Two related comments that'll have to stand as bald assertions for the moment, since I need to grab a bite: (1) The ideal of a non-partisan, rational political discourse is fatuous, both in principle and in practice; (2) these discussions are not, your assertions notwithstanding, terribly important.
--Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Pretty much everything you said is incorrect. Just to comment on one point (since I can't keep spending so much time setting people straight -- as "condescending" as that sounds/is), your apparent implication that if most/all members of some group characterize the conduct of an individual in a particular (negative) way, or share a particular criticism, it is probably valid is just not so. Members of the group could be heavily biased; they could be less than fully open and honest; they could have inferior skills or insights in some relevant area (e.g., logic); they could be reacting in a negative way out of a feeling of insecurity; etc.
Just for kicks, I encourage the liberals here to go on RedState and challenge their positions/arguments and try to have a rational discussion/debate, and the same for conservatives to go to dkos (from what I hear about it) and try the same. You'll probably find 95%+ of the group characterizing your commenting behavior (and you) in all sorts of negative ways. Doesn't mean they're right, or even that they are probably right. The fact that Forvm is somewhat ideologically diverse doesn't mean that people aren't acting the same way toward those who challenge their (or their "side's" views), particularly if the folks doing the challenging are not just hurling talking points themselves (with both sides just hurling them over each other's heads) but actually trying to take a logical approach to testing the validity of positions/arguments, something about which a lot of people get very insecure about and to which they react very negatively toward the inquiring person.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but this is kinda funny:
considering the history of all three sites.
Can't believe that somebody didn't think of doing that before :-)
--Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Seems like you missed the point. No time to explain. Suggest you re-read/re-think.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I don't think so. The point is fairly simple. It's just that it could only be made by one unfamiliar with the cross-pollination among these sites over the past 4-5 years.
A good number of your correspondents over the past couple of weeks ended up here at theforvm by way of those specific sites.
--Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Yeah, I assumed that. But never mind.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Heh! And you wonder why people flame you.
Ever play Diplomacy?
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Valid premise? Have I indicated that "I wonder" about that? Sure, I would like to have an even better understanding, but I have a pretty good idea already, having experienced/researched the relevant dynamics for a while. And I've explained it to some extent on a few occasions here on Forvm. So no, I'm not sitting here thinking "Boy, I just have no idea why this is happening?". Unfortunately, it's garden variety stuff and not all that mysterious.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )As I recall, even Macallan and I found common ground in our mutual appreciation of John Brunner's novel "Stand on Zanzibar"
M. Scott Eiland has baseball knowledge I deeply respect. I may disagree at times but I genuinely respect his opinions on professional sports.
I believe we pretty much all agreed that gas tax holidays are a stupid idea.
Obama is also more than a little precious in how he presents himself.
To focus excessively on one data point -- especially one as contentious as Iraq & Obama/McCain simply is not good science.
I submit that to sustain your thesis abut the forvm members you need to find other data points besides Obama and Iraq.
= = =
Of note: I practice law. And at times the facts force me to argue a minority viewpoint on a given issue of law -- because adopting the other view means my client loses. And I do argue the minority viewpoint, zealously, because to do otherwise would violate the fiduciary duty I owe to my client. Of course, Federal Rule 11 and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 govern the limits of zealous advocacy.
There are numerous lawyers here and a number of university faculty. We argue for a living.
Seeking to persuade us that YOU and YOU ALONE are the appropriate judge of the proper protocols for resolving disputed issues of policy tends to undermine your credibility on the substantive issues themselves.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )... about why people have tended to react to you the way that they have, not whether that reaction is ultimately legitimate. You should try to disambiguate questions of fact ('people tend to act ...') from questions of legitimacy ('people ought to act/are right to act ...').
And while past experience isn't a sufficient reason to infer from some marks (say, "condescension" and "empty appeals to formal logic") a conclusion (say, "this guy is a glorified concern troll"), it is a decent ground to form a prima facie impression. Cf. induction, problem of.
