I stopped reading after he started recycling arguments from George Wallace's playbook. Fark this asshole.

This is the same guy who thinks Liberalism and Fascism are interchangeable. No thanks.

Better than the old stand-by most conservatives hide behind: "I'm just trying to learn how the other side thinks!"

or, "Top Five Strawmen the GOP uses to Poison Debate"

Hello, is this the FARK® Liberal Echo Chamber? er? er?

Wow, some Fark admins is in a pissy mood today.

Oh look, the Republicans are all, "hurr durr libruls" again.

jehovahs witness protection: WOW...Liberals are thin skinned.

/DNRTFA

thomps: also, i'm having a tough time thinking of anything worse than a jonah goldberg article that is split into 3 pages, where after the second page you are forced to create an account to read the third.

Waterboarding?

Article summary.

jehovahs witness protection: WOW...Liberals are thin skinned.

/DNRTFA

Go back to sleep, lunkhead.

Look, Jonah is calling someone black again.

For the record, when I call Jonah Goldberg "retarded," I'm not insulting him. I just don't think his mother ever bothered to tell him, and he probably needs to be reminded.

The My Little Pony Killer: Better than the old stand-by most conservatives hide behind: "I'm just trying to learn how the other side thinks!"

Ohhh... both sides do it.

1-5: 'You're an idiot, please stop reproducing'

Lucky LaRue: "Cliches", "Truths".. it's all just words.

OMG! THIS!

Why is it that once I saw that the headline and the fact it's from WaPo, I knew it was from Jonah Goldberg?

I got as far as "we argue like D&D geeks" but then my brain was to full of reasons why 4e is better than 3.5 to continue.

Mrtraveler01: Why is it that once I saw that the headline and the fact it's from WaPo, I knew it was from Jonah Goldberg?

Republicans are used to functioning as a cult, so it's not such a big deal to work for a paper run by a cult leader.

The My Little Pony Killer: Better than the old stand-by most conservatives hide behind: "I'm just trying to learn how the other side thinks!"

Is that what they say when they get arrested at the men's room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Int'l Airport?

He starts by intimating that the fact that we have a black president proves that there is no racism in America.


LOGIC DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.

FTFA:"Letting 10 rapists and murderers go free will almost surely result in far more harm to society than putting one poor innocent sap in jail."

That depends if the rest of society know they can be arbitrarily imprisoned when innocent.

What a well thought out and insightful article. I especially like the idea that affirmative action has failed because Galileo didn't know enough black people.

thomps: also, i'm having a tough time thinking of anything worse than a jonah goldberg article that is split into 3 pages, where after the second page you are forced to create an account to read the third.

Click the "Print" link.

Carth: FTFA:"Letting 10 rapists and murderers go free will almost surely result in far more harm to society than putting one poor innocent sap in jail."

That depends if the rest of society know they can be arbitrarily imprisoned when innocent.

Let's put Jonah in prison for a crime he did not commit and see how he feels about it then.

The top five cliches that conservatives use to avoid real arguments:

1: You're a communist
2: You're a heathen
3: You're a bleeding heart
4: You're a leech
5: You're not a real American

My Top 5 Argument avoiders:

5. No, those pants do not make you look fat, dear.

4. Sorry (insert retarded Facebook friend or relative name here) I did not know
Fartbongo controls gas prices and is history's greatest monster.

3. I was not looking at her ass!

2. Your religion is the best religion, really.

1. Visiting company, especially family is like fish. After 3 or 4 days it stinks
and you throw it out.

EyeballKid: Mrtraveler01: Why is it that once I saw that the headline and the fact it's from WaPo, I knew it was from Jonah Goldberg?

Republicans are used to functioning as a cult, so it's not such a big deal to work for a paper run by a cult leader.

Wrong paper.

Washington Post is the legit one. Washington Times is the one run by a loony cult leader.

DRTA, but i'm sure that the Washington Post is just ignoring the facts of the real world.

There are no liberals in the United States, just people who think they are liberal.

/Nowadays, farking Eisenhower would be drummed out of politics for being too liberal. Idiots. Isn't empire fun?

Cythraul: FTA: 'Diversity is strength'

Is this person serious? I guess we better get back to good ol' Jim Crow.

"Ol' Jim Crow" sounds like a cheap whisky -- a little bit harsh, but okay as a mixer.

Top five cliches that liberals use to avoid real arguments
By Jonah Goldberg,

One of the great differences between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives will freely admit that they have an ideology. We're kind of dorks that way, squabbling over old texts like Dungeons and Dragons geeks, wearing ties with pictures of Adam Smith and Edmund Burke on them.

But mainstream liberals from Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama - and the intellectuals and journalists who love them - often assert that they are simply dispassionate slaves to the facts; they are realists, pragmatists, empiricists. Liberals insist that they live right downtown in the "reality-based community," and if only their Republican opponents weren't so blinded by ideology and stupidity, then they could work with them.

This has been a theme of Obama's presidency from the start. A couple of days before his inauguration,Obama proclaimed: "What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives - from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry" (an odd pronouncement, given that "bigoted" America had just elected its first black president).

