In itself, there is nothing wrong with being extreme

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I could answer your points, but we have a distinct difference of opinion. I don't feel like defining partisan for 4 pages like we did with your "I'd like Christians to stop posting" ideas.

So if something takes a long time and can't be summed up quickly, you don't want to talk about it? It would go fairly quickly if you answered each point. What you do instead is ignore them, then restate the same position later on.

I'll tell you right now...if you think being partisan isn't bad, you are most likely partisan and trying to defend it.

:laugh: This is an attack on the motives, a logical fallacy. Stunt, you seemed to be reasonable. But now this is a blatant logical fallacy. How do you explain your use of fallacious reasoning? Do yourself and me a favor and read over that logical fallacy site. It's not partisan in any way.

I did listen, i disagree with you. Why is that so hard for you to accept.

I accept you disagree. I'm saying your position is wrong. I'm trying to show you why. Are you willing to listen?

 

[piasabird]

So what some people are saying is that if you are not a moderate your are an extremist. So if anyone takes a stand on anything they are an extremist.

A moderate could be considered someone who does not stand for anything.

A moderate might be someone who sees some good in both parties but dislikes them both for some reason.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So what some people are saying is that if you are not a moderate your are an extremist. So if anyone takes a stand on anything they are an extremist.

I hear pride claims of being a moderate a lot on this forum, as if it somehow vindicates any given position. I also hear claims of being non-partisan, as if it somehow makes what they are saying more credible. It's an appeal to popularity essentially.

 

[CanOWorms]

Did you just take an introductory level logic course? I see that you've been throwing around various terms in the last few weeks.

 

[Stunt]

With you it goes in circles...nothing gets accomplished.
Why do you feel the need to defend the word partisan?

If my position is wrong, feel free to PM forum members and ask them if they think you are partisan. Maybe ask people if being partisan is a good thing.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Did you just take an introductory level logic course? I see that you've been throwing around various terms in the last few weeks.

haha...i've noticed that too.
maybe one of those word a day callenders for people who argue on the internet

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
With you it goes in circles...nothing gets accomplished.

It goes in circles because you don't take my posts point per point and ignore most of my arguments.

Why do you feel the need to defend the word partisan?

Who cares? If I say 2+2 is 4 because I hate you, I'm still right. My motives have nothing to do with the validity of my statements. To think otherwise is an appeal to motives. I'll answer your question anyway. I feel the need for people to argue logically. Arguing partisans are bad or extremists are bad is fallacious, so I point it out.

If my position is wrong, feel free to PM forum members and ask them if they think you are partisan. Maybe ask people if being partisan is a good thing.

What would that determine? That would only determine popular opinion, not what the correct view is. Another appeal to popularity on your part. Check this out.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Did you just take an introductory level logic course? I see that you've been throwing around various terms in the last few weeks.

I've been doing this for a long time. Go back to see some of my early posts. Any other comments CanOWorms?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Stunt
I'm the reason...he thinks that being partisan is not a bad thing.

lol, I'm the reason he first started this thread, too! :laugh:

We are very important to Infohawk!

Haha, and to think we used to argue all the time, watch Infohawk bring people together by repelling everyone away from him

He is the Chosen One that will unite the forum!

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Did you just take an introductory level logic course? I see that you've been throwing around various terms in the last few weeks.

I've been doing this for a long time. Go back to see some of my early posts. Any other comments CanOWorms?

I've only noticed it recently. It just brings a smile to me. I just imagine someone (not necessarily you) signing up for a course thinking they would be a bigshot on a forum because they can invoke all these fallacies and think that they're smart, only to realize that it doesn't really work well in real life when people aren't following the same rules. I see it happen in other forums, too. It seems to happen in the beginning of the semesters/summers, probably around when people first learn the stuff in an intro level course. They usually end up stopping it eventually.

 

[Stunt]

I've already stated that extremists are not bad...partisans are, as explained above. I don't care if you agree with everything within a party, but being partisan states you are confined to a certain view. Blind belief in an ideology or party is counter-prodctive in comprimise or listening to new ideas or suggestions.

You and your equivalents on the other side who do not wish to consider, then form judgements; are what is wrong in politics these days.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I don't care if you agree with everything within a party, but being partisan states you are confined to a certain view.

So what? That doesn't mean you aren't open to other views. You have no evidence that it does mean that. It could simply mean that someone takes all the views, keeps up to date on views, and yet makes a rational decision to belong to a specific party.

Blind belief in an ideology or party is counter-prodctive in comprimise or listening to new ideas or suggestions.

Okay, but I'm not sure any definition of partisan actually involves being blind in belief. Also, even if you were blind in belief, it doesn't reflect on the validity of a statement such a believer makes. It only reflects on the believer.

You and your equivalents on the other side who do not wish to consider, then form judgements; are what is wrong in politics these days.

Wow. I've responded to this complaint. And you didn't address it. Now do you understand why we are going in circles? You ignore my arguments. I'll repeat it again for you: You can't say that I don't consider other sides, because I listen to them all the time on this board. I AM open to other ideas and you have no evidence I'm not. I'm not the one who doesn't address people's arguments.

 

[Stunt]

You don't have to belong to a party, the only time parties should matter is at election time. You should be considering all the information and takes sides based on that, not belong to the party and confine yourself to the party line.

