"So because they're right wing they must be insane, is that right?"

Have you read the shit coming out of their mouths/blogs/websites?

"@Putin because to do so would be to call someone a liar to their face. The actual physical reality of someone's experience can not be altered."

They might not be lying deliberately. People can convince themselves of anything. There's a difference between being a liar and tossing away your critical thinking skills.

"Right. Let there be no mistake. What you said was:

"I guess Chicano people are 'learning their place' in Arizona's apartheid state. Clean toilets, pick our tomatoes, and shut your mouth."

It's on page 1."

Yes, in the context of the educational system in Tucson. This is what they want Chicano people to learn. It is obvious to anyone who can read that I didn't say that all "Hispanics" (sic) do in Arizona is pick tomatoes and clean toilets.

See, this is a prime example of what dishonesty looks like.

Sure, an insane person would very tenaciously affirm their own sanity. Arizonians could be deluded en mass about what's going on in their state.

But you know who else would very tenaciously affirm their own sanity? Sane people. Arizonians could just... you know... be telling the truth of the matter.

And the simple fact is that, in this particular example, there's just no way to know the difference. So there's really not much to be said from here.

It is true that convenient anecdotes on an anonymous forum are a cheap way to silence discussion and quite possibly the product of outright lying to make a point. You know what else is a cheap way to silence discussion? Assuming that everyone whose narrative disagrees with yours is practicing the above.

Check the hypocrisy at the door, if you would, please.

"Maybe I'm going way out on a limb there, though. Certainly I have found that if I want to truly understand MY own experience, it is much better to read Marxist newspapers than consult my memory or talk to my friends and family."

No, it is much better for you to debate Marxist phantoms that you invented in your brain so you don't have to bother with what anybody said.

But what are you doing? Providing a ridiculous defense of using partisan anecdotes as a basis for determining objective facts on the ground.

Of course it's right G1, you should know by now, Putin is the smartest man on the planet and whatever he says HAS to be fact, because, well, he can't be wrong. even when proven wrong, he can't be wrong. So he is obviously right. whether it is about Arizona, Politics, Hispanics, Whites, Gay Rights, Religion, whatever it is, the only right way is Putin's way... you guys really should pay more attention to this fact!
But in all seriousness- arguing with Putin is like the energizer bunny on a track... it just keeps going and going and going... in circles...

"Yes, in the context of the educational system in Tucson. This is what they want Chicano people to learn. It is obvious to anyone who can read that I didn't say that all "Hispanics" (sic) do in Arizona is pick tomatoes and clean toilets.

See, this is a prime example of what dishonesty looks like."

Way to miss the whole point. Hispanics wouldn't miss either one. semck's point stands, you either have to say Umbrella is outright lying about his identity or you have to say that a member of the group you're discussing is just somehow missing all of these extremely obvious and crucial details. Which is it?

"But what are you doing? Providing a ridiculous defense of using partisan anecdotes as a basis for determining objective facts on the ground."

So reality is partisan now? Or are you continuing to assert that he's lying?

"Sane people. Arizonians could just... you know... be telling the truth of the matter."

Which Arizonans? Certainly not the ones who had their books seized and carted off (libertarians in defense of censorship! It'd be ironic if it wasn't so common place). And you people chide me for overgeneralizing? This is the problem with relying on subjective experience as the basis of your entire worldview.

"Assuming that everyone whose narrative disagrees with yours is practicing the above."

It's not an assumption. You can clearly see if someone has provided nothing but anecdotes and relied on nothing but "I live in Arizona" arguments.

"Check the hypocrisy at the door, if you would, please."

Stop channeling your inner Krellin and pronouncing "hypocrisy" at random.

@President Eden
Thank you. THe 11:51 statement was exactly what I was trying to get across. He obviously hasn't accepted it in any way (surprise!) but you put it very well.

"Way to miss the whole point. Hispanics wouldn't miss either one. semck's point stands, you either have to say Umbrella is outright lying about his identity or you have to say that a member of the group you're discussing is just somehow missing all of these extremely obvious and crucial details. Which is it?"

Seriously, it's pretty amazing how the individualists now suddenly want to treat all "Hispanic" Arizonans as a Single Monolith spoken for by Butterhead. Otherwise, if everyone doesn't defer to his pronouncements on the issue of book banning and ethnic studies, then one has to call him a liar or stupid.