In his inaugural address, he explained that "the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works."

Whether the president who had to learn, in his own words, that there's "no such thing" as shovel-ready projects - after blowing billions of stimulus dollars on them - is truly focused on "what works" is a subject for another day. But the phrase is a perfect example of the way liberals speak in code when they want to make an ideological argument without conceding that that is what they are doing. They hide ideological claims in rhetorical Trojan horses, hoping to conquer terrain unearned by real debate.

Of course, Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats when it comes to reducing arguments to bumper stickers. (Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin has written that "the president's economic experiment has failed. It is time to get back to what we know works.") But the vast majority of Republicans, Ryan included, will at least acknowledge their ideological first principles - free markets, limited government, property rights. Liberals are terribly reluctant to do likewise. Instead, they often speak in seemingly harmless cliches that they hope will penetrate our mental defenses.

Here are some of the most egregious examples:

'Diversity is strength'

Affirmative action used to be defended on the grounds that certain groups, particularly African Americans, are entitled to extra help because of the horrible legacy of slavery and institutionalized racism. Whatever objections opponents may raise to that claim, it's a legitimate moral argument.

But that argument has been abandoned in recent years and replaced with a far less plausible and far more ideological claim: that enforced diversity is a permanent necessity. Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, famously declared: "Diversity is not merely a desirable addition to a well-run education. It is as essential as the study of the Middle Ages, of international politics and of Shakespeare."

It's a nice thought. But consider some of the great minds of human history, and it's striking how few were educated in a diverse environment. Newton, Galileo and Einstein had little exposure to Asians or Africans. The genius of Aristotle, Socrates and Plato cannot be easily correlated with the number of non-Greeks with whom they chatted in the town square. If diversity is essential to education, let us get to work dismantling historically black and women's colleges. When I visit campuses, it's common to see black and white students eating, studying and socializing separately. This is rounding out everyone's education?

Similarly, we're constantly told that communities are strengthened by diversity, but liberal Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam has found the opposite. In a survey that included interviews with more than 30,000people, Putnam discovered that as a community becomes more ethnically and socially varied, social trust and civic engagement plummet. Perhaps forced diversity makes sense, but liberals make little effort to prove it.

'Violence never solved anything'

It's a nice idea, but it's manifestly absurd. If violence never solved anything, police would not have guns or nightsticks. Obama helped solve the problem of Moammar Gaddafi with violence, and FDR helped solve the problem - far too late - of the Holocaust and Hitler with violence. Invariably, the slogan (or its close cousin "War is not the answer") is invoked not as a blanket exhortation against violence, but as a narrow injunction against the United States, NATO or Republican presidents from trying to solve threats of violence with violence.

'The living Constitution'

It is dogma among liberals that sophisticated people understand that the Constitution is a "living, breathing document." The idea was largely introduced into the political bloodstream by Woodrow Wilson and his allies, who were desperate to be free of the constraints of the founders' vision. Wilson explained that he preferred an evolving, "organic," "Darwinian" Constitution that empowered progressives to breathe whatever meaning they wished into it. It is a wildly ideological view of the nature of our political system.

It is also a font of unending hypocrisy. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, conservatives argued that the country needed to adapt to a new asymmetrical warfare against non-state actors who posed an existential threat. They believed they were working within the bounds of the Constitution. But even if they were stretching things, why shouldn't that be acceptable - if our Constitution is supposed to evolve with the times?

Yet acolytes of the living Constitution immediately started quoting the wisdom of the founders and the sanctity of the Constitution. Apparently the document is alive when the Supreme Court finds novel rationalizations for abortion rights, but when we need to figure out how to deal with terrorists, suddenly nothing should pry original meaning from the Constitution's cold, dead hands.

By the way, conservatives do not believe that the Constitution should not change; they just believe that it should change constitutionally - through the amendment process.

'Social Darwinism'

Obama this month denounced the Republican House budget as nothing more than "thinly veiled social Darwinism." Liberals have been trotting out this Medusa's head to petrify the public for generations. It does sound scary. (After all, didn't Hitler believe in something called "social Darwinism"? Maybe he did.) But no matter how popular the line, these liberal attacks have little relation to the ideas that the "robber barons" and such intellectuals as Herbert Spencer - the "father" of social Darwinism - actually followed.

Spencer's sin was that he was a soaked-to-the-bone libertarian who championed private charity and limited government (along with women's suffrage and anti-imperialism). The "reform Darwinists" - namely the early-20th-century Progressives - loathed such classical liberalism because they wanted to tinker with the economy, and humanity itself, at the most basic level.

More vexing for liberals: There was no intellectual movement in the United States called "social Darwinism" in the first place. Spencer, a 19th-century British philosopher, didn't use the term and wasn't even a Darwinist (he had a different theory of evolution).

Liberals misapplied the label from the outset to demonize ideas they didn't like. They've never stopped.

'Better 10 guilty men go free ...'

At least until George Zimmerman was in the dock, this was a reflexive liberal refrain. The legendary English jurist William Blackstone - the fons et origo of much of our common law - said, "Better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer." In fact, this 10 to 1 formula has become known as the "Blackstone ratio" or "Blackstone's formulation."

