"Around here, the only thing we have is our credibility."

[Que]

I was 'warned' by Sean Renaurd that I should be careful what I say because, "Around here, the only thing we have is our credibility."

He has helpfully assisted me and my re-education with little snipes and barbs and snarks and telling me I'm full of s***...with litlle specifity of what it is he disagrees with, much less any cogent counterpoint.

I think what he and a lot of people here seem to misunderstand is just because there are other people who agree with your point of view doesn't mean that they agree with your method of expressing it.

The number of fellow posters that you can get to pile on doesn't bolster your argument, unless they actually raised something that refutes a previous point or illuminates your point. The volume that you shout your argument doesn't improve it's viability.

When it comes to debate I'm well aware that I am way too verbose and my point often gets muddled. I'm amazed at the number of people that seem to think that they have great debate skills when they're not even technically debating.n

Do people on the General Board actually feel "credibility" describes the strength of their respective positions (whatever they may be) and the brilliance with which they engage in rhetorical argument with the "wrong" side (according to their respective viewpoint?)

Seriously?

I can't imagine a junior high debate team alternate would deign to engage most of us after a couple of pouty rounds.

Thoughts?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Of course it does. That's just reality and it's no different here than IRL.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

Do people on the General Board actually feel "credibility" describes the strength of their respective positions (whatever they may be) and the brilliance with which they engage in rhetorical argument with the "wrong" side (according to their respective viewpoint?)

Seriously?

I can't imagine a junior high debate team alternate would deign to engage most of us after a couple of pouty rounds.

Thoughts?

Yes ?

 

[Que]

Of course it does. That's just reality and it's no different here than IRL.

And...... you feel that the way in which you conduct your discourse, the way in which you prosecute your arguments leads to people viewing your opinions as "credible?" Irrespective of the CONTENT of your argument.

For example, Jen is just as apt to hurl ad homonym insult. She is just as courageously determined in her convictions, does that mean she is credible to you?

Or do you define "credible" as agreeing with your positions which of course "everybody knows" the truth of?

Could someone, in your mind, articulate an opposing viewpoint to yours in a credible way, but simple be incorrect?

I have noticed Jen sides with me maybe 80-90% of the time, You maybe 30%.

Should I (from my naturally wrong-headed position) find Jen or You more credible according to your understanding of the term?

For the sake of discussion since I should consider my "hosts" as it were since it is generally thought that conservative thinkers eschew public expression of kink, I would likely be in the minority. Should I attempt to find consensus with that which I disagree or have factual difference with in proportion to my minority status.

Like lets say lit is 80/20 leans lib/leans cons. (I'll leave out how libertarianism is the way most thought can be reconciled for now...)

Should I try to agree 80% of the time to maintain my "credibility?"

How shall I choose when to agree. Only when the other position is not patently absurd for example?

 

[Que]

Yes ?

sigh...I was aiming for "maybe?"

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

sigh...I was aiming for "maybe?"

My focus is inversely proportional to my intoxication. What were you saying?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Wordy sonbitch ain'tcha.

To give you the short answer if you find jen credible at all that says all that needs to be said about you. You have no honor, no credibility and no integrity. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. Colonel Hogan and I don't agree much but he's probably the most credible person on the board (Pergy and him run about neck and neck.)

 

[Que]

Do any of you brilliant political analysts found here, try out your arguments on boards frequented by people that are actually knowledgeable about political discourse or it it all cut and paste from instagram?

Does Lit feel like a small pond increasing your fishy-verve?

I always thought it interesting that politics comes up at all here.

I don't get what the end-game is.

Persuasion? You think anyone changes their mind even without anti-bush or anti-obama screeds setting hackles on edge?

If it's to increase one's "credibility", hows that working?

If it is just to sharpen up ones bully-instinct...looks like most of you get an A already.

 

[bronzeage]

Do people on the General Board actually feel "credibility" describes the strength of their respective positions (whatever they may be) and the brilliance with which they engage in rhetorical argument with the "wrong" side (according to their respective viewpoint?)

Seriously?

I can't imagine a junior high debate team alternate would deign to engage most of us after a couple of pouty rounds.

Thoughts?

Some people care about their credibility, some don't, and some don't understand the concept.

It's easy to tell the difference.

 

[Que]

My focus is inversely proportional to my intoxication. What were you saying?

Stop it...you are trying to seduce me with a mathematical term there Mrs. Robinson!

(kind of worked)

I'd like to get inverse with....

 

[Sean Renaud]

Do any of you brilliant political analysts found here, try out your arguments on boards frequented by people that are actually knowledgeable about political discourse or it it all cut and paste from instagram?

Does Lit feel like a small pond increasing your fishy-verve?

I always thought it interesting that politics comes up at all here.

I don't get what the end-game is.

Persuasion? You think anyone changes their mind even without anti-bush or anti-obama screeds setting hackles on edge?

If it's to increase one's "credibility", hows that working?

If it is just to sharpen up ones bully-instinct...looks like most of you get an A already.

