Dummie AndreaCG starts a cat fight

[I_B_Perky]

This is a big bonfire. Cat fight broke out.

Link:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025987061

OP:

AndreaCG (1,926 posts)

Why are right wingers so often intellectually dishonest?
I am in a Facebook argument with a HS classmate who defended our use of torture because Muslims are worse. I said that's a poor justification and btw Timothy mcveigh was a Christian terrorist. She asked me where I got my misinformation, and that torture was justified to prevent another 9-11. I went to ask and found an article that said, while mcveigh no longer was a practicing catholic he still held "core beliefs" so unless you're a fundamentalist who believes Catholics aren't Christians he's a Christian. And that studies have shown torture tends to produce misinformation, as opposed to humane interrogation. I refused to do the research on that for her though. We've had a slew of similar arguments, and I've probably cited five times the sources that she has to back my claims up. This is not a stupid woman. We went to probably the most difficult public HS in NYC to get into. But she got her degree from a bible college, and swallows RW propaganda hook line and sinker. Our group of close to 100 classmates considers ourselves sisters, so she remains my friend. It just gets tiresome dealing with the stubbornness.

Away we go....

unrepentant progress (496 posts)
1. Motivated reasoning. Look it up.

You're doing it yourself right now if you think the phenomenon is confined to the right.

AndreaCG (1,926 posts)
4. Ok I looked it up

Certainly it is true to say that some left wingers do it (as would be true of any group) but I disagree with the implication that we are anywhere close to even proportions with right wingers.

Bouncy stories anyone? OK... now let the fur fly!

Seeking Serenity (2,266 posts)
11. Of course you do.

Confirmation bias wouldn't allow for any other way.

Bitch slap?

AndreaCG (1,926 posts)
12. Gee you're not in the least bit smug and superscilious

Do tell me your Facebook and Twitter names so I can do nothing but try to absorb your neverending pearls of wisdom.

You may be seeking serenity but you're a galaxy away from attaining it.

Yep!

Seeking Serenity (2,266 posts)
13. Because I don't like double standards.

Or the idea on political boards that "my" side is pure as the driven snow and the "other" side is just the epitome of evil.

Yes, both sides do it (ours as well as theirs), and no, it's not a false equivalency, and no, we're not somehow justified or can be given a pass when we do it because our ends are noble and just (they say the same thing).

Self-reflection is always a good thing. And yes, I am seeking serenity, and I acknowledge that I may never attain it.

ETA: Read my sig line, from George Orwell's "On Nationalism"

AndreaCG (1,926 posts)
14. Hmm. You would fit in well on the Sunday talk show circuit

They don't do nuance well either anymore. My mind immediately recalls Ralph Nader in 2000 saying there is no difference between Bush and Gore. So ok, say all the Florida votes were indeed counted and Gore becomes the president. Would 9-11 have happened? Well, maybe, but the briefing paper Bin Laden determined to strike in the US probably wouldn't have been ignored, because it was the Clinton/Gore administration which ordered the study. And if the bombing happened despite taking steps to ensure it wouldn't, the Saudi royal family members whose citizens largely were the terrorists wouldn't have been escorted out of the US before the embargo on air travel was lifted and not properly questioned, because Gore was not personal friends of the Saudis due to shared family businessinterests in oil. And there would have probably been no Iraq war, because Richard Clarke stated the Bush administration planned how to start a war with Saddam Hussein even prior to 9-11, obviously not because he caused 9-11 but because Bush wanted to avenge his father's failure to reign him in, and even more because Cheney's Halliburton could make umpteen billions in such a war. President Gore would have had no such motivation to lie about the weapons of mass destruction and Saddam causing 9-11 not the Saudis.

That's just two discrete examples of how a Gore administration would have likely differed from the Bush one. Not even touching domestic policies and the environment. If you can't differentiate the substance and subtleties between two different people, parties or other groups you're going to fall back in the "well they all do it so a pox on both houses" canard. I don't know what else to say. I have a feeling this post will not budge you from your previous opinions. C'est la vie.

Response to AndreaCG (Reply #14)

Sun Dec 21, 2014, 06:29 PM

Seeking Serenity (2,266 posts)
19. You're putting words in my mouth or inferring things I didn't say

I did not say both parties are exactly the same or anything like it. Clearly, their policy positions are different to a large extent. My point was on the the way partisans think and act and how they try to "otherize" their opposition and don't engage in the self-reflection necessary to see how they're doing to their opponents what they decry when done to them.

You asked (rhetorically, intending to make a broad statement, not actually seeking an answer to a question) about how "so many right wingers" are. Not very nuanced, in my opinion. "Those people over there? Ew. Why are they like that?" Guess what, they say the same things about us. The policies are very different in many ways (and in other ways not so much), but the tactics and rhetoric of the partisans are quite often very much the same.

 

ProfessorGAC (25,088 posts)
23. This Sub_Thread Is Hilarious

Mostly due to your unctuous replies. All sweet and pseudo-intellectual, but really just a bitter pill.

You grabbed on to your own intellectual tidbit with the tenacity of a pit bull, and then lecture someone else on cofirmation bias?