In a brilliant study, "n Guilty Men," legal scholar Alexander Volokh traced the idea that it is better to let a certain number of guilty men go free - from Abraham's argument with God in Genesis over the fate of Sodom, to the writings of the Roman emperor Trajan, to the legal writings of Moses Maimonides, to Geraldo Rivera.

As a truism, it's a laudable and correct sentiment that no reasonable person can find fault with. But that's the problem: No reasonable person disagrees with it. There's nothing wrong with saying it, but it's not an argument - it's an uncontroversial declarative statement. And yet people say it as if it settles arguments. It doesn't do anything of the sort. The hard thinking comes when you have to deal with the "and therefore what?" part. Where do we draw the lines? If it were an absolute principle, we wouldn't put anyone in prison, lest we punish an innocent in the process. Indeed, if punishing the innocent is so terrible, why 10? Why not two? Or, for that matter, 200? Or 2,000?

Taken literally, the phrase is absurd. Letting 10 rapists and murderers go free will almost surely result in far more harm to society than putting one poor innocent sap in jail.

When you hear any of these cliches - along with "I may disagree with what you say, but I would defend to the death your right to say it," which is another personal favorite - understand that the people uttering them are not trying to have an argument. They're trying to win an argument without having it at all.

t­y­rannyof­c­li­c­he­sliamgcom

Jonah Goldberg is editor at large of the National Review Online and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. His book "The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas" will be published Tuesday.

Car_Ramrod: Carth: FTFA:"Letting 10 rapists and murderers go free will almost surely result in far more harm to society than putting one poor innocent sap in jail."

That depends if the rest of society know they can be arbitrarily imprisoned when innocent.

We should probably just put everyone in jail to be safe.

Think how low the crime rate would be after it succeeded!

...says the revisionist Jew that claims NAZI's were 'soshulist'.

But consider some of the great minds of human history, and it's striking how few were educated in a diverse environment. Newton, Galileo and Einstein had little exposure to Asians or Africans. The genius of Aristotle, Socrates and Plato cannot be easily correlated with the number of non-Greeks with whom they chatted in the town square.

Um... Newton and Galileio were products of the Renaissance and the age of reason, and citizens of the British Empire and Italy respectively, both trading superpowers with far more exposure to international thought, especially international academic thought, than most nations. Newton spent about half of his time trying Alchemy, an Arabic concept that required studying African works.

Einstein was a German national that immigrated to the US, at the time called the "melting pot" and worked with a lot of people of varying nationality. His work in physics was driven primarily by correspondence with people all over the world, since he wasn't an experimentalist and couldn't verify any of his own stuff.

Aristotle was integral to the Macedonian empire, the most diverse collection of people in history to that point (at least west of the Chinese families. All three Greeks were Athenians, and Athens was famous for trading with anyone and everyone and adopting anyone that showed up with valuable goods or skills as a citizen, and giving anyone of any social class or race a voice in the forum. This was one of the "weaknesses" that Sparta was always calling them out on, notable Spartan academics like: oh, wait, there weren't any great academics in racially pure Sparta. Well, imagine that.

So... yeah. That was a good example of an argument from farking stupidity, since all of his examples are actually counter-examples to his argument.

//Not that I blame him, as there's only one country I know of with strictly enforced racial and cultural monolithicness that was also on the forefront of science. I'd mention it explicitly, but you're not supposed to Godwin threads, so I'll just say "you know who else advocated racial purity and advanced science?"

Looks like the author is correct because he is being personally attacked rather than refuted with reason and facts. #6

DRTFA.

FTA: "diversity is Strength"

Know who else thought there shouldn't be diversity in his country and killed lots of people to stop it???....



...Anders Behring Breivik.

/what, there was someone else?

TimonC346: I read it--you all should. At least I'm 200% positive that was a load of crap. I'm pretty sure the far left, uber liberals would agree violence is not always necessary.

I skimmed it. I saw nothing worthwhile.

theorellior: Goddamnit, Nina_Hartley's_Ass, I was trying to avoid reading that bullshiat. I accidentally the whole thing, and now I'm in a pissy mood again.

I'd love to get paid a cushy salary to write that dreck. It certainly wouldn't be hard.

I often though I could have a pretty good career as a conservative pundit. It is really easy to make arguments that appeal to emotion instead of logic and I bet the pay is pretty good.

the only time I've seen those terms used is here, in Fark, by Conservatives who are describing what they think Liberals believe.

If you are looking for SOME way to defend Goldberg, you could say his point is not that these statements are necessarily wrong, but that they are moralist and not logical arguments. "Better let 10 guilty go free" is a defense of a moral belief that the freedom of the individual should not be constrained, even if it means we are all at a greater risk of crimes. That our moral abhorrence at the idea of an innocent imprisoned outweighs the distaste of a guilty man "getting off."

Sadly... that wasn't his point. That strawman just needed to BURN.

Tyee: Looks like the author is correct because he is being personally attacked rather than refuted with reason and facts. #6

DRTFA.