Last one: if it's illicit to infer correctness from consensus, it's no more licit to infer correctness from breaking with consensus. The fact that I might get shouted down at DKos or RedState doesn't make me right, either.
--Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I was making a claim about why people have tended to react to you the way that they have, not whether that reaction is ultimately legitimate. You should try to disambiguate questions of fact ('people tend to act ...') from questions of legitimacy ('people ought to act/are right to act ...').
You wrote:
(ellipses and bolding mine)
I took those remarks to be an implication that such suspicion is at least more often than not valid. Did I misunderstand?
if it's illicit to infer correctness from consensus, it's no more licit to infer correctness from breaking with consensus. The fact that I might get shouted down at DKos or RedState doesn't make me right, either.
Of course, but that isn't the point. I was merely making the point that the likelihood of a group consensus being valid depends greatly on characteristics of that group vis a vis the matter in question, and it would be wrong to assume that a group consensus is more likely than not valid without considering the particular matter and those characteristics (e.g., to assess possible bias, insincerity, expertise/ignorance, cognitive styles and skill levels, etc.). Hopefully you agree.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But not entirely your fault - the first quote was hastily put; that 'right' is ambiguous. Apologies on that one. The point, though, was to emphasize that stereotypes - even when unjustly applied - aren't (usually) formed out of moral or intellectual vice; they're formed for reasons of epistemic economy. In this case, given the minimal costs that attend being wrong, and the savings that attend being right, there's 'good reason' to employ them. And the second doesn't support your interpretation at all; it's merely a suggestion that you not be so quick to chalk up your interlocutors' suspicion of your self-presentation as a sign of intellectual vice.
As for the last point: yes, if one doesn't have the resources to assess the matter about which there's consensus by oneself, then how much stock one puts in the consensus is going to be decided by secondary features of that consensus. But, again, under the same condition, the same judgment applies to a challenger to that consensus - we'd have to assess his possible biases, insincerity, vanity, etc. Why should the consensus suffer the burden of proof, if neither it nor its challenger has some a priori claim to authority? Why isn't this kind of consideration a wash?
--Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Why should the consensus suffer the burden of proof, if neither it nor its challenger has some a priori claim to authority?
It shouldn't. The validity of logic of the respective arguments is what it is. One person telling a group of people (explicitly or implicitly) that they are being illogical is like one person correcting what he claims is a mathematical error by a group of people. He can show his work, point to and explain the error, try to guide them in the correct methodology, etc. He may have gotten them to see their errors in the past and thus established a good track record in their minds, or perhaps not. Ultimately they may still claim that their math is correct. Maybe they're right, maybe not. But...
Why isn't this kind of consideration a wash?
If you're referring to some a priori presumption of who is more likely to be correct, as I've said, there often should be no presumption (if a presumption is to be made, it has to take into account the particulars). If you want to call that "a wash", ok, although I'd just call it lacking information for such a presumption.
I don't sense disagreement between us on this stuff, or at least not much.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )... on the principles of it.
And what fun is that? I'm off to bed.
--Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Do let us know.
Until then I expect you will continue to spin your wheels in the sands of the Socratic method in the vain attempt to somehow prove that Obama's position on Iraq and troop withdrawals is indistinguishable from the Bush-McCain position.
Only no one is buying it.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )In lieu of an actual point.
And claiming that Obama's position "I'm going to do everything in my power to get as many troops out as quickly as possible" is the same as McCain's "100 years!" position because contingencies could potentially reduce them to the same policy in practice, well, that's not much of a point really.
We're hiring them for what they want to do, with the full understanding and expectation (bush notwishstanding) that plans may change as reality does. There is still quite objectively a lot of daylight in between their desired policies on the issue although, depending on your crystal ball there may be little difference in what they're forced by circumstance to do. (McCain could be forced to withdraw earlier than he wants as well).
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )claiming that Obama's position "I'm going to do everything in my power to get as many troops out as quickly as possible" is the same as McCain's "100 years!" position because contingencies could potentially reduce them to the same policy in practice, well, that's not much of a point really.
