Kerry Voters

[CARLHAYDEN]

that has been apparent on this board.  For example I'm a "left-wing NeoLiberal" and I often find myself using Pathos to debate.  It's effective for me but I wouldn't recommend the technique to all.  Brambila, on the other hand, often cites facts and figures.  

Note that this crosses party lines as well.  If you look over the poster's past posts, you'll find that some Blues are pathetic, some logical.  Same with Greens and same with Reds.  Not sure what to make of it all, either.  Just a personal stylistic difference, I think.

By the way Gustaf, if cursing SS agents turns you on, you should really be a big fan of Bush's daughters!

Aristotle first noted that while pathos may be effective in the short run, it has a shorter duration of effectiveness than ethos, and far less than logos.

In the long term, facts and logic defeat lies and patheric arguments.  

Please note that when I request facts and logic from liberals, they suddenly dry up.  Hmm.

[Lunar]

Please notice that there is a general tendency for liberals to "feel" and for conservatives to "think."  Liberals tend to use ad hominem attacks where conservatives tend to use logical arguments (citing facts).

I'm not sure I agree with you there.  First off, how do you determine that liberals use ad hominem attacks more?  You might find more negative Bush stuff because Bush is the incumbant president and the election will be a referendum on him more than Bush vs Kerry.

The majority of liberals just insult people while conservatives keep their cool in the face of these insults and are always intelligent and logical?  That's the impression I get from your post.

While there is some liberal philosophy based on sympathy and whatnot, that doesn't form the base of it nor does that exclude facts and reason.  What if you're in favor of a progressive tax or a protectionist economic policy?

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, just look at the posts on Dave's forum.  While there are some on the right who make ad hominem arguments occassionally, the predominice of ad hominem arguments comes from the left.

Second, it is of course possible to disagree with Bush policies, as I do with some of them.  It is not necessary in doing so to engage in ad hominem attacks.  

Third, you either did not understand what I said or chose to distort what I said.  I never used "always" as you did as I recognize there are exceptions to virtually every rule.  

Fourth, liberalism in its current definition is mere sophistry which may well be based on "whatnot" as you suggest, since they have a great deal of trouble dealing with facts and logic.  

Fifth, itaking the two issues you named, I suggest they are irrelevant (as you narrowly defined them) in the current election as both favor a progressive income tax (I presume you were talking about "income" taxes) and both oppose protectionism.  If what you meant to say was that you support tax increases, they by all means say so, and explain your reasons (Kerry does favor tax increases but won't say so because he knows how this would play with the voters).

[Lunar]

First, just look at the posts on Dave's forum.  While there are some on the right who make ad hominem arguments occassionally, the predominice of ad hominem arguments comes from the left.

I don't agree.  For each example you provide I can provide a counter one.

Third, you either did not understand what I said or chose to distort what I said.  I never used "always" as you did as I recognize there are exceptions to virtually every rule.  

Fine, change always to "a majority of the time."

Fourth, liberalism in its current definition is mere sophistry which may well be based on "whatnot" as you suggest, since they have a great deal of trouble dealing with facts and logic.  

I haven't seen you back up this statement you keep making that liberals can't ..in a majority of instances can't deal with facts or logic.    I gave some examples of liberalism such as economic policies which can easily be defended with facts and logic.

If I can't justify my own position to myself with logic, then I discard that and look for a logical solution.  I have done this with abortion just recently.  Many of my positions are liberal ones (while some are conservative), but does that mean I can't use logic to back them up?

I think you listen to someone say "the rich are evil" and assume that the liberal philosophy is based off a feeling like that.  However, this is wrong.  In this case, the principal behind the liberal philosophy would be based on where the most effective source of money should come from.  The conservative position is based off of a feeling of equality combined with a different view of economics.  Perhaps the liberal one is the same?

Fifth, itaking the two issues you named, I suggest they are irrelevant (as you narrowly defined them) in the current election

Aren't we talking about liberals in general rather than just the current election?  I would have chosen different examples then.  I can base my view against going into Iraq at this time on logic easily.  I can base my view on tax cuts easily with logic.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Lets review what I posted and what you posted:

First, in my next post I will give you a few examples of the ad hominem arguments from the left.  I have seen ad hominem arguments from the right on this board, but they have not been as numerous.  So, after my next post, go ahead and match me.

Second, I am pleased to see that you tacitly agree with point two and have acknowledged and somewhat corrected your previous contention re point three.