"Or are you continuing to assert that he's lying?"

I never asserted he was lying. Again, you classical liberals and your love of putting words in people's mouths.

"So reality is partisan now?"

I didn't realize Butterhead was the font of objective reality.

"nothing but anecdotes"

So, I have a real problem with your use of "anecdotes." An anecdote is a single story used to generalize and make a broad point. OP is a good example. But saying that you live somewhere and your overall life experience is a certain way is not an anecdote. That's the total of hundreds and thousands of anecdotes put together into an evaluation. That can't just be discarded like an anecdote.

"Which Arizonans? Certainly not the ones who had their books seized and carted off (libertarians in defense of censorship! It'd be ironic if it wasn't so common place). And you people chide me for overgeneralizing? This is the problem with relying on subjective experience as the basis of your entire worldview."

First, I'm not "defending" anything. I know you have this thing where you assume that anyone who disagrees with you must be defending every single thing you want them to defend for sake of scoring cheap points, but you'll notice that the only thing I've put forth is that you're being every bit as hostile to honest discussion as you're insinuating your opponents are, and that it's hypocritical, and that you should stop.

Now, then. Umbrella already gave his explanation as to the "seizing and carting off" of books. He claimed it didn't happen like you're claiming it did. That's the whole point of the matter. You're sitting here, asserting facts that aren't agreed upon, and assuming they are agreed upon, and responding to people's claims from there. There will always be a fundamental disconnect between what you're saying to others and what others say to you if you continue to do this.

"It's not an assumption. You can clearly see if someone has provided nothing but anecdotes and relied on nothing but "I live in Arizona" arguments."

I refer, once again, to the above. Are you saying he's lying, or not? If you are, okay, that's fine, but you can't really expect to have open discussion from that angle. (Which isn't necessarily bad, to be sure - sometimes you just get to a point where there's no further resolution to a discussion.) If you want an open, honest discussion, as you're claiming you want, then you have to give your opponents enough credit not to be lying about everything.

"Stop channeling your inner Krellin and pronouncing "hypocrisy" at random."

I must have missed the part where it isn't hypocritical to clamor for open, honest discussion while yelling "LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE" at someone who's claiming to have witnessed something in contrast to what you're saying.

"I didn't realize Butterhead was the font of objective reality. "
pardon, I don't recall me being a major player in this argument at all and not sure why you keep throwing my name out there...

Dude, butterhead. If somebody calls you the font of objective reality, just roll with it.

Sorry, Umbrella. So many random people interjecting their obligatory Putin-hate, I can't keep people straight.

haha but I'm NOT the font of objective reality! I would never claim to be XD

"Seriously, it's pretty amazing how the individualists now suddenly want to treat all "Hispanic" Arizonans as a Single Monolith spoken for by Butterhead. Otherwise, if everyone doesn't defer to his pronouncements on the issue of book banning and ethnic studies, then one has to call him a liar or stupid."

Butterhead? I was talking about Umbrella, who has claimed to be a Hispanic Arizonian. The point is that you're sitting here telling a Hispanic Arizonian who is claiming your narrative of life for all Hispanic Arizonians is wrong. Of course he doesn't speak for everyone, and I'm certain there are plenty of Hispanic Arizonians who hold your view of events as well. But again, you still have to be claiming he's lying to make your point. Now... are you?

"I never asserted he was lying. Again, you classical liberals and your love of putting words in people's mouths."

The consequence of your position is that he is. I understand that for a Stalinist aficionado that coming to terms with the consequences of your ideas is hard, but let's give it a decent attempt, at least, especially if you want your "honest discussion."

"I didn't realize Butterhead was the font of objective reality."
*Umbrella, and no, not saying that, but again, his narrative is contradicting essential facts of yours. You'd either have to be saying he's wrong or lying. There's just no avoiding it.

Blah posting too slowly, sorry that I missed the correction.

"So many random people interjecting their obligatory Putin-hate, I can't keep people straight. "
GASP... maybe it's a sign... but what could that sign mean?
It could be:
A) you're an ass hole
B) you don't know as much as you think you do and it pisses people off that you try to act like you do
C) you are actually wrong
D) people just don't like you
or E) all of the above.
my bets on E...

