Well, I hope you're enjoying yourself. Let me know if you want me to move this thread to Found on the Net.

is that you're official stance as moderator? that a post equating hypocrisy on false equivalence deserves to be put in 'found on the net'?

I was simply asking if that's what you'd rather do. You posted this in Politics, which usually meant for discussions. The way the thread was set up, and the way you have carried yourself in the thread since then, isn't conducive to a discussion. Which is why I asked.

Do you want to have a discussion or not? Is being cryptic helpful or harmful to this discussion?

If you don't want to have a discussion, then let me know, and I can move the thread.

I posted something I thought was relevant to a bunch of people who were for toning down violent rhetoric, to which it was mostly replied to with 1) no, 2) irrelevancy because it wasnt the exact same situation as the ones they didn't like, or 3) non commital responses because some people don't want to look in a mirror, so they resort to vague and obtuse replies.

that's my discussion, that some people don't care about anything other than being partisan hacks, so do with it what you will.

Okay then.

My point stands: you are being too cryptic. If I find your position vague or cryptic and ask for a clarification, you should either give it or admit you either a) don't want to, or b) can't.

As it stands, you refuse to shed some light as to what you're getting at: i.e. what your point is, what your argument is, what you mean to say specifically.

And so instead of providing the clarity that was fairly requested, you instead suggest that the problem isn't with your refusal to have a mature discussion but instead with others' inability to look at their own positions/arguments and their penchant for being partisan hacks.

Nice.

Let me know when you want to play fair and balanced.

Methinks that you might want to aim that mirror a little closer to home dk.

I'm sorry, but maybe you can point out to me where my question of 'is this also false equivalence' and 'is this also violent rhetoric' is anything close to being cryptic?

If necessary, maybe you'd like me to transcribe the whole video, word for word, that way I could highlight and underline each specific phrase and/or sentence in question. Then I could choose a specific person to answer said highlighted statement with a very specific answer in reference to the very specific question.

would that be too cryptic for you?

Actually, that's far too much, dk. (Thanks for taking me seriously, btw.)

Could you at least tell me whether you believe you have addressed my posts in this thread (where they would apply to you, either directly or indirectly)?

[Hint: I've already done what you're asking. However, I'm more than willing to clarify anything I have posted that you may not fully understand.]

again, it should be obvious, but unfortunately most of the responses, save one, justify their 'righteous outcries' over right wing rhetoric and simply skoff at the notion that the video I posted was even close to the same.

so my obvious point is to provide a clear display of hypocrisy, by some people, of just how far they can go to justify certain things in the name of partisan hackery.

to me, it worked like a charm. to others, not so much.

This all depends on whether you are comparing the people in the video to politicians and political commentators or to Tea Party protesters.

Do you think the people in the video should be compared to Sarah Palin? Or do you think it's best to compare them to Tea Party protesters?

Are you asking whether these comments are violent, or are you asking whether these comments count as rhetoric?

As an aside, my full-time job requires me to make sense out of writers who are either avant-garde/unconventional poets or whose day jobs include such positions as accountant, financial advisor, and portfolio manager. I have seen the full spectrum of clarity with regard to expressing ideas or making statements—everything from cogent to downright nonsense. You have confused me, which is why I'm asking you my own questions more than I'm answering yours.

If you think you have been clear by any stretch of the imagination, then you are mistaken. You are playing a game, and, as far as I can tell, you are doing so as some means to seek self-satisfaction without having to work for it by means of a fair discussion.

Now you should either answer my questions and otherwise provide me with some idea of what your full argument is, or you should just tell me outright that you're just fucking around.

Or maybe I'm just an idiot. Maybe we should ask a third party.

Anyone?

i have already given it to you.

If that's your full argument, then all I have to say is that it's been severely weakened by a vague premise and obscure responses.

If that's all you've got, then I guess we'll never know whether this is a false equivalence or not....whatever that's supposed to mean.

You guys are making my head hurt.

People in video == people at tea party rallies
People in video != Glenn Beck/Sarah Palin
People in video using violent rhetoric
Violent rhetoric == bad

the way i see it, if you have to hide your logic behind this ridiculous waving of a cape around in front of your face and meaningful-seeming movement of the eyebrows---like is happening in this thread---what that means is you haven't got an argument.

or maybe you're afraid that you'd have to defend bullshit premises, false comparisons, register mistakes, specious abstraction and faulty machinery?

it's fine to be conservative---but i don't remember anyone making special logic for conservatives that bypasses the rules for coherence.

but it appears that alot of you folk on the right either think that you're special like that and that the rules of basic argument don't apply to you or haven't the first idea how to actually construct a logical presentation of an argument.

either way, it's fucking depressing.

Thanks, guys. For a while there I thought that maybe I was losing my mind.

The video in the OP - 1,805 viewers, probably that high only as a result of being posted on conservative blogs as a "see those nasty liberal hatemongers"

Beck/Palin videos - average hundreds of thousands of viewers.

Equivalent? Or fuzzy math?