Third, your response to point four is simply to state your disagreement without citing logical reasons or facts upon which they are to be based.  Your examples are merely conclusions without supporting reasoning or data.

Fourth, I must confess that your statement that:

"the principal (sic) behind the liberal philosophy would be based on where the most effective source of money should come from.  The conservative philosophy is based off of a feeling of equality combined with a different view of economics.  Perhaps the liberal is the same."

extremely confusing.

a.) money is merely a means of exchange, commonly printed or coined by governments.  Wealth however is created by individuals.  Please do not confused the two.

b.) while conservatives believe that individuals should be equal before the law, they are unequal in their capabalities and actions.

In short, they are NOT the same.

Fifth, inasmuch as this thread is with respect to reasons people choose to vote for Kerry rather than Bush, please do provide examples with logic and facts for supporting Kerry rather than Bush.

[Lunar]

Lets review what I posted and what you posted:

Third, your response to point four is simply to state your disagreement without citing logical reasons or facts upon which they are to be based.  Your examples are merely conclusions without supporting reasoning or data.

I gave some logic and tried to provide thoughtful analysis.  One of my points in response to point four is that point four lacks even that.

Fourth, I must confess that your statement that:

[..]

extremely confusing.

[..]

I was noting simply that on that issue, the conservative and the liberal philosophy are partially based on equality.  I've seen the argument for a flat income tax on this board based solely on the idea that rich people should be treated equally.  The liberal philosophy is also based off equality, with a tax system designed to encourage economic equality.  However, this isn't really going anywhere, it was merely a sidenote.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, let me confess that in the brief time I had to research the board, I can not substantiate the assertion I made about ad hominem arguments.

Second, I am perplexed why you decided to omit the substance of my point four.

Third, I must state again that you merely stated your opinions in your previous post with any logical or factual basis.  Please cite the "logic" of "facts" upon which such position are derived.  I saw NONE.

Fourth, the "equality" in question is a very different meaning, or do you agree that "equality" should be limited to equality before the law?  You seem to be arguing for equality of results, but have not made this clear either.

[Lunar]

First, let me confess that in the brief time I had to research the board, I can not substantiate the assertion I made about ad hominem arguments.

Good, that would be pretty pointless for us to keep spitting examples at each other.  There would be no way to evaluate which had more even if we did that.  If there is an edge to anti-Bush attacks it's because Bush is the incumbant instead of any root in liberal philosophy.  An incumbant will almost always get more attention than the challenger, meaning that the ignorant comments will often be either attacking Bush stupidly or defending him stupidly rather than Bush vs Kerry.

Second, I am perplexed why you decided to omit the substance of my point four.

It was a bit lengthy to quote.  Your post is still there for people to refer to of course.

Third, I must state again that you merely stated your opinions in your previous post with any logical or factual basis.  Please cite the "logic" of "facts" upon which such position are derived.  I saw NONE.

I'm sorry you saw none, I disagree.  This is a silly "did so," "did not" argument to get it drawn into though.  The core arguments that this is about, such as whether there is a liberal trend to insult versus a conservative one to be factual, you have provided no facts or logic to support.  I've given examples, both general and personal, showing why I feel this is false.  

Fourth, the "equality" in question is a very different meaning, or do you agree that "equality" should be limited to equality before the law?  You seem to be arguing for equality of results, but have not made this clear either.

This is going off tangent again.  It was merely a small example showing feelings and logic forming the base of both sides.  In the case of graduated income tax, I showed how both sides strive for their own form of "equality." In the case of Iraq, the sides might be also be striving for fuzzy feelings either "peace" or "good for the Iraqi people."    

[CARLHAYDEN]

Let me again repeat, my point that you have yet to offer reasons for people to choose Kerry over Bush based on logic and facts.  

Please quote the logic (not feelings) and logic (not conclusion).  Stop the nonsensical "did so," and cite the logic and facts.  To date there have been NONE!!!

Go ahead and cite logic and reasons, NOT conclusions.  I realize that you "feel" that a conclusion is somehow "logic" or a "fact," but it isn't the case!

Please, please, please knock off the "feelings," and try thinking!!!

[Lunar]

Is that really the way you want to conduct a debate?

First of all, I don't necessarily think that people prefer Kerry as a general consesus.  I've stated three times already that I think the election is a referendum on the sitting president.   My points have been adressing you attacking the liberal philosphy as based in ad hominem and illogical attacks.