Goldberg is in fact an ass, but this thread actually has more actual counterarguments to his claims than one would generally expect from the internet, let alone FARK.

"We get it. He's Black" not on there?

Let me guess: I can't call the guy with the "OBAMA'S A N***ER" sign a racist because that makes me...the PC Police? A Communist?

Cythraul: FTA: 'Diversity is strength'

Is this person serious? I guess we better get back to good ol' Jim Crow.

Jonah Goldberg: Not a Geneticist. Film at 11.

Anyone else find it deliciously ironic that the piece on "avoiding real arguments" consists entirely of strawmen?

Nina_Hartley's_Ass:
'Diversity is strength'
'Violence never solved anything'
'The living Constitution'
'Social Darwinism'
'Better 10 guilty men go free ...'

Thanks for that. I actually tried to read the article, but it wouldn't let me access the last page.

theorellior: I'd love to get paid a cushy salary to write that dreck. It certainly wouldn't be hard.

You cannot. I have asked myself the same thing. It is the same reason you would not want to rob a group of innocents or be a religious leader who bilks a group of believers out of their money. You have a heart and a conscience.

sweetmelissa31: The minute slavery ended racism was over, so get over it already. btw slavery would have ended on its own without the Civil War and anyway that is not at all what the Civil War was about.

States' Rights would have peacefully ended slavery.

Koalaesq: FTA: "diversity is Strength"

Know who else thought there shouldn't be diversity in his country and killed lots of people to stop it???....



...Anders Behring Breivik.

/what, there was someone else?

Diversity isn't "strength", especially not the "diversity" that people mean whent hey toss out that phrase.

You don't want your kids teacher, the mechanic working on your car or the people performing surgery on you to be "diverse". You want them to be good at their job. And if you think having the proper racial and sexual mix makes a group better at any of those things you are a moron.

To disagreew ith diversity is strength doesn't mean you are against diversity, just that it shouldn't be a goal of its own.

LeoffDaGrate: the only time I've seen those terms used is here, in Fark, by Conservatives who are describing what they think Liberals believe.

I wonder why so many people are tripping over themsleves to defend the "diversity is strength" comment.

Jonah Goldberg is an annoying twat.

Here are my five cliches that liberals use.
1. Sweden manages to do just fine with socialism
2. Illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than the average citizen.
3. The two-state solution will lead to peace in the Middle East.
4. Raising taxes only cuts into profit margins.
5. If we paid teachers more, our schools would be a lot better.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass:
"diversity is Strength"

Putnam discovered that as a community becomes more ethnically and socially varied, social trust and civic engagement plummet.

How come Canadian cities like Toronto and Vancouver don't seem to have this problem?

Cythraul: FTA: 'Diversity is strength'

Is this person serious? I guess we better get back to good ol' Jim Crow.

All eggs in one basket is the true key to prosperity. You don't diversify a portfolio unless you want to lose money.

theorellior: Free market? Free slaves? Coincidence? I think not!

Why do "LIBERals" hate LIBERty?

#1 immediately followed by clicking to the next page on a site polluted by advertising on the diminishing returns model.

I'm not reading this crap. I don't know what he thinks an argument actually looks like because all I ever see are logical fallacies dressed up a arguments and ideologies.

I suspect this author uses lots of these in his daily life



/Diminishing returns advertising model
//More ads make people ignore more ads which requires more ads for people to ignore.

bdub77:
I agree this phrase is absurd. But I don't know one person, liberal or conservative, who has ever said this to me.

I don't think this is really every made about putting people in jail, as much as it is when talking about the death penalty. Putting an innocent person in jail can be undone. Killing an innocent person cannot, and it more or less makes murderers of us all.

FTA: 'Diversity is strength'

Well, duh. Everyone knows ignorance is strength.

Fnck racism.

liam76: Diversity isn't "strength", especially not the "diversity" that people mean whent hey toss out that phrase.

You don't want your kids teacher, the mechanic working on your car or the people performing surgery on you to be "diverse". You want them to be good at their job. And if you think having the proper racial and sexual mix makes a group better at any of those things you are a moron.

To disagreew ith diversity is strength doesn't mean you are against diversity, just that it shouldn't be a goal of its own.

Which is stronger?

A. A society where teachers, mechanics and surgeons all know their jobs, but everyone comes from the same cultural, religious, intellectual and cultural background.

or

B. A society where teachers, mechanics and surgeons all know their jobs, but the come from a wide variety of, religious, intellectual and cultural backgrounds.

Lost Thought 00: liam76: Diversity isn't "strength", especially not the "diversity" that people mean whent hey toss out that phrase.

You don't want your kids teacher, the mechanic working on your car or the people performing surgery on you to be "diverse". You want them to be good at their job. And if you think having the proper racial and sexual mix makes a group better at any of those things you are a moron.

To disagreew ith diversity is strength doesn't mean you are against diversity, just that it shouldn't be a goal of its own.

That's a perfectly reasonable defense of the statement. Unfortunately the author did not come anywhere close to making that argument. Instead he says that the best path to an education is to cloister yourself into a like-minded community. He also has his historical facts wrong, Aristotle, Socrates and Plato, and in fact all greeks, had plenty of contact with north africans and the rest of the Mediterranean peoples.