Classic.

Dummie enjoying the cat fight.

daleanime (6,282 posts)
30. No chance that your implying things....

you didn't intend to?

Mon Dec 22, 2014, 12:12 PM

KingCharlemagne (2,340 posts)
31. What a load of pure, unadulterated horseshit. Besides the right's refusing to abide

in the world of facts and science, most of them also lack the 'empathy gene' which makes that cohort either borderline or outright sociopaths. So stop spewing your tu quoque line of malarkey. You have nothing with which to back it up. No data, no studies, nothing other than your own opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #31)

Mon Dec 22, 2014, 07:10 PM

NoJusticeNoPeace (818 posts)
51. Both sides do it, both sides breathe air, other than that, there is NOTHING the left and the right

have in common that they both do.

Both sides support their ideology, one sides ideology is fairness and decency and helping others, the other side is entirely based in greed and hate.

Both sides my ass

 

onecaliberal (1,130 posts)
2. Right wing and intellectual are two words that never

Go together. They willfully ignore the reality that is right in front of their eyes. They are dangerous and destroying democracy and actual lives in the process.

This dummie slips a bouncy in:

KingCharlemagne (2,340 posts)
34. Here's a good example of how their minds (if one may use the term) operate. Shortly after

Katrina has swept through New Orleans, leaving mass devastation and suffering in its wake for those unfortunate enough not to have been able to evacuate, I had a boss sidle up to me and go, "Why didn't they get on buses when the Mayor told them to leave?" She was of course referring to the batallion of empty yellow schoolbuses whose image the media continued to show. No matter that the drivers of those buses had already left New Orleans in private motor vehicles ahead of the storm, no matter that there was no attempt to organize mass evacuations for those without the means to privately evacuate. No, in this boss' mind, the visual of that group of school buses and the Mayor's order to evacuate meant that those who stayed behind somehow deserved their fate because they were too stupid to heed the warnings. That's how 'right wing intellectuals' operate these days.

I walked out on that job a couple days later in mid-shift for entirely unrelated reasons. But really the reasons were related, as this boss and the owner were in tight cahoots and shared the same ideology.

Thanks for calling out the oxymoronic quality of most contemporary conservative intellectual noise. Real conservative intellectuals like Edmund Burke and Thomas Hobbes would have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this gang of charlatans and demagogues.

spanone (78,969 posts)
3. it's easier to be a lazy racist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to AndreaCG (Original post)

Sat Dec 20, 2014, 11:34 PM

Star Member MannyGoldstein (29,850 posts)
5. Because if they weren't they'd be Liberals

They'd have no choice.

Bronx Science or Stuyvesant? Or.... ?

Then we have this:

AndreaCG (1,926 posts)
6. Hunter College HS

Two years before boys were admitted. It's now twice as hard to get in. No more than 300 are admitted, once, in 7th grade. It could be even fewer than that.

Elena Kagan was a classmate.

Wanna bet Kagan never heard of the above dummie?

True Blue Door (2,045 posts)
10. Because they know they're wrong and don't care.

Being honest and honorable means nothing to them - all they want is to win, to subjugate others.

They're compulsive, pathological people incapable of reflection or self-restraint. That's why I call them cancervatives.

 Suuure we are. 

treestar (53,415 posts)
49. This ^^^^^^^

There is a level on which they know they are wrong. This is why they resort to ad hominem at the first sign of an argument they can't defend or support their position over.

 Suuure we are. 

ananda (14,037 posts)
15. That rings funny.

Intellectually and rightwinger are mutually exclusive terms, imho.

There is very little thinking and a lot of emotionalism, hate and greed
behind their dishonesty.

Seems we know science better than you. Oh and we can feed our families with relying on the government too!

kentuck (72,778 posts)
17. Because they believe dishonesty is the norm.

Whatever they do, everybody does it also.
.

Seeking Serenity (2,266 posts)
20. "Why is anyone ever intellectually dishonest?"

Because either a) they honestly don't know any better, or b) it suits their purposes to be so.

So which are you dummie? A or B?

dawg (7,137 posts)
24. Because the facts are usually not on their side.

The defining principle of the right-wing in America is to promote policies that enhance the wealth and power of those who are already wealthy and powerful. That isn't a popular thing with most people, so they must obfuscate and dissemble.

Then why don't dems run as progressives?


That is all I will bring over. It is pretty entertaining.

[thundley4]

Both sides support their ideology, one sides ideology is fairness and decency and helping others, the other side is entirely based in greed and hate.

The DUmmie got that right, unfortunately they are wrong on which side is which. Liberal thinking is entirely based on greed and taking what others have earned and giving it to themselves and people that think like them. Conservatives believe that the best way to help people is to give them the means to help themselves, not just a handout.

Handouts only make the giver feel good about themselves, and does nothing spiritually or mentally for the person getting a handout.

[SVPete]

btw Timothy mcveigh was a Christian terrorist. She asked me where I got my misinformation ... . I went to ask and found an article that said, while mcveigh no longer was a practicing catholic he still held "core beliefs" so unless you're a fundamentalist who believes Catholics aren't Christians he's a Christian.