Who said that? Not me. Nice straw man.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Give up this obsession. Or go away. Please.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
)C'mon, Harley. No one's being forced to respond to, or even to read, anything Brooks writes - yourself included.
--Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You've got someone with buckets of free time and a willingness to engage in nonsensical argument at great length. Over and over and over again. While insulting anyone who doesn't agree with him. Over and over and over again.
We don't need it here. Just my opinion.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It's going to be close. . .
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )How is it better to have people on a bipartisan site willing to believe nearly all those that disagree with them are fascists than a guy trying to nail down what a politician would do once he took office? Whatever Brooks' faults they are small potatoes compared to several other regulars. I don't understand the animosity.
--"That Sam-I-am! That Sam-I-am! I do not like that Sam-I-am!"- Dr. Seuss
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )... you fascist.
--Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )lol. I'm tempted to respond in kind and profile you, but the differences would be that my profile of you would probably be accurate, and that the mods and several of your fellow partisans would climb all over one another to yell "Posting Rules Violation!" (which it would be, as was yours). Glad at least you were advised of better alternatives, even if that pesky Posting Rules Violation Sensor/Notifier Machine got stuck once again in a seemingly not-so-random way.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )also an option. One that doesn't even having us inviting folks to the exit.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )And that's what I'll do. But I believe this may be a special case. As you may also believe in time. After walking a mile in my shoes. :)
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )In my own opinion there's much worse that occurs here on a regular basis than Brooks arguing with Obama supporters about Obama's position on Iraq, but whenever I raised those things in the past my concerns were turned on me and I was told to ignore them.
--"That Sam-I-am! That Sam-I-am! I do not like that Sam-I-am!"- Dr. Seuss
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Don't you think it's a brilliant comment from a guy who writes 'McCain sucks' diaries on an almost daily basis? You can't make up stuff like that.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But I shouldn't be surprised. The same folks who enabled, spun, and ignored the Bush administration's various depredations for eight years are gearing up to do the same with McCain. So be it. And good luck with that.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )"Look Over There!"
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )McCain = Bush = More of the Same
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But by way of comparison complaining that the McCain campaign is using dog whistles or codes to paint Obama as an oversexed negro is rather tame compared to some of the other loony tunes regularly featured.
--"That Sam-I-am! That Sam-I-am! I do not like that Sam-I-am!"- Dr. Seuss
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I betcha John McCain has many more more episodes of adultery than Barack Obama. But maybe that is a feature, for some.
Also of note: Well known leftie moon-bat David Gergen agrees completely that McCain's campaign is whistling to the southern racists. Even if it arises from cynicism rather than genuine racism.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )you throw a bunch of crap against the wall to see what will stick. I did not call Obama oversexed, I was commenting on the vacuous contortions that attempted, and failed in the eyes of most people, to paint the McCain campaign ad with Paris Hilton as racist in any way, shape, or form. And of note: just because you, Harley, and David Gergen all have secret decoder rings, that does not mean they are in the bottom of every Cracker Jack box.
--"That Sam-I-am! That Sam-I-am! I do not like that Sam-I-am!"- Dr. Seuss
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Option #3. You (or anyone else) answer my simple, straight-forward, central question (about a hugely important issue about which many here have previously stated firm beliefs and expressed strong opinions, and undoubtedly will continue to.)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )B&BR: Is it more likely to rain in Nevada or in Washington State tomorrow?
forvm: Well, the odds are 5% in Nevada, and 50% in Wash State--
B&BR: --A HA! So it MIGHT rain in both places! There's no difference!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )that's obviously an absurd mischaracterization. Very, very silly. Good luck demonstrating that I see probabilities as irrelevant or whatever the heck your implication is.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and I'll admit I've done a bit of skimming, but it seems like the only point you're trying to make is blurring the difference between Obama and McCain's position by saying that any future policy projections can only be characterized as "might", therefore everything's the same.