I replied before I read it (fark comments loaded before the article).

You are right, the author is a moron, and his defense of that point was stupid, but he was correct on that one.

Mrbogey: As this thread demonstrates, the ways that they avoid arguments is way more than "5".

Pick an argument with me. Let's go. I won't avoid it (but I am at work, so I might be slow to reply).

Facts
Science
Nuance
Perspective
Compromise



or in Derp:
Elitism
Muslim-ism
Ram-down-our-throats-ism
Socialism
Destroying Democracy-ism

thamike: Mrtraveler01: EyeballKid: Mrtraveler01: Why is it that once I saw that the headline and the fact it's from WaPo, I knew it was from Jonah Goldberg?

Republicans are used to functioning as a cult, so it's not such a big deal to work for a paper run by a cult leader.

Wrong paper.

Washington Post is the legit one. Washington Times is the one run by a loony cult leader.

It really disturbs me that someone got those two confused.

It's a little bit like linking a New York Times article and having someone comment "pfft... I don't read that Murdoch crap."

A little primer for novices:

New York: Times good, Post bad
Washington: Post good, Times bad

I admit it can be a little confusing.

-Diversity is Strength

It is. Our nation is built upon the idea of all ideas, concepts, backgrounds, etc and has ensured we stay more dynamic, ever looking for the best way to complete a task, regardless of what the established tradition might espouse. One does not have this without a diverse population. And the food is always more fun this way.

-Violence Never Solved Anything

Oddly enough, violence often causes more problems than it will ever solve. That makes it the last resort, to be used in as surgical and precise a manner as possible. ObL Take-down vs Two Farking Wars.

-The Living Constitution

I like the Constitution. I truly do. I don't think one should hold it up as a somehow 'sacred' document, then start spouting nonsense about disenfranchising other citizens because they happen to be homosexual. Slavery, Universal Suffrage? Good to amend. Bad Gays/Lesbians? Not so good.

-Social Darwinism

It is the 'survival of the fittest' mentality applied to our day-to-day society. And it's abhorrent. Gov't has the obligation to care and protect its citizens, whether it's from outside attack or inequity within its own systems. Social Contract and all that.

-Better 10 Guilty Men Go Free...

Why yes, I do happen to hold to the guiding principles and ideals of our nation up higher than temporary retribution and vengeance. Why would you NOT hold principles up as... y'know, principles?

And I would rather not defend Goldberg's right to speak with my life. If that's the option. Just saying.

Cythraul: FTA: 'Diversity is strength'

Is this person serious? I guess we better get back to good ol' Jim Crow.

I'm sure they could exclude more than 27.6% of the country if they really admitted who they admire...

Super Chronic: thamike: Mrtraveler01: EyeballKid: Mrtraveler01: Why is it that once I saw that the headline and the fact it's from WaPo, I knew it was from Jonah Goldberg?

Republicans are used to functioning as a cult, so it's not such a big deal to work for a paper run by a cult leader.

Wrong paper.

Washington Post is the legit one. Washington Times is the one run by a loony cult leader.

It really disturbs me that someone got those two confused.

It's a little bit like linking a New York Times article and having someone comment "pfft... I don't read that Murdoch crap."

A little primer for novices:

New York: Times good, Post bad
Washington: Post good, Times bad

I admit it can be a little confusing.

The one way I can tell the difference between the Washington Times and Washington Post is that when you pick up the Times, you'd think you're reading a copy from the Reagan era, until you see the date at the top of the page and realize it's today's paper.

These awful conservative greenlit articles are the reason I stopped paying the $5 a month for TotalFark.

Jackson Herring: sweetmelissa31: And the symbol 0 came from India, which means that we would not be able to type "0bama" without multiculturalism.

so what you are saying is that diversity is, in fact, strength

BS. Does adding impurities, like carbon to iron strengthen it? NO. Does pressing sheets of different woods together strengthen it? NO.

sweetmelissa31: btw slavery would have ended on its own without the Civil War and anyway that is not at all what the Civil War was about.

This is always my favorite trope. Well we will never know, cause the south decided to take their ball and leave, then attack the United States cause some yankee got elected president and he _might_ have ended slavery. We didn't start that war, but we sure as hell ended it.

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Diversity isn't "strength", especially not the "diversity" that people mean when they toss out that phrase.

You don't want your kids teacher, the mechanic working on your car or the people performing surgery on you to be "diverse". You want them to be good at their job. And if you think having the proper racial and sexual mix makes a group better at any of those things you are a moron.

To disagreew ith diversity is strength doesn't mean you are against diversity, just that it shouldn't be a goal of its own.

Which is stronger?

A. A society where teachers, mechanics and surgeons all know their jobs, but everyone comes from the same cultural, religious, intellectual and cultural background.

or

B. A society where teachers, mechanics and surgeons all know their jobs, but the come from a wide variety of, religious, intellectual and cultural backgrounds.

