.
.
.
.
.
“Strawmen, begone!” wrote the ineffable Ron Shepston in comments the other day, and I second that emotion. Why just this morning I showed up bright and early at the Orange Juice office and you could hardly see the floor from all the straw that had been strewn about the night before. I swept it up and carried it out back only to find that Art had contracted with a “baler” to cart our straw over to the Los Alamitos Racetrack stables, save the Ware Disposal folks a little work. So I go back into the office hoping to blog, open the refrigerator, pour myself a glass, and *groan* straw in the juice even! Enough already, people!
In case any of you missed the memo, a “strawman argument” is when you take your opponent’s argument to a ridiculous extreme, pretend they said something they didn’t say (i.e. create a “strawman”), and then spend the rest of your time knocking that strawman around. Robin “Cook,” one of our favorite commenters, is one of the worst offenders. Whenever we attack the idea of hanging religious slogans in council chambers, he pretends we’re advocating a “communist” or “socialist” government that prohibits all religious practice. And whenever I criticize our war in Iraq and advocate getting out, he quickly accuses me of wanting to “give in to the terrorists,” no matter how much I argue that the Iraq misadventure is just hampering our fight against terrorism while creating more of them.
Lesser commenters like the ironically named “Great One” live and breathe straw. Crtiticize a political demagogue for being unproductive and divisive on the immigration issue, and the Grate One and his ilk will be right there accusing us of wanting open borders and pushing for a Mexican “reconquista” of the Southwest US.
So let’s try to read past the titles of the posts, ladies and gents, and see what the writer is really saying. There are more than two sides to each issue, but there usually are two EXTREMES, and here at the Juice, despite all our differences, most of us are hardly ever advocating one of the extremes. Now before you jump in and say “Far Left Vern is trying to stifle debate on the Orange Juice,” take a deep breath and sing along with Ray Bolger:
Vern –
This is certainly a problem on this blog, but in Cook’s defense, he did spend a lot of time backing me up when I got victimized by this very tactic, so try to go easy on him please, huh? Nobody’s perfect. It’s all about intention.
I mean we’re not talking about Fiala, d’Anconia, or ‘just… asking’ here!
SMS
Ok fine. I’ll stop spinning every issue into rants about my pet issues, but the pet issues aren’t going to like that, not one bit.
Wait, Barack Obama seems ok with it and he IS a Constitutional Scholar, Public Education is kinda quiet right now waiting for the legislature, Healthcare is up in arms though, trying to get a bill out of committee up in the senate that would require health care providers publish their charges and success rates. (Duh! Slam dunk!) So this blog probably wouldn’t help them too much (even Vern’s been quiet on healthcare lately). They all seem to be ok with it.
So I take it back, my pet issues won’t mind my not using that strawman manuever to get them some airtime. So ok, no strawmen …starting now!
anonyms:
smart ass 😛
SMS
Unrelated rants about pet issues are fine anonyms (here, although evidently NOT on the Liberal OC) Pretending someone is saying something they’re not is the problem.
And SMS we all love Cook, I even made sure to call him “one of our favorite commenters.” He usually makes plenty of sense.
HAAAA O K far left vern . your ill ink is still wet . but we just dont see eye to eye on issues . you see it one way i see it another . and i will be against anyone who supports illegal immigration be it a rep . or dem . or ind.
Vern,
Are “Tin Men” permitted?
Mike Tardif
Tardif Sheet Metal
Santa Ana
Tardif… If you only had a heart.
Vern – If you only had a brain.
Vern – This discussion reminds me of this saying.
If you are not a liberal through your 20’s, you do not have a heart.
If you are not a conservative by your 30’s, you do not have a brain.
The Tin Man
Vern,
Can we also agree to at least make the attempt not to treat those we disagree with ridicule and disrespect and name calling? I have absolutely no problem with discussion and debate, I have huge issues with marginalizing and disrespect for others. I am not perfect, by any stretch on this issue, but I am making an effort to respect others and their Rights to their opinions, even if they are wrong, inaccurate or based on fallacies. Respect like love and many other things are only gained when we give them to others. Sow the seeds you wish to reap, become the change you wish to see in the world.
I should also add I am singling you out as an individual on this request, I have asked this many times of others both here and the SAYahoo list.
Mike since I have always been a pragmatic libertarian, what does that make me?
Hey Vern!
Wow, I thought I’d get on and just read. But this is really interesting! This happens to be one of my favorite subjects. Let’s take your discussion apart very carefully. I like your examples.
Your memo states, firstly, that a strawman argument is when you take your opponents argument to a ridiculous extreme. Secondly, that you pretend they said something they didnt say, and finally spend your time kicking “that” around.
