RE: Why Bush Should Be Impeached, #84

On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 [email protected] wrote:

> I'm *not* pro-Bush, nor am I anti-Bush.  I think he's good some things,
> but bad at others.  Nearly everything I read on this mailing list is
> about how Israel is bad, Bush is bad, etc.

So?

>  Not a peep (from the usual
> contributors, anyway) about any other point of view.

So?

>  So there *is* a
> bias here.

Listen, just because there's a bias in what we post doesn't mean that
there's a problematic bias interfereing with our ability to make coherent
arguments.

In other words, so fucking what if there's a bias in *general*, the onus
on you is to show that IN THIS CASE that bias has contaminated our
arguments. If our bias has done this, then the arguments *themselves*
would be flawed. Point to those flaws. Just *try* to. If you succeed,
we'll have learned something. In either case, you'll have learned
something.

Technically, rejecting arguments because a certain person made them is the
fallacy of argumentum ad hominum. You reject our arguments because *we*
made them. Supposedly we are bad sources of arguments because we are
biased.

But we supplied the argument which you can inspect yourself. Check them
out. Read them. Think about them. Evaluate them. Pass them on to other
people for other perspectives.

Sitting on your smug ass waiting for use to do your research for you
*WHILE* insulting us isn't exactly social behavior.

 
> I'd like to hear the other arguments so I *can* make my own judgement,

Are there *really* other arguments? Show me one.

> and I obviously will not hear them here.  

Only because you're lazy. If you would fine some and post them, you would
hear them here. No one stops you from posting your unsupported, and in
fact, grossly ignorant opinions, I assure you we'd welcome actual
arguments.

Plus, this is directly contridicted by the rest of the threat. Mike,
Kendall, and I examined a range of possibilities...not that you understood
them, afaict. But, christ, give me a HINT that the constitution supports
your view AT ALL.

I'll give you some pointers to online copys of the constitution if you
can't find it.

> And I'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't insult me...

Well, it would be nice if you *merited* lack of insult, for example, by
not being systematically insulting.

Oh right, you don't *understand* that you're being insulting. Maybe we
should find an impartial expert to tell us which one of us is out of
line. Any suggestions?

> I am, at
> least, *trying* to be reasonable and non-judgmental.

Well, allow me to respectfully suggest that your efforts seem almost
entirely misguide this. I say this in all seriousness, as someone with
many years experience teaching people how to think, how to reason, how to
critically examine texts and arguments. You've dismiss my constructive
adivce time and again, without, afict, any attempt to seriously evaluate
it. How is that reasonable? How is that non-judgment? If you try so hard
and still fail so much, perhaps you should try something different?

> The fact that I
> question some of what I read here should be enough to make that clear.

<snicker/> Not when your questioning is based on prejudice against your
interlocutors and this forum and *nothing else*.

Jack, just put up an argument for you view. A pointer to an argument. The
only non-bald-assertion that you made was to a source that wasn't exactly
on target and what bits were relevant didn't support your view (at least
the *legality* of impeaching someone for prior crimes).

> Geez.

Geez indeed.

If you note, even your somewhat inept attempt to supply actual evidence
and argument received engaged response from all of us. Your little
insulting whines for a impartial-daddy to do your thinking for you
received scorn. Your insinuations of dishonesty received hosility. Work it
out.

Cheerios, hold the spilt milk,
Bijan.