Well your first is impossible, or such a hard to reach hypothetical it really isn't worth talking about. There will never be an education systemt hat can give everyone the same intellectual background and keep them profecient in all those jobs.

As for option B. It depends. If they are so "diverse" they can't understand each other and have fundamentally different beliefs on what constitutes things such as basic human rights it will be weaker.

Also you might want to re-read the bolded portion in the top. I have never seen someone use a callf or diversity as anything other than a call to hire more minorities or more women.

Diversity can be a good thing but when it is chosen at the expense of other qualifications it hurts any organization that uises it in hiring practices.

It drives me nuts when people use phrases like "affirmative action" in the same breath as the word "slavery". This isn't about the 19th century. My dad went to an all-white school, goddamnit.

LarryDan43: Jackson Herring: sweetmelissa31: And the symbol 0 came from India, which means that we would not be able to type "0bama" without multiculturalism.

so what you are saying is that diversity is, in fact, strength

BS. Does adding impurities, like carbon to iron strengthen it? NO. Does pressing sheets of different woods together strengthen it? NO.

If inbreeding is good enough for Joffrey Baratheon, it should be good enough for you!

I avoid arguments with conservatives because it doesn't do ANY DAMNED GOOD to fight with these people. I'd just rather laugh at them.

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Diversity isn't "strength", especially not the "diversity" that people mean when they toss out that phrase.

You don't want your kids teacher, the mechanic working on your car or the people performing surgery on you to be "diverse". You want them to be good at their job. And if you think having the proper racial and sexual mix makes a group better at any of those things you are a moron.

To disagreew ith diversity is strength doesn't mean you are against diversity, just that it shouldn't be a goal of its own.

Which is stronger?

A. A society where teachers, mechanics and surgeons all know their jobs, but everyone comes from the same cultural, religious, intellectual and cultural background.

or

B. A society where teachers, mechanics and surgeons all know their jobs, but the come from a wide variety of, religious, intellectual and cultural backgrounds.

Well your first is impossible, or such a hard to reach hypothetical it really isn't worth talking about. There will never be an education systemt hat can give everyone the same intellectual background and keep them profecient in all those jobs.

As for option B. It depends. If they are so "diverse" they can't understand each other and have fundamentally different beliefs on what constitutes things such as basic human rights it will be weaker.

Also you might want to re-read the bolded portion in the top. I have never seen someone use a callf or diversity as anything other than a call to hire more minorities or more women.

Diversity can be a good thing but when it is chosen at the expense of other qualifications it hurts any organization that uises it in hiring practices.

It seems that you believe that there is a direct connection between hiring more minorities and women and people not knowing their jobs. Please explain your basis for making that connection.

LarryDan43: Jackson Herring: sweetmelissa31: And the symbol 0 came from India, which means that we would not be able to type "0bama" without multiculturalism.

so what you are saying is that diversity is, in fact, strength

BS. Does adding impurities, like carbon to iron strengthen it? NO. Does pressing sheets of different woods together strengthen it? NO.

Does diversifying your bonds strengthen your portfolio? NEVER.

Koalaesq: He starts by intimating that the fact that we have a black president proves that there is no racism in America.


LOGIC DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.

YES IT DOES, JONAH GOLDBERG IS THE SMARTEST MAN IN THE WORLD

"FTFA:"Letting 10 rapists and murderers go free will almost surely result in far more harm to society than putting one poor innocent sap in jail."

That depends if the rest of society know they can be arbitrarily imprisoned when innocent."

No, no I agree. In fact, I nominate Jonah Goldberg to serve 50-90 years at hard labor. No, no crime's heis' guilty of--but apparently innocent people in prison is not a bad thing.

I love it every time there's an article posted that states that American "liberals" are close-minded, intolerant, and juvenile. Because then you get a hoard of comments demonstrating that the liberals on Fark are close-minded, intolerant, and juvenile.

/ happens like clockwork.

Philip Francis Queeg: It seems that you believe that there is a direct connection between hiring more minorities and women and people not knowing their jobs. Please explain your basis for making that connection

If I am tasked to hire the best applicant I can find I will have the most qualified person for the job.

If I am tasked to hire the best applicant who has the right race/sex I will not have the most qualified person for the job.

Really not that complicated. Unless of course you belive having a certain race/sex makes you better at a job.


mrshowrules: liam76: Diversity can be a good thing but when it is chosen at the expense of other qualifications it hurts any organization that uises it in hiring practices.

Qualifications are an asset of the individual. Diversity is an asset of the team.

Mathematically to anyone who has ever participated in a Niagara Institute Myers-Briggs leadership course. Diversity in terms of personality types anyways. Mathematically, objectively (proven to all because we had to do the math) the most diverse team making decisions by consensus had the best results each and every time. Better results than any individual and any other less diverse group.

Personality diversity has indeed been proven as a team strength

I have taken the Myers-Briggs course twice.

We did a lost in the woods scenario with a bear, and one with a life raft. Only one group achieved "synergy" (group scored higher than any individual) and the instructor said it was more likely to happenw ith diverse groups there was nothing showing that a more diverse group was better. At least not presented in that class.