I've seen little logic from you, except on a tangent that had nothing to do with what we were discussing.  But who the hell cares?  We can still have a discussion man.

Secondly, you can still answer my conclusions even if you feel that is all you think they are.

And so, let's go through my posts and find some "logic", since that seems to be the tangent you are shifting the discussion to this time, instead of dealing with anything significant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Me, comparing and contrasting the two positions and providing an example about how both are based on feelings.  Instead of just saying that they were both the same, which would be a conclusion, I backed it up with analysis and an example.  I later provided more examples and more analysis on the same subject.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, please cite an example of an ad homienm or illogical attack.

Seconed, with respect to your belief that I "listen to someone say the right are evil" and come to some sort of conclusion based on such a supposed statement is simply factually false.  It is merely an unfounded supposition on your part.  There is no logic whatsoever to support your conclusion based on a supposition which itself is false.  
 
Third, you keep evading the issue, please name a reason why one would vote for Kerry rather than Bush other than "feeling."  What specifically is the reason for such a conclusion?  

To give you an example of a FACT, Kerry has proposed a reduction in the income tax rates for Corporations.  I think that singling them out for a tax reduction while proposing a tax increase for individuals is a bad idea.  While Bush supports tax decreases across the board.  Since I support accross the board tax increases, but not tax cuts for corporations with tax increases for individuals (ergo) I prefer Bush.  

See how facts and logic intertwine to form the basis for a
conclusion.

Oh, and by the way, please cite specifics as they apply to differences between Bush and Kerry.

[Lunar]

First, please cite an example of an ad homienm or illogical attack.

Your original attack that liberalism is based on illogical ad hominem attacks was an attack within itself that had no logical base.  That is why I started debating you in the first place and haven't seen a defense of it other than a retracted offer to keep spurting out stupid posts from the other side of the spectrum at each other.

Seconed, with respect to your belief that I "listen to someone say the right are evil" and come to some sort of conclusion based on such a supposed statement is simply factually false.  It is merely an unfounded supposition on your part.  There is no logic whatsoever to support your conclusion based on a supposition which itself is false.  

Ok, I was wrong on this.  It was intentionally a supposition though.
 

Third, you keep evading the issue, please name a reason why one would vote for Kerry rather than Bush other than "feeling."  What specifically is the reason for such a conclusion?

This hasn't been the "issue" for me at all.  Because this isn't where I took conflict with your post, I suppose I have been evading it.  Anyway, I plan to vote for Kerry because I think he can handle the country better based on what I know of his positions compared to mine.  He's far from the ideal candidate for me, like all politicians, but how else am I supposed to vote but by comparing my views to the candidates?  If you want, I can list all of the issues, why I feel they're logical, and show how a majority of them are closer to Kerry than Bush.

To give you an example of a FACT, Kerry has proposed a reduction in the income tax rates for Corporations.  I think that singling them out for a tax reduction while proposing a tax increase for individuals is a bad idea.  While Bush supports tax decreases across the board.  Since I support accross the board tax increases, but not tax cuts for corporations with tax increases for individuals (ergo) I prefer Bush.

I'm not sure if I agree with Kerry on this issue, like many other issues.  However, I can logically support Kerry on this issue easily.  Here is a hypothetical example of how it's possible:

Kerry has proposed a reduction in the income tax rates for Corporations.  I think that singling them out for a tax reduction while proposing a tax increase for individuals earning the most amount of money is a good idea.  While Bush supports tax decreases across the board which goes overwhelmingly to the people who need it the less.  Since I support this type of tax (ergo) I prefer Kerry.

There, someone can logically support Kerry.

[The Dowager Mod]

I would vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it was.

really?
Byrd Vs McCain?
LaRoyche Vs rice?
etc.....

yup.
i'm a loyal party hack

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, please cite an example of an ad homienm or illogical attack.

Your original attack that liberalism is based on illogical ad hominem attacks was an attack within itself that had no logical base.  That is why I started debating you in the first place and haven't seen a defense of it other than a retracted offer to keep spurting out stupid posts from the other side of the spectrum at each other.

Still NO citation.  In my original post on this thread I asked why anyone would prefer Kerry to Bush.  I requested tangible reasons, which have not yet been offered (although you make supposition, generalizations, and hypotheticals) Are you UNABLE to provide specifics?

