-
(closed) | 1710 19Sep12 | written by
LinogeJust take a look at this conversation:
@willspencer: Most "Libertarians" want Obama to win, because they are angry at America. @RedheadAndRight @glennmw @KurtSchlichter @tnacgal
@linoge_wotc: I assume this was sarcasm. RT @willspencer Most "Libertarians" want Obama to win, because they are angry at America.
@willspencer: Unfortunately, no. Instead, it is an honest evaluation of what I am seeing. @linoge_wotc [Note: Tweet successfully Memory Hole’d. Replicated from memory.]
@linoge_wotc: Your perception is wrong. I suspect recursive logical fallacies. RT @willspencer Instead, it is an honest evaluation of what I am seeing.
@willspencer: What I see are multiple variations of this: Americans [reject|rejected][X|Y|Z], therefore they deserve to suffer under Obama. @linoge_wotc
@linoge_wotc: [I'd] love a cite to a libertarian actually saying that. Just love one. RT @willspencer … therefore they deserve to suffer under Obama
@willspencer: In 2008, every Ron Paul supporter I knew voted for Obama, except for the ones who could not vote because of their citizenship. @linoge_wotc
@linoge_wotc: Exactly how big was that sample set? RT @willspencer In 2008, every Ron Paul supporter I knew voted for Obama
@willspencer: At the time, it was only about a dozen. I normally try to avoid crazy people. @linoge_wotc
@linoge_wotc: And you would project the actions of thousands/millions based on that? #sigh RT @willspencer it was only about a dozen.
@willspencer: But let’s make this personal: Are you a libertarian or a Libertarian? Who are you voting for in 2012? @linoge_wotc
@linoge_wotc: Why? You haven’t even bothered to cite your sources yet. RT @willspencer But lets make this personal
@willspencer: That’s what I’m seeing. If you have variant data, please share. @linoge_wotc
@linoge_wotc: @willspencer The burden of proof is yours & thus far you’ve failed to shoulder it.
@willspencer: You’re free to believe in lizard people. It’s your right. It’s not my job to fix your thinking. @linoge_wotc
@linoge_wotc: It’s your job to substantiate your claims w/ these things called facts. Your refusal to do so & use of insults reflects poorly @willspencer
@linoge_wotc: Ways to prove your debate skills suck: Delete your side of it when you know you’ve lost. Too bad the internet is forever. @willspencer
@willspencer: Your closed mind is a loss, not to me, but to yourself. @linoge_wotc
@linoge_wotc: Do, please, explain how asking for evidence indicates a closed mind. RT @willspencer Your closed mind is a loss, not to me, but to yourself.
@willspencer: The conversation was valueless to my readers because you are irrelevant. @linoge_wotc
@linoge_wotc: More personal insults but not a single fact to be seen. Projection, methinks. RT @willspencer … because you are irrelevant
@linoge_wotc: Blocking someone who merely asked you to substantiate your position is the HEIGHT of close-mindedness. @willspencer #irony #fail
@linoge_wotc: Pathetic. @willspencer claims libertarians "want America to suffer under Obama". I ask for a citation showing that. He blocks me. #fail
(I apologize for the visual incongruity of my screencaptures coming from Twitter’s web interface and @willspencer’s screencaptures coming from TweetDeck, and I likewise apologize for not linking to half of the actual tweets blockquoted above. Apparently Will was so very ashamed of his inability to substantiate his opening statement that he went through and Memory Hole‘d his entire side of the conversation. Thankfully for those of us interested in maintaining the continuity of conversations, The Internet Is Forever.)
As I later said on Twitter, I have absolutely no patience for anyone, of any political or social affiliation, who cannot substantiate his or her claims with facts. I am willing to make allowances for religion, so long as they do not attempt to inflict that religion upon anyone who is not amenable, but if you are going to make a claim of, "X said Y", you had better have your sources lined up to point to.
And that is the sad thing of all of this; if Will Spencer had bothered to simply proffer up a good, old-fashioned hyperlink to an actual "libertarian" actually saying America "deserves to suffer under Obama" for rejecting something the libertarian in question held dear – you know, actual proof – then his whole bout of idiocy would have never transpired, and we could have debated the stupidity of the person in question. But he never did. He made some blanket statement, "backed it up" with furious hand-waving, and then acted like a petulant child when called on the carpet for it.
Do not do that.
@linoge_wotc
I have heard some that claim to be Libertarians actually said that the best thing it could happen to the country is for an Obama re-election. They are stupid little brats pissed that nobody else follows the cult of Ron Paul.
The problem is that is those brats the ones making the biggest noise from the Libertarian side and it makes the rest of the group look like a better washed version of Occupy Wall Street.
The “You Must Be Libertarian or Fuck You.” is not an appealing way to bring people into the movement.
Oh, I have no particular love for the big-l Libertarians out there, nor any love at all for Ron Paul.
However, the claim that “a vote for a third party is a vote for Obama” and so on, so forth, is so much bullshit.
In this particular case, Will may very well have been reporting what he saw, but he never actually substantiated that claim, and given my repeated requests for any kind of proof, one is nearly forced to conclude he was making it all up.
Does that have a strong flavor of “I’m not racist, I have friends that are ______”?
I am constantly amazed at the lack of knowledge displayed by so many on the far left of the spectrum in the basics of logic, statistics, surveys, etc. And then they have the nerve to accuse the ‘conservatives’ of being anti-science.