Anyway I don't have a problem witht he premise that a diverse personality group can be a benefit, I kind of doubt that is the case in all work environments though, but as I said before that is not what is usually meant by "diversity".

bdub77: Apparently not anymore. WaPo is really losing its journalistic credibility by publishing stuff like this.

Here's what I'm convinced happened. The WaPo was getting ready to run the Mann/Ornstein article that basically says that the Republicans are (the most) to blame for the fundamental breakdown in our political system. The WaPo staff then decided that they had to "balance" out the editorials. So they called this guy up and asked him to spit out some vitriol about liberals this and that. Voila, journalistic balance in the Sunday paper. What makes this perfectly delicious is that a key point in the Mann/Ornstein piece is that it's this emphasis on "balance" by outlets like the WaPo -- rather than, you know, an emphasis on the truth -- that has enabled the Republican hijacking.

A couple of days before his inauguration,Obama proclaimed: "What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives - from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry" (an odd pronouncement, given that "bigoted" America had just elected its first black president).

Seriously man, Obama's election is proof that prejudice and bigotry no longer exist in this country.

WombatControl: I love it every time there's an article posted that states that American "liberals" are close-minded, intolerant, and juvenile. Because then you get a hoard of comments demonstrating that the liberals on Fark are close-minded, intolerant, and juvenile.

/ happens like clockwork.

Ya, pointing out ignorance is nothing more than close-mindedness against the ignorant.

mrshowrules: liam76: Diversity can be a good thing but when it is chosen at the expense of other qualifications it hurts any organization that uises it in hiring practices.

Qualifications are an asset of the individual. Diversity is an asset of the team.

Mathematically to anyone who has ever participated in a Niagara Institute Myers-Briggs leadership course. Diversity in terms of personality types anyways. Mathematically, objectively (proven to all because we had to do the math) the most diverse team making decisions by consensus had the best results each and every time. Better results than any individual and any other less diverse group.

Personality diversity has indeed been proven as a team strength.

Proven? By liberals who believe in science?

El Freak: I stopped reading after he started recycling arguments from George Wallace's playbook. Fark this asshole.

I stopped when he referred to Obama as a "mainstream liberal."

hiker9999: "FTFA:"Letting 10 rapists and murderers go free will almost surely result in far more harm to society than putting one poor innocent sap in jail."

That depends if the rest of society know they can be arbitrarily imprisoned when innocent."

No, no I agree. In fact, I nominate Jonah Goldberg to serve 50-90 years at hard labor. No, no crime's heis' guilty of--but apparently innocent people in prison is not a bad thing.

You can only do that if you imprison ten guilty people at the same time. It's a sacrifice I am willing to make, though.

The top five cliches Farkers use to avoid real arguments:
1 Reality has a liberal bias
2. This is what Republicans really believe
3. Derp!
4. Sarah Palin is automatically President
5. We get it. He's black

WombatControl: I love it every time there's an article posted that states that American "liberals" are close-minded, intolerant, and juvenile. Because then you get a hoard of comments demonstrating that the liberals on Fark are close-minded, intolerant, and juvenile.

/ happens like clockwork.

^will get a few more bites

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: It seems that you believe that there is a direct connection between hiring more minorities and women and people not knowing their jobs. Please explain your basis for making that connection

If I am tasked to hire the best applicant I can find I will have the most qualified person for the job.

If I am tasked to hire the best applicant who has the right race/sex I will not have the most qualified person for the job.

Really not that complicated. Unless of course you belive having a certain race/sex makes you better at a job.

You've never hired a person in your life, have you?

Is there always one person who is clearly more qualified than everyone else? No, of course not. Generally you have a pool of people who's experience and other qualities provide far murkier picture. Some will be better suited to some portion of the job than others. There are all sorts of pluses and minuses in each applicant that need to be balanced and weighed to determine who will be the best hire for the company.

Philip Francis Queeg: There are all sorts of pluses and minuses in each applicant that need to be balanced and weighed to determine who will be the best hire for the company.

Pretty sure l76 can tell just by looking.

liam76: To disagreew ith diversity is strength doesn't mean you are against diversity, just that it shouldn't be a goal of its own.

I dunno about you, but I like having excellent Thai, Indian, Chinese, Italian , and Greek restaurants within a ten minute drive.

Wait, they say that the "living breathing constitution" argument is a LIBERAL cliche? Then why in the holy FARK are the Cons constantly trying to amend it to deny people rights?

I also like how they act like FDR did ANYTHING about the holocaust. That was ignored until AFTER the war was over.

And yes, diversity IS strength. It's why buildings and tools are not just made out of a single ingredient, it is a MIX of items, each contributing something that the others don't.

Then I hit a paywall and they want my money to read more of this bullshiat? What a con. Wish I'd thought of it.

The Right has only ONE cliche, but they pull it out whenever they can: God.

liam76: I wonder why so many people are tripping over themsleves to defend the "diversity is strength" comment.

Well, to be fair, diversity is one of the things that makes evolution work.

Cythraul: While sometimes I feel the same way, you can't escape the fact that a large portion of the country identify themselves as 'conservative.'