Quite well actually. If you think people don't change their minds around here it means you haven't paid attention long enough.

As for credibility I'm better than most not as good as some.

 

[Que]

Some people care about their credibility, some don't, and some don't understand the concept.

It's easy to tell the difference.

That sounds right. How do you, personally discern the difference?

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

Stop it...you are trying to seduce me with a mathematical term there Mrs. Robinson!

(kind of worked)

I'd like to get inverse with....

Political debate has very little to do with logic and a whole lot to do with being able to talk the longest. Or if you're Ross Perot, pretty charts.

 

[bronzeage]

That sounds right. How do you, personally discern the difference?

The same way you tell in the face to face world.

People aren't that hard to read. Here, all we have is what they write. Look at Jenn. She spouts nothing but nonsense and ignorance. What are chances she is any different outside Lit?

 

[Sean]

My GF is the best tech on the gb. She is also one of the most beautiful women you'll ever see.

 

[Que]

Quite well actually. If you think people don't change their minds around here it means you haven't paid attention long enough.

As for credibility I'm better than most not as good as some.

How many converts you reckon Jen or Rob have?

I've been pretty politically aware since about 1976ish...I am fairly confident both of the "correctness" (if in some cases that is even possible) of my point of view and my ability to articulate it. Obviously in the areas that my positions have changed/evolved/reversed in hindsight my position was "incorrect.'

In all the intervening years the times I recall having a fruitful discussion of politics by someone with a differing view are fairly singular. In most of those discussions NEITHER of us changed our viewpoint but the discussion seemed like it was worth having.

Other than very superficial discussions with those that agree with me, I don't generally participate. Why? we already know what's what more or less. Sometimes those discussions become interesting for example with "conservatives" that want to bomb others into democracy, something which in theory or country doesnt ascribe to...we are supposed to have layers protecting us from the ravishes of democracy, but I digress...

Most of the time it's just a waste of breath.

 

[Que]

Political debate has very little to do with logic and a whole lot to do with being able to talk the longest. Or if you're Ross Perot, pretty charts.

ooo...chart's ARE teh sex!

I kind of felt my ears wiggle a little when I posted up one today!

 

[Que]

My GF is the best tech on the gb. She is also one of the most beautiful women you'll ever see.

Nice to hear something nice about someone on the GB...

Live long and...er....well spread some wealth around.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

Nice to hear something nice about someone on the GB...

Live long and...er....well spread some wealth around.

I think it was a joke. D implied)

 

[Que]

The same way you tell in the face to face world.

People aren't that hard to read. Here, all we have is what they write. Look at Jenn. She spouts nothing but nonsense and ignorance. What are chances she is any different outside Lit?

agreed, its easy to define the margins.

From my (biased) point of view it seems an awful lot of the ones spoiling for an altercation with me (so I presume, perhaps incorrectly, that they lean left) seem to content themselves with "Nuh, uh!" and "You are wrong", and pretty paltry attacks on my mental acumen.

I don't make a point of slapping down Jen because as you say you can PICTURE her as your daft neighbor, but doesn't it seem likely that she on the right and those on the left of similar debate skills FEEL supported when a position supports theirs? Awful lot of people walking around casting aspersions about others intellect (left and right) when they don't seem to have a mental pot to piss in.

The thing is with 'my dingbat' (and again maybe bias clouds my viewpoint) even when I abhor the poor phrasing, the ad homonym, the veiled racism, I can still see what point she is articulating, and it is often the correct position with faulty structure supporting it.

with 'your' dingbats, there is so little there that you wouldn't know from any one of the white house press non-briefings.

I guess though thats how Jen's poor articulations appear to you with you attributing it (probably correctly) to say, Hannity?

 

[Que]

I think it was a joke. D implied)

Well it seemed rude to point out that the comment was irrelevant without supporting pictures....

 

[Que]

Wordy sonbitch ain'tcha.

To give you the short answer if you find jen credible at all that says all that needs to be said about you. You have no honor, no credibility and no integrity. It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. Colonel Hogan and I don't agree much but he's probably the most credible person on the board (Pergy and him run about neck and neck.)

There is in my mind a HUGE difference between finding some mumbling bag lady on the street-corner surprisingly on the defensible side of an issue, and finding that person to be credible. A stopped watch is 100% correct twice a day...more often if you travel west fast enough.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

Well it seemed rude to point out that the comment was irrelevant without supporting pictures....

What is this "rude" you speak of?

 

[Que]

Some platforms have simple ways to "vote" on someones presense...I "like" that or I give ya a "thumbs up" or "+1 to the mthr fkn' max!".

I know this platform has the capability of "reputation" points but that is silly.

Kind of my point with all the verbosity above is:

Human nature dictates that we tend to find people we agree with "credible" and people we differ with "suspect."

MORE support of ones argument ought to be viewed with at least interest, if not acceptance. Instead slogans carry the day.

 

[Que]

What is this "rude" you speak of?

Kind of hard to see blue as a color under water isn't it?