Of course, said line of argument would apply equally to every single policy position held by either of them. So it's silly and useless, IMO. So if you're simply trying to prove that none of us can absolutely prove how Obama will react to a given situation, then consider the argument won, for what it's worth (nothing). If you're making some other point that I'm not getting, feel free to elaborate briefly.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )In the interest of time (my time), I'll address just one of the misconceptions exhibited in your comment.
First, you're simply wrong that I'm asserting equivalence between their respective positions. I've given no indication whatsoever that that's something I'm asserting.
And even if -- IF -- Obama's position were "G" and McCain's were also "G", they could still have substantially different positions. In other words, even if both believed that beginning withdrawals would jeopardize stability, in fact even if they both had the same exact expectations/risk assessment for withdrawals vs. delay, respectively, McCain's position could be that he would not (or probably would not) begin withdrawals when faced with that particular outlook whereas Obama's position could be that he would, or probably would begin withdrawals when faced with that same outlook.
Let me illustrate:
Al, Bob, Charlie, and Dave are going to a bar this Friday night. Each expresses a position on whether or not (or under what conditions, if any) he would cheat on his wife with a girl who is at the bar that night.
Al: No way, period.
Bob: Maybe, but only if it's a girl with the equivalent hotness of Jessica Alba and she hits on me (I'm not initiating anything).
Charlie: Maybe, but only if it's that Jessica Alba caliber, and if I see girl like that, I'm initiating it (hitting on her).
Dave: Maybe. If feel like it that night, I'm goin' for anything with a pulse.
Now, the positions of Bob, Charlie, and Dave are all "Maybe", but they are all distinct from Al's, and from each other's.
See now? I hope so, because I really have to cut back on my time here, even when I see people making logical errors and grossly mischaracterizing my arguments/positions (even inadvertently, as I think is the case here).
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )http://theforvm.org/diary/spartacvs/obama-reverses-position-iraq#comment-101850
GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )That is just pathetic, and something you really should find embarrassing. I didn't forget what I had said, I wasn't pretending I hadn't said that, I stand by that, and that is NOT saying that Obama's position being "G" and McCain's being "G" means that they are the same position, nor does it mean that I was asserting that Obama's position was the same as McCain's. Other than alllll that, you make a very valid point -- lol!
Work on the reading comprehension. Look up words on dictionary.com as necessary. And while you probably shouldn't call someone a liar anyway (posting rules thing), you should at least make sense if you're going to do it. I'll bold to help you out a bit:
Also re-read my comments above in the exchange you jumped into.
Or just ask someone else to read it all and explain to you the necessary distinctions.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Your attempt to blur the distinctions between Obama and McCain's policy on Iraq and withdrawal is where this whole tautological odyssey began.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Yes, and you just added another pathetic comment. And you so consistently throw out non sequiturs and other erroneous stuff that even I can manage to stop pointing out such errors (I say "errors", assuming they are genuine, which I do for the most part), lest I waste even more time.
My advice to you (not that you'll take it), since I won't be correcting you all the time anymore:
- Pay more attention to what someone is saying (and not saying).
- Offline, prior to posting a comment, lay out your premises and conclusion and ask yourself if you really have a reason to consider the premises valid and if it all fits together logically.
Good luck.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )of insults and condescension as proof of a solid hit on target thanks.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )lol, I'm not at all surprised that you would.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I think you are on the right track here. Perhaps you could have a Socratic Dialog with yourself using your Obama question. It might be clearer if the Forvm readers see the "ideal" way in which you would like them to respond.
--I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If Iraq doesn't qualify for the 2010 World Cup that could create instability. Soccer matches have been known to trigger riots and even a war.
Is this the kind of instability you are talking about?
--But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
)Actually, if the U.S. team does as poorly next time as last time, I'm gonna start some serious riots myself.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If they make it to South Africa they should do well.
--But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )then accuse all the other commenters of evading your questions.