Now, let me say at the outset, Vern, that I have always regarded this “leftist” argument as a form of Indian Wrestling. You are facing a stronger opponent – the conservative argument – and you are going to attempt to defeat them by throwing them off balance. Many conservatives fail to understand the enlightenment of striving to understand rather than to be understood, and if you don’t make them feel understood, they just keep working at it. I just get YOU.
A liberal seeks the special causes of crime, poverty and war. Conservatives seek the special causes of a law-abiding society, wealth, and peace. You think you can eliminate social ills, when all you will actually get is a trade-off. A prudent reformer will respect the confirmed habits and prejudices of the people and not disdain to ameliorate the wrong.
What you call straw man arguments are merely anecdotal examples by your oppenents. Examples of the failure of your relevant comparison. It isn’t between X and Y Vern. Its between systemic processes worked through successive generations of individuals expressed in X, versus the articulated rationale of Y in isolation (your own mind).
When you “attack” religious slogans in public buildings, I’m not going to simply argue with you, Vern, on the merits of whether it should or shouldn’t be there. You’re interested in desired results. I’m interested in process characteristics conducive to desired results. No, Vern, I’m going to accuse you of “bashing” America the idea, the constitution, and the people themselves.
It is America the idea that owes its very existence to Judeo-Christian slogans.
It is the constitution that secures the liberty of religious speech. “Separation of church and state” ain’t there Vern.
And the American people, by overwhelming margins in this country, believe in a one true God Vern. (See: respecting the confirmed habits of the people)
And when you criticize the war in Iraq, I’m going to accuse you of siding with Terrorists, Vern. Because I know that in your mind, you think the desired result of peace can be resolved by not attempting to be right. (See: not disdaining to ameliorate the wrong)
If we didnt try to be right, there would be no conflict, if there were no conflict, there would be no war, if there were no war there would be no poverty, if there were no poverty there would be no crime…
I aint travelling to Oz with ya Vern.
There isn’t any place in society today where a leftist doesn’t have an argument or an agenda backed by making the free-est, least racist, most integrated, most prosperous, most compassionate, most kind, most peace-desiring nation in the world, out to be the bogeyman of the world. You can’t get there from here without tearing apart the very functions which created so much prosperity and a beacon of hope for the rest of the world. We WOULDN’T be America without them.
There’s YOUR straw man Vern. Quit kicking.
Carl,
Does that mean I can’t refer to Claudia Alvarez as “Clownia” anymore? Awww…that just takes the fun out of blogging! 🙂
Terry,
I applaud your eloquence and command of logic and reason.
Carl – I guess that, as a libertarian, you would be a conservative on steroids. However, I would recommend that you not travel to far in that direction.
We inhabit a policy circle. If you go to far in the pragmatic libertarian direction you just may find yourself becoming a liberal.
A libertarian is only separated from a liberal by “six degrees.” Well, actually 3 vowels and 3 consonants.
Mike Tardif
Vern,
First I should have said “not singling you out” sorry, I am very human! (and typing upside down on my laptop, laying on the floor while on meds for a pinched nerve in my lower back)
Art,
You know by now how I feel. I don’t think I have refered to anyone that way, at least recently.
I truly believe we need more civilty in our discussions, more respect, and more true debate rather than name calling.
But that’s just my opinion, and I might be wrong…
and you do hve a Right to free speech.
Carl,
Sorry about the back problems. My chiropractor has some sort of device that is supposed to pull your back straight – sort of like a medieval rack. Supposedly it works.
At any rate, Thomas is always after me to “clean it up.” However, the truth is that I DON’T respect most politicians. That is because most of them are self-serving scumbags. There are very few who give a damn about the public good.
That said, I think your point could be ascribed to politics in generals. The Democrats and the Republicans spend too much time hating each other, not realizing that most of the time they are two sides of the same coin. At least here on this blog folks can tell it like it is. No party spin here.
BTW, my grandmother used to soak marijuana leaves in rubbing alcohol. The solution would turn bright blue and she used it on my grandfather’s aching arthritic limbs. Supposedly it worked quite well…
…respect the confirmed habits and prejudices of the people and not disdain to ameliorate the wrong. What you call straw man arguments are merely anecdotal examples by your oppenents. Examples of the failure of your relevant comparison. It isn’t between X and Y Vern. Its between systemic processes worked through successive generations of individuals expressed in X, versus the articulated rationale of Y in isolation (your own mind)…You’re interested in desired results. I’m interested in process characteristics conducive to desired results.
Can anyone else make sense of this latest coke bottle* from Missouri? Or am I just stupid? I thought it was, like, just leftist “deconstructionist” post-grad students who wrote like this. Party on, bro! And thanks for making me feel like a Man of the People.