Oopsie:

McVeigh No Christian; Worshipped Himself; Said “Science Is My Religion”
By John Lofton, Editor
theamericanview.com
Human Events
May 6, 2002

It’s a Big Lie that’s been repeated many times since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. But it’s demonstrably not true. And the fact that it is not true was easily discoverable with just a little research. The big lie? That Oklahoma bomber and mass murderer Timothy McVeigh was a Christian. ...
...
... Was Tim McVeigh a Christian? No, he was not. And, as I say, even the most basic research would have exposed this big lie.

For example, there is the book “American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City Bombing” (ReganBooks, 2001) written by Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck, who are staff reporters for the “Buffalo News” in New York. In this book, Michel and Herbeck tell how McVeigh committed adultery, was a thief and used illegal drugs, acts that are, to put it mildly, not fruits of the Christian Spirit. Ditto, his mass murders, incidentally.

Michel and Herbeck also tell how during the Gulf War McVeigh lied about attending church: “On Sunday mornings, the recruits were required to either attend church services or spend an hour cleaning the barracks. McVeigh, an agnostic, chose to clean the barracks until he found out that nobody took attendance at church. One Sunday, he signed up for church and just slipped away from the rest of his platoon. He found a field of tall grass and lay there, a little worried about snakes, but enjoying the opportunity to relax in solitude. The following Sunday, McVeigh signed up for church again. This time, he sneaked into an old abandoned barracks to kill time.”

Another story. Michel and Herbeck tell how McVeigh once “paid a visit to the local Seventh Day Adventist Church, but he found that service bored him … McVeigh had never been inclined to criticize people for their religious views, but he concluded that organized religion wasn’t really for him. He believed that the universe was guided by natural law, energized by some universal higher power that showed each person right from wrong if they paid attention to what was going on inside of them.” (emphasis mine.)

But the smoking gun is a quote by McVeigh himself regarding what he believed. Michel and Herbeck say that McVeigh would tell friends, “Science is my religion.” (emphasis mine.) To worship at the altar of science is, of course, idolatry and not Christianity.

[Carl]

True Blue Door (2,045 posts)
10. Because they know they're wrong and don't care.

Being honest and honorable means nothing to them - all they want is to win, to subjugate others.

They're compulsive, pathological people incapable of reflection or self-restraint. That's why I call them cancervatives.

"If you like your health care plan..."

Yeah,we are the liars and stupid ones.

[wasp69]

Isn't it breath taking to watch these retards scream and run into walls?  They foment racial hatred to the point where someone picks up a gun and acts out, get called out for it, then run around with their hair on fire blaming Conservatives.

Priceless!   

[tanstaafl]

AndreaCG (1,926 posts)
12. Gee you're not in the least bit smug and superscilious

Do tell me your Facebook and Twitter names so I can do nothing but try to absorb your neverending pearls of wisdom.

You may be seeking serenity but you're a galaxy away from attaining it.

Nice Seinfeld references.

[miskie]

Re - McVeigh

He might have been a Christian, he might not have been - but that doesn't matter, as Christianity <<IS NOT>> the reason he bombed the Murrah Federal Building.

I explain herein why I bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. I explain this not for publicity, nor seeking to win and argument of right or wrong. I explain so that the record is clear as to my thinking and motivations in bombing a government installation.

I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike; a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years (including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the FBI"s "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies during the "80"s; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own citizens.

Knowledge of these multiple and ever-more aggressive raids across the country constituted an identifiable pattern of conduct within and by the federal government and amongst its various agencies. (see enclosed) For all intents and purposes, federal agents had become "soldiers" (using military training, tactics, techniques, equipment, language, dress, organization, and mindset) and they were escalating their behavior. Therefore, this bombing was also meant as a pre-emptive (or pro-active) strike against these forces and their command and control centers within the federal building. When an aggressor force continually launches attacks from a particular base of operation, it is sound military strategy to take the fight to the enemy.

Additionally, borrowing a page from U.S. foreign policy, I decided to send a message to a government that was becoming increasingly hostile, by bombing a government building and the government employees within that building who represent that government. Bombing the Murrah Federal Building was morally and strategically equivalent to the U.S. hitting a government building in Serbia, Iraq, or other nations. (see enclosed) Based on observations of the policies of my own government, I viewed this action as an acceptable option. From this perspective, what occurred in Oklahoma City was no different than what Americans rain on the heads of others all the time, and subsequently, my mindset was and is one of the clinical detachment. (the bombing of the Murrah building was not personal , no more than when Air Force, Army, Navy, or Marine personnel bomb or launch cruise missiles against government installations and their personnel.)

I hope that this clarification amply addresses your question.

As can be read, he did what he did against what he perceived to be an out of control government attacking its own citizens with impunity. The Waco incident was 'the last straw' - I also find it intriguing that primitives widely support the 'black lives matter' campaign while denouncing McVeigh even though their primary complaint is nearly identical. -Out of control government forces attacking its citizens instead of protecting them. 

And you DUmmies know as well as I do that its going to end the same way. A small group of activists are going to successfully destroy a government installation, and kill several along the way. Its only a matter of time.