Why on earth would you confine yourself to anything?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
You should be considering all the information and takes sides based on that, not belong to the party and confine yourself to the party line.

Nothing about being partisan prevents you from considering all the information.

Why on earth would you confine yourself to anything?

Silly question, so I'll give you a silly answer. If there is a nuclear detonation, it woudl be wise to confine myself to a nuclear shelter. Can you leave the shelter? Of course. Can you leave a party or group? Of course. (This last point is an argument against your claim that partisans don't consider other information).

 

[WiseOldDude]

Originally posted by: Pedro69
Extremists are only bad if they try to force their extreme views on others IMO.

Which is what extremists do. The difference between an extreem christian, and a devout christian, is the extremist will cram their belief down your throat.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Stunt
You should be considering all the information and takes sides based on that, not belong to the party and confine yourself to the party line.

Nothing about being partisan prevents you from considering all the information.

Why on earth would you confine yourself to anything?

Silly question, so I'll give you a silly answer. If there is a nuclear detonation, it woudl be wise to confine myself to a nuclear shelter. Can you leave the shelter? Of course. Can you leave a party or group? Of course. (This last point is an argument against your claim that partisans don't consider other information).

Who's the nuclear bomb and why do you feel the need to hide from it? I sure as hell wouldn't sit in the bombshelter my who life reading the newspaper to see if the nuke had gone off or not.
Being partisan does limit consideration...or else you wouldn't be partisan.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Who's the nuclear bomb and why do you feel the need to hide from it?

I would hide from it to avoid... dying...

I sure as hell wouldn't sit in the bombshelter my who life reading the newspaper to see if the nuke had gone off or not.

Nobody was suggesting that woudl be reasonable

Being partisan does limit consideration...or else you wouldn't be partisan.

How so? How do you explain partisans who consider other people's ideas?

 

[Stunt]

I'm asking "Who's the nuclear bomb and why do you feel the need to hide from it?" what do the bomb and hiding represent in your analogy?

Which partisans consider other people's ideas?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I'm asking "Who's the nuclear bomb and why do you feel the need to hide from it?" what do the bomb and hiding represent in your analogy?

It wasn't an analogy. It was a response to your question, "why would you confine yourself to anything." Also, you don't have to be confined to be a partisan. There was an "or" in the definition and that was one of several meanings.

Which partisans consider other people's ideas?

Which ones don't? How about John kerry and Bush? When they debate aren't they considering the ideas? Anyway, it simply doesn't follow. How about all the people on this forum that are partisans but that interact with other people's ideas?

 

[Stunt]

Are you serious?, it is a blatent analogy, last time i checked we were not talking about nukes and bomb shelters, we were talking about political beliefs and parties. Not my fault you cannot explain it, hence my question.

When Kerry and Bush debate, no they are not considering ideas...they create the party like, and the rest of the partisans promote it, without considering the flipside of the coin or alternate solutions...hence why partisans are bad.

If you are considering other people's views and the views are not party policy, you are not partisan.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Are you serious?, it is a blatent analogy, last time i checked we were not talking about nukes and bomb shelters, we were talking about political beliefs and parties. Not my fault you cannot explain it, hence my question.

It was a response to your question. It was not an analogy. You asked a vague question, and it got an answer. If you want to be more precise in your question, go for it.

If you are considering other people's views and the views are not party policy, you are not partisan.

This is just reversing your claim. Again, your definition of partisan is not backed up by the dictionary. Nor does it follow from the dictionary definition that partisans are closed ot other ideas.

 

[Stunt]

I think you are getting a little emotional...you have resorted to bolding your comments, all over a definition of a word. I guess i have a different view of what partisan is, i think most people agree with this view, so even if you disagree with it, you are still going to have to deal with the rest of the population who feels being partisan is bad.

Fox is partisan too eh?...Is its existence good?...must be as they with cosider other's views...

kogase used partisan recently, I can go find it...It backs up how partisan is a bad thing.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: kogase
irwin, you might make a much more persuasive argument by using examples. Just sitting here and saying "the right are free thinkers and the left are sheeple" is no more convincing than me sitting here and saying the exact opposite. In fact, it sounds dangerously like... partisan rhetoric.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I think you are getting a little emotional...you have resorted to bolding your comments, all over a definition of a word.

No, it's for clarity. Because you consistently breeze over my points. I'm trying to draw your attention to it.

I guess i have a different view of what partisan is, i think most people agree with this view,

Who cares what most people think? What is your deal with ad populum arguments? Do you not understand it has no bearing on what is right or wrong? In any case, popular meanings generally make it in the dictionary, and yours isn't in there.

so even if you disagree with it, you are still going to have to deal with the rest of the population who feels being partisan is bad.

Yeah, I deal with it by trying to tell them they're mistaken.

Fox is partisan too eh?...Is its existence good?...must be as they with cosider other's views...

Fox is partisan, but that doesn't make them bad.

kogase used partisan recently, I can go find it...It backs up how partisan is a bad thing.

Good. Post it in here and PM him to come in here. I'd be interested to hear what he says.

 

[Stunt]

"Fox is partisan, but that doesn't make them bad. "
Fox being partisan isn't bad?!...wow, that's worth saving for the next biased media thread, I bet some Republicans would like it for sig material.

"Who cares what most people think? What is your deal with ad populum arguments?"
Apparently you do...you think since everyone groups and labels people, you are justified in doing so.