Seconed, with respect to your belief that I "listen to someone say the right are evil" and come to some sort of conclusion based on such a supposed statement is simply factually false.  It is merely an unfounded supposition on your part.  There is no logic whatsoever to support your conclusion based on a supposition which itself is false.  

Ok, I was wrong on this.  It was intentionally a supposition though.
 

Good.  Some progress.  

Third, you keep evading the issue, please name a reason why one would vote for Kerry rather than Bush other than "feeling."  What specifically is the reason for such a conclusion?

This hasn't been the "issue" for me at all.  Because this isn't where I took conflict with your post, I suppose I have been evading it.  Anyway, I plan to vote for Kerry because I think he can handle the country better based on what I know of his positions compared to mine.  He's far from the ideal candidate for me, like all politicians, but how else am I supposed to vote but by comparing my views to the candidates?  If you want, I can list all of the issues, why I feel they're logical, and show how a majority of them are closer to Kerry than Bush.

Please look at the entire thrust of this thread.  The posters and the survey results indicate that Kerry supporters are actually Bush opponents who have yet to give factual and logical arguments for this opposition.  Please show some courtsey to the orginator of this forum and try to stay on topic.

To give you an example of a FACT, Kerry has proposed a reduction in the income tax rates for Corporations.  I think that singling them out for a tax reduction while proposing a tax increase for individuals is a bad idea.  While Bush supports tax decreases across the board.  Since I support accross the board tax increases, but not tax cuts for corporations with tax increases for individuals (ergo) I prefer Bush.

I'm not sure if I agree with Kerry on this issue, like many other issues.  However, I can logically support Kerry on this issue easily.  Here is a hypothetical example of how it's possible:

Kerry has proposed a reduction in the income tax rates for Corporations.  I think that singling them out for a tax reduction while proposing a tax increase for individuals earning the most amount of money is a good idea.  While Bush supports tax decreases across the board which goes overwhelmingly to the people who need it the less.  Since I support this type of tax (ergo) I prefer Kerry.

There, someone can logically support Kerry.

If this were your position, which you stated it was not, then this would indeed be a logical position.  I note that you have yet to give a specific non-hypothetical example.

[Lunar]

Still NO citation.  In my original post on this thread I asked why anyone would prefer Kerry to Bush.  I requested tangible reasons, which have not yet been offered (although you make supposition, generalizations, and hypotheticals) Are you UNABLE to provide specifics?

The part that I've already quoted once and referred to many times:

Please notice that there is a general tendency for liberals to "feel" and for conservatives to "think."  Liberals tend to use ad hominem attacks where conservatives tend to use logical arguments (citing facts).

This is what I have been debating about all along.  You have yet to support it.

Good.  Some progress.  

Be nice.

Please look at the entire thrust of this thread.  The posters and the survey results indicate that Kerry supporters are actually Bush opponents who have yet to give factual and logical arguments for this opposition.  Please show some courtsey to the orginator of this forum and try to stay on topic.

I took issue with a portion of one of your posts (see above).  I have taken it off topic, to that sin I am guilty.

If this were your position, which you stated it was not, then this would indeed be a logical position.  I note that you have yet to give a specific non-hypothetical example.

Ok, my choice of example was out of convenience.  But since obviously some liberals (such as John Kerry) believe that, it still shows how liberals can logically support Kerry.

My position is anti-Bush, but it's more than a feeling.  Let's just look at foreign policy since it is one of my primary voting issues:

From the period after 9/11 as well as reactions from around the world, it was obvious that the vast majority of the world supported us.  We wisely went into Afghanistan, but after that our foreign relations have dropped drastically.  After a series of unwise diplomatic moves, our support continued to decline.  Millions protested in almost every country.  From the news stories and my own perceptions, I've seen a new surge of anti-Americanism that could have been avoided.  Our business, military, civilians, and further diplomatic moves will all be hurt because of this.  For this reason, I conclude that the Bush administration has hurt America for generations to come and will be voting for Kerry.

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, I admitted to being unable to cite the examples of ad hominem attacks.  Mea culpa.

Second, your own posts have supported my contention that liberals tend to "feel" rather than think and a reluctant to deal in facts.

Third, I am glad you admitted to taking your posts off topic.  

Fourth, are you familiar with the booty of the "oil for good" program.  Do you know who received millions?  If you think the French, the Germans or the Russians would under any circumstances have taken real action against Saddam is another groundless supposition.  They were aiding Saddam!