That's because the RWingers have successfully turned "liberal" in to a dirty word. I'm "conservative" by several definitions of the word. I dress conservatively, I work hard for my money (HA HA - I'm at work right now!), I believe in supporting worthy charities with my money and my time, I'm a gun owner, I think a strong family unit will make me happier...

But by current definitions, I'm a political liberal, and I'm proud of that.

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: It seems that you believe that there is a direct connection between hiring more minorities and women and people not knowing their jobs. Please explain your basis for making that connection

If I am tasked to hire the best applicant I can find I will have the most qualified person for the job.

If I am tasked to hire the best applicant who has the right race/sex I will not have the most qualified person for the job.

Really not that complicated. Unless of course you belive having a certain race/sex makes you better at a job.

You've never hired a person in your life, have you?

Yes, I have.

I have also worked in a company where people got bonuses for getting women and mionorities through training.



Philip Francis Queeg: Is there always one person who is clearly more qualified than everyone else? No, of course not.

Always, no, often times, yes.


Philip Francis Queeg: Generally you have a pool of people who's experience and other qualities provide far murkier picture. Some will be better suited to some portion of the job than others. There are all sorts of pluses and minuses in each applicant that need to be balanced and weighed to determine who will be the best hire for the company

I agree. And none of that disagrees with what I said unless you believe being of certain race/sex is some sort of "plus" or "minus".

So are you just babbling here or do you believe that being of certain race/sex is some sort of plus" or "minus".

Mikey1969: I also like how they act like FDR did ANYTHING about the holocaust. That was ignored until AFTER the war was over.

From what I understand, it wasn't ignored; people had no idea what was happening until American soldiers started finding concentration camps.

"Diversity is strength" - No. No one supports diversity for its own sake but as an antidote to discrimination and prejudice.

"Violence never solved anything" - No. Though there are certainly ultra pacifists who believe this, it's hardly a liberal trait. The use of force has its time and place, it simply shouldn't be the Weeners particularly in international affairs.

"The living Constitution" - This is a real fundamental difference between the parties. The founders, brilliant though they may have been, could not possibly have forseen the technological and societal innovations that would occur 212 years after the adoption of the Constitution. The language therein is written broadly enough that it is readily open to interpretation and the founders accept that they hadn't thought of everything when writing in the 9th amendment that just because a right isn't explicit in the Constitution or its amendments doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or isn't protected. Consider the alternative. If we lived by strict construction then it would be easy to imagine that there would exist no right to be free from racial or sexual discrimination, no right to workplace safety, no right to emergency medical care, etc and to pass these items through amendment would be onerous to say the least. Conservatives tend to forget that the founders were idealists and hugely liberal for their time.

"Social Darwinism" - Now the author is just being pedantic. Social Darwinism has an understood meaning: that people rise or fall according solely to their own ability and that society has no obligation to support those who fail except through private charity. The author's problem is that this subject has been litigated and his side lost. We as a society don't want to see our elderly parents go without medical care or the ability to pay for food and shelter. We don't want the poor to starve or be unable to see a doctor. We don't want the unemployed to be left to rot. We don't want someone who gets in a car accident to be forced to present a credit card and insurance before they get their broken leg set. And for someone so dead set against public welfare, I see little crowing about corporate welfare from the other side of the aisle.

"Better 10 guilty men go free..." - The US has one of the highest per capita inprisonment ratios on the planet. Clearly we're not letting a lot of guilty men go free. Simply, we want to ensure that justice is meted fairly and impartially. Naturally, the author takes this to it's absurd conclusion that no one should be imprisoned at all, which no one actually believes.

Deucednuisance: liam76: To disagreew ith diversity is strength doesn't mean you are against diversity, just that it shouldn't be a goal of its own.

I dunno about you, but I like having excellent Thai, Indian, Chinese, Italian , and Greek restaurants within a ten minute drive

I would argue that is variety. You aren't going to care if the person behind the counter or in the kitchen is from each of those cultures (although that is generally a good indicator of the food).

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Pretty sure l76 can tell just by looking

I am not the one here arguing that race should be a factor.

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: It seems that you believe that there is a direct connection between hiring more minorities and women and people not knowing their jobs. Please explain your basis for making that connection

If I am tasked to hire the best applicant I can find I will have the most qualified person for the job.

If I am tasked to hire the best applicant who has the right race/sex I will not have the most qualified person for the job.

Really not that complicated. Unless of course you belive having a certain race/sex makes you better at a job.

You've never hired a person in your life, have you?

Yes, I have.

I have also worked in a company where people got bonuses for getting women and mionorities through training.



Philip Francis Queeg: Is there always one person who is clearly more qualified than everyone else? No, of course not.

Always, no, often times, yes.


Philip Francis Queeg: Generally you have a pool of people who's experience and other qualities provide far murkier picture. Some will be better suited to some portion of the job than others. There are all sorts of pluses and minuses in each applicant that need to be balanced and weighed to determine who will be the best hire for the company

I agree. And none of that disagrees with what I said unless you believe being of certain race/sex is some sort of "plus" or "minus".

So are you just babbling here or do you believe that