Your problem is that you completely and utterly fail to grasp the difference between policy and implementation. A policy is a goal and a general method for reaching that goal -- Obama has made abundantly clear what his goal and method would be. Implementation is where you form a plan visualizing various contingencies and responses to those contingencies, then put that plan into action. What you keep asking for are implementation details.
Once and for all, I believe it is possible that Obama might delay withdrawals indefinitely. But what you're not understanding is that, given his goal of steady withdrawal from Iraq, each successive delay has to meet a higher standard of necessity than the last. When you get out to 2-3 years of active deployment, you'd need some dire -- and hence, unlikely -- circumstances indeed to get Obama to alter his policy so radically. He might keep troops in Iraq, but that would not at all be part of his goal or method.
If this is still hard to understand, just compare with McCain's Iraq policy. As far as McCain is concerned, dire necessity for US troop involvement exists right now in Iraq, and continues indefinitely into the future. McCain essentially never wants to withdraw troops. And so he had to eat a big steamer last week when Maliki came out and endorsed Obama's policy. There's a stark difference between the two candidates' Iraq policies, yet for some reason you don't feel the need to break everyone's castanets parsing to the nth degree the exact degree of stability wherein John McCain would consider redeploying troops out of Iraq. Is it one car bomb a week? Nobody dies for a month? The Shia & Sunni put on a gigantic bi-sect-ual production of West Side Story in downtown Baghdad? The whole country becomes Hare Krishnas? Even in that case, I have a feeling McCain would want to keep 200,000 troops there to protect the robe-wearing, tambourine-dancing Iraqis from their far meaner neighbors.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
)Let's see, so you don't get the answer you want, then accuse all the other commenters of evading your questions.
I think I already covered that obviously erroneous assertion in my "Who's on First" dialogue. Basically, nope, I got many responses masquerading as answers that were clearly not answers at all, despite the clarity of my questions, so I accused people of evading my questions.
Your problem is that you completely and utterly fail to grasp the difference between policy and implementation.
Nope. Apparently you are still very confused.
What you keep asking for are implementation details.
Nope. Apparently you are still very confused. Oh, and all of the above fits well with my "Who's on First?" point.
Once and for all, I believe it is possible that Obama might delay withdrawals indefinitely.
Hmm, that seems like an actual answer. So you are saying "G"? In other words, if Obama comes to believe that beginning withdrawals would jeopardize stability, and if he continues to believe that, he MIGHT not EVER begin withdrawals from Iraq, or he MIGHT begin withdrawals even though he thinks it will jeopardize stability. Is that your answer?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )warrantless denials, coupled with insults about my mental state.
Yes, as I've said repeatedly, with the caveat that this would be an extreme circumstance, so "might" is the wrong modal. If extreme breakdown in stability could ONLY be solved by delaying withdrawals, or ONLY IF withdrawals could predictably cause an extreme breakdown, then there's a chance troops might never come home. Temporary instability would not likely jeopardize withdrawals.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Yes, as I've said repeatedly, with the caveat that this would be an extreme circumstance, so "might" is the wrong modal.
There is "would", "would not", and "might". How is "might" wrong?
Anyway, so you've finally given an answer. Your answer is G, with your particular conditions, which I don't think get in the way of your answer being an answer.
So congrats, you're the second person on all of Forvm to actually give an answer.
insults about my mental state
Is saying you are very confused an insult, particularly in response to your saying "Your problem is that you completely and utterly fail to grasp the difference between policy and implementation."? Sounds like you were saying I'm completely confused, and I was saying, "No, you are". I don't see a problem (or at least not a major problem) with either in terms of tone, other than the fact that your characterization was baseless and perhaps you should have thought it through a bit more before saying something like that (since you might discover that you're wrong).
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )That statement's not wrong. Just, "might" feels a little wrong there.
I've been out of this debate for the duration apparently but it seems like your angle is that since Obama can't say with certainty which brigades and regiments will be withdrawn on exactly which days over a timeline of years in the future, he's a flip flopper on his commitment to get the troops out of Iraq? Or no different than McCain?