I could talk to folks out at a dinner and come to the conclusion that no elderly are going to vote for Obama — of course that dinner would be the monthly Range meeting. But don’t let selection bias stand in the way of a good yarn.
I dunno, I’d be careful what I’d consider a substantiated claim or not. Reason I say that is I once had an argument w/ an old friend of mine, where I brought up a point he’d said in a previous argument. He memory holed that tidbit and pulled the burden of proof deal on me. From a conversation we had days ago that I *clearly* remembered. He said, and I quote, “If you can’t prove it in a court of law, I didn’t say it.”
I cut off the ‘friendship’ a minute and a half later. I’ve known him since we were 2.
The point is, those ‘dozen’ ron paul supporters he talked about might have been his actual evidence (unlikely, given the deletion of the entire conversation). All I’m saying is that just because documented proof doesn’t exist, doesn’t mean the proof never existed.
Eh, sounds kinda rambly there. Hope you at least get the meaning…
@ Bob S.: The sad thing? This guy is a conservative, and rabidly so – he hates Obama, hates “gun control”, and so on, so forth.
The problem we encountered is that he is one of those misguided idiots who firmly believes in the false dichotomy logical fallacy that if you are not voting for Romney, you are, in effect, voting for Obama. Hell with that. That argument is based off the aforementioned false dichotomy in conjunction with circular logic, and I simply cannot tolerate it.
In this particular case, damned if he could actually make a coherent argument, which is the point of this post – if you are going to start a fight over something, you bloody well have the means of backing it up.
@ the dude: Given his borderline militant refusal to offer up anything even approximating proof, I tend to disbelieve its existence.
That said, that is all I wanted; proof. Then we could decide whether the claim was warranted or not, whether he was fabricating something to demonize people who dare disagree with him, and so forth. This is not hard, nor is it something that should be unusual… this is the kind of thing we teach elementary students: cite your sources.
Even if he were speaking out of his ass, he could have easilly backfilled.
(Yes yes pun)
It’s not hard to do a web search and find some post somwhere that supports his claim.
But obviously ol’ Spencer thought that was beneath him. He felt Argument from authority was all the proof he needed. Hence his telling line “The conversation was valueless to my readers because you are irrelevant.”
In his world, arguments from the little people don’t count.
Linoge,
This guy is a conservative, and rabidly so – he hates Obama, hates “gun control”, and so on, so forth.
The more I look around at the parties, the more I realize the far left and the far right really aren’t all that far apart.
Both in their desire to micromanage people’s lives and their ability to debate.
Bob S.b wrote:
Yup. Of course, part of the problem there is the general acceptance of the false left/right paradigm. Heck, in that model, the Nazis were far Right and the Soviets were far Left, yet there is very little practical difference between the two ideologies.
@Linoge: Heck, if he had just admitted that his sample size was inadequate, and/or that he didn’t have a link because it was from personal conversations, then his asking whether you were L/libertarian could have been a reasonable continuation of the argument. I can certainly respect someone who is willing to say “I’m basing this off of limited and/or anecdotal data, and if someone will point me towards better data I will adjust my conclusions accordingly.”
I can’t respect someone who will switch to Reasoned Discourse(TM) when the inadequacies of his argument are pointed out.
@ The Jack: Oh, I certainly do not doubt that some Libertarians and libertarians alike are of the mindset that either America got what it deserves and it will keep on getting it, or another four years of Obama will really precipitate the collapse we all know is coming, so let us just get it on, eh?
My main contention was with his use of the word “most” – that implies a majority, and I know for a fact that Willy there does not have a sufficient sample size to make that determination with anything even approximating a shred of authority.
Memory Holing a conversation is the last resort of a losing coward; the insults were rather predictable.
@ Bob S.b: Why do you think I am voting third party this time around? I am tired of both parties heading in the same direction, with the only discernible difference between them being speed.
@ Jake: If he was basing it off offline conversations, I could completely understand his inability to provide links… but he never clarified that and the implication (at least to me) was that his determination came from Twitter conversations (based on other tweets that came before these to those folks mentioned in the first tweet). Likewise, if his position was based off personal conversations, “most” is nowhere near accurate, or would have to be limited to “most Libertarians I interacted with” or something of the sort.
Deleting your side of a conversation is morally equivalent to burning someone else’s books, and folks who engage in it should be regarded in about the same way.
@Jake: It’s not so much the left/right paradigm as the left refusing to accept that Nazis were left wing. Larry Correia offers a great post showing how the Nazis are connected to the Democratic socialist philosophy on his blog: http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/hate-mail-time-2/ and http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/hate-mail-response-to-my-hate-mail-and-i-godwin-the-hell-out-of-this-post/
And I think that more and more people are seeing how Dems and Reps want to control too much of their lives which is why libertarian ideals are showing a resurgence.
Wholeheartedly agree.
The leftists want to control our lives along their own particular financial and sociological predilections, while the rightists want to control our lives along their own particular religious and sociological predilections.
Neither end of the political spectrum is willing to simply let us live our own lives by our own direction and without governmental intervention or control.
Hell with that.
I am tired of playing their games.
I was a Ron Paul supporter in 2008, and I did not vote for Obama in that election, and I certainly won’t be voting for Obama in this one. (I will be voting for Gary Johnson.)
There, his premise has been refuted.
It certainly was not the strongest argument in the world to begin with, which probably explains why he was so quick to forcibly terminate the conversation.