Obligatory? lol. You know we've fought on the same side on this forum before, right? Come on, I don't hate you. <3 Push your buttons a bit with the Stalin stuff but hey, I'm a privileged slaveowning "bro" for supporting small government, we all have our fun.

"But saying that you live somewhere and your overall life experience is a certain way is not an anecdote."

Can it be verified? It's subjective experience. Call it what you will, it's not a basis for an argument. An argument requires accountability, the ability to cross-examine and verify what has been said. Anybody can make up anything about their 'experience'. The point isn't that they're necessarily lying, but that what they're saying can't be checked.

"First, I'm not "defending" anything."

Then go away. You just inject yourself into a discussion for the sake of what, continuing your usual jihad against me that you've had for how many months now? Doesn't it get old? You don't care that you're rising to the defense of the factual claims of an Arizonan who has done nothing but defend the censorship of the Tucson school board? And you claim you're not actually defending this censorship? Right.

"but you'll notice that the only thing I've put forth is that you're being every bit as hostile to honest discussion as you're insinuating your opponents are, and that it's hypocritical, and that you should stop."

Right, so this is just a lengthy scolding/personal attack completely detached from the actual discussion. Got it. I don't get how I'm hostile to honest discussion by insisting that somebody provide a bit more than "I have friends on both sides" and "I live in Arizona and there was no book seizures, people have access to these books".

"You're sitting here, asserting facts that aren't agreed upon, and assuming they are agreed upon, and responding to people's claims from there. There will always be a fundamental disconnect between what you're saying to others and what others say to you if you continue to do this."

I provided actual documentary evidence, including video clips of the students who were in the class, and statements from the school board saying books were carted off and warehoused. All Umbrella said was "I'm from Arizona". And this is what you're rising to defend from my so-called "hypocrisy" of saying this is unaccountable.

"I refer, once again, to the above. Are you saying he's lying, or not?"

False dichotomy. He's not lying. He's just not bothered to look into information which contradicts his view of the matter. He asked for a source about the book seizures, since he claimed they never happened. I provided the sources. He then admitted they occurred. He then proceeded to make a number of "I live in Arizona statements", and that was about the end of it.

"I must have missed the part where it isn't hypocritical to clamor for open, honest discussion while yelling "LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE" at someone who's claiming to have witnessed something in contrast to what you're saying."

He never claims to have witnessed anything. He just said he lived in Arizona and has friends on both sides of this. He claimed the books were never seized and clearly backtracked. I never said he was a liar. But continue to yell at me for some unknown reason.

Ok, so we're in the essay section of the debate. Playing a 5 min live game and debating at the same time is just too hard, I ran out of time to read posts between orders a long time agoo. Cheers.

"You know we've fought on the same side on this forum before, right?"

At this point you seem to be taking contrary sides just because you want to get in your 2 Minutes Hate.

It can pretty easily be reduced to "Putin thinks Eden has a vendetta to live out," apparently.

Lol @ "jihad." Yeah, alright, obviously I care enough about you to go hound and harass you on every single issue, and could definitely not be motivated by any other possible factor than bloodlust vengeance for... <fill in the blank for me here, I must have forgotten whatever vague offense you committed that would have set me off on such a quest>.

Assertions that people are on some kind of holy war to root you out because they comment on topics disagreeing with you is not only hilariously egocentric, it's... another means of trying to silence honest discussion. Which is what you've been asking we give you in the first place. +1s are a pretty crappy way of checking the audience's opinion, but I'm going to assume that at least someone else understands where I'm coming from given that I've gotten a couple here, and hope that this someone or another party can explain better than I, because apparently whatever past history we have is so bad that I by default cannot even be assumed to care about the discussion itself, only scoring points on Putin (which, if true, means that my own entry into the discussion automatically renders any search for honesty in it moot, and that I'm not contributing anything by continuing to post).

>Stalinist
>throwing Orwell at me

...Oh deary, deary me...I've created another monster...

"jihad," whhaaaaat?????

O.o

How did that get worked into this conversation?!

Research it and submit a 10-page report on the history of the word "jihad" in this conversation and I'll give you a +1.

There, I saved you 15 hours' work and gave you the +1