* http://orangejuiceblog.com/2008/06/reflections-on-the-dash-between/#comment-57739
Well Art, as you well know, I can play the other side too, when push comes to shove, I can throw mud with the best of them. I still think as a first line, if the factual argument is strong, you simply devalue the facts by name calling and generalizations, at least in the minds and hearts of most readers.
It’s easy to be angry and call people names, not so easy to be civil, polite, respectful and actually debate facts. Especially when they have a chronic case of cranium rectalitis.
Personally, I value the availability of getting facts, ideas and views out to others in an unabridged manor that blogging provides. I hope that I can make others think about what I say and how, making it palatable for them to share the same viewpoint. Especially when I am as disabled as I am right now.
Carl,
Good point! I played it straight with my post about the Santa Ana Planning Commission approving a CUP for a new Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant and that post blew up with over 40 comments. So you might be on to something.
BTW, you are amazingly lucid for a guy in so much pain! Hang in there my friend. Thanks for reading the Orange Juice, even when you are on the disabled list!
When you “attack” religious slogans in public buildings, I’m not going to simply argue with you, Vern, on the merits of whether it should or shouldn’t be there. You’re interested in desired results. I’m interested in process characteristics conducive to desired results. No, Vern, I’m going to accuse you of “bashing” America the idea, the constitution, and the people themselves.
Terry, I am sorry but this makes absolutely no sense to me. How could we possibly be “bashing” America the idea and the consitutution by upholding what has for centuries been considered one of America’s greatest traditions: separation of church and state?
And this, Terry, I find most disconcerting:
And when you criticize the war in Iraq, I’m going to accuse you of siding with Terrorists, Vern. Because I know that in your mind, you think the desired result of peace can be resolved by not attempting to be right. (See: not disdaining to ameliorate the wrong)
As an vehement opponent of the Iraq occupation, I don’t appreciate being designated as a person who sides with terrorists for trying to ameliorate what is an unnecessary, unjust and unwinnable war.
AMELIORATE, BEDELIORATE! heh heh heh :-p
Between all the pseudo-intellectual gibberish (and you local conservatives pretending to understand him and calling him “eloquent” is only gonna make him worse) and the utter balderdash (i.e. “It is America the idea that owes its very existence to Judeo-Christian slogans”) I gather that Crowley is proudly intent on calling us terrorist sympathizers when we want to end this stoopid war, and “America bashers” when we uphold the separation of church and state, no matter the merits of our arguments.
I suppose I and my like-minded friends are simply members of the “reality-based community” as a neocon Bush aide once contemptously referred to us – in contrast to neocons like Crowley who madly imagine themselves “creating their own reality.”
Can I get a hearty “YES, PRECISELY!” sounding over the mighty Rockies?
Terry,
Your ‘Indian wrestling” analogy hit home for me coming from the other side and wondering how your side could think the way they do. I’ve put a lot of thought into it.
Your reference to process vs. end result may have turned the light on for me when you wrote “I’m interested in process characteristics conducive to desired results.” I’ve seen our dichotomy as a sort of ‘ends justifies the means’ vs. ‘ends are the means’ argument. They seem somewnat similar but I have a couple of concerns.
I wonder, being the proponent of process, if it isn’t contradictory that you are so focused on winning (an obvious end result)? And really, given the vociferously advocated argument in a relatively peaceful blog you wrote, winning at all costs. It just makes me wonder if process isn’t what you use defensively to cover this rabid subjugation of alternative speech and not your raison de etere.
“You can’t get there from here without tearing apart the very functions which created so much prosperity and a beacon of hope for the rest of the world. We WOULDN’T be America without them.” Seems to imply that the “free-est, least racist, most integrated, most prosperous, most compassionate, most kind, most peace-desiring nation cant exist at the same time as all the good things we have in America like our poverty being spread out, a lot of people getting pretty good medical care, a lot of people have some discretionary income to spend on their local economy and a somewhat smaller number have enough to spend on another country’s economy. You’re saying we cant have what we have without greed, hatred, opression, bigotry, and organized religion?
Say it aint so.
I like my straw – raw.
Hey everyone enjoy flag day tomorrow.
Longboobs,
The words “separation of” ain’t in the constitution. You can make them mean something now. But thats a secular humanists excuse for getting their way in society. And feminist was the opposite of misogynyst before the 60’s. Those icons of culture you constantly seek to overturn DO constitute the bashing of America. Those ARE the “secrets of our success” the Left intends to end.
Vern,
If there were any merit to an argument, I wouldn’t disagree with it. So sometimes I will say something, other times I won’t. I am a radical individualist. The micro cause matters little. The macro “state of things” is another matter.
Creating my own reality. That’s exactly what I accused you of Vern. And with a very logical example of how Conservatives use the experience of generations of people (X) and Leftists (Y) believe they are smarter than everyone who ever lived. (i.e. all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong in not condoning gay marriage)
Who’s creating their own reality.
And thanks for making me laugh Vern. You actually encouraged me to continue the pseudo-intellectual gibberish. This graduate of the Cal State Long Beach Poli Sci Masters Program has to put all that post-Marxist research somewhere.
Anon…
Yeah, I tend to come down with both feet. Hard. Much of what you wrote I might concur with, on a case by case. But to say I think this society cant co-exist with social goods… purely false choice. Many of those social goods are due to religion in this country, not despite it. Again, religion isn’t afraid to stand up and do what’s right.
Wow! With all this dialogue who has been keeping their eye on Toto?
Another WOW was seeing Vern at the Capitol standing alongside over 150 Republicans yesterday who were protecting him from the alcoholic looking for a handout.
I realize this is a late remark in today’s manic world, but I had to work late!
Larry:
That was funny! Toto is burrowed beneath a bed somewhere, hiding from this tornado of non-responsive commentary!
Terry:
I hope you will note I did not suggest separation of church and state was set forth in the Constitution (I believe I used the word “tradition”?) And feminist the opposite of mysoginist … Icons of culture I seek to overturn? I am unsure of what you are trying to impart. I enjoy your writing, but when I assess the overall meaning, I’m finding things “ain’t” making much sense.
My point about ameliorating, or better word yet, ENDING, what I believe is an unnecessary, unust and unwinnable war in Iraq is based upon my experience as a law enforcement officer. The intelligence upon which we relied to justify our invasion of Iraq would not have sufficed for probable cause for a search warrant. Do you appreciate the level of proof needed for a DEATH WARRANT in our country? I can assure you, it is remarkably more substantial than what propelled us into Iraq!
I don’t know where my head was at the other day, Flag day is tomorrow, Saturday 14th.
Way to go Terry, no house of straw in those posts.
Shorter Terry Crowley:
“Hullaballoo Hocus Pocus helter skelter yabba dabba doo. Therefore it’s cool for us to equate leaving Iraq with supporting the terrorists. Abacadabera yadayada husker doo bachelorette. Therefore not wanting religious slogans in council chambers is attacking America.”
Cook, Overmyer and Tardif, Crowley thinks of you guys as rubes whose prejudices he can manipulate with nonsense to further his neocon goals. I’m the only one here (besides longboobs) to say that Emperor Crowley (who learned good things from Burke but bad things from Strauss) has no clothes.
So Vern, let me get this straight. Your’e trying to turn Terry Crowley into your starwman, to try to discredit Rob, Mike and myself…?
But, I thought you wanted to get rid of the strawman arguments…?
Well Carl, that would be ironic, wouldn’t it?
I seriously think that most of what he wrote was nonsense, interjected with sentences that straightforwardly proclaim what some of you want to hear.
You, Robin and Mike are all very different people, and I do think you’re all more honest than Terry. It’ll be a challenge to debate you all (and Cook is so stubborn) but at least you guys say what you mean in a straightforward way, while I think Terry just enjoys pulling all of our legs from out in Kansas City with substanceless pyrotechnic displays.
hey if anyone doesn’t know or wants to know what I meant by Burke and Strauss, just ask. Otherwise I’ll catch you lot on some other controversial thread OK? _Now that we’ve hit the magic Comment #30. Happy Flag Day you rightwing nitwits. (I kid)
And I’ll fly the Green Mt or the Gadsen if I can push the (telescoping) flag pole up.
My back is still messed up.
Vern. We put up our American flag yesterday. Which one do you fly and when?
Is it possible that we agree on a common flag with red, white and blue colors?
PS: Jefferson Davis’s flag should not be displayed tomorrow.
Carl is misleading us all. Yes, he is flying a green flag. Does it say Celtics?
BTW my guess is
Leo Strauss critque of Edmond Burke, “Natural Right and History”
Green Mt (boys) Flag (and I should have said Bennington 2nd link)
http://flagspot.net/flags/us-gmb.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennington_flag
Gadsden flag http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag
nice flags Carl. You really have some of those? Ethan Allen lives!
Too tired to talk any more about Burke and Strauss. Good night Carl boy. Good night Larry. Good night Cook. Good night Tardif and Crowley you crazy bastards…
Flag day is here.
We fly the Indian flag. Besides many red white and blue’s
What the heck is the indian flag, Cook?
Vern, You need to see it to appreciate it.
The OCR still has a photo of it. You can not see all of the Indian part in this picture.
Click the link and clink more photos and it is the 2nd picture.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/rights-immigrant-immigration-2031076-advocates-hold
To see the whole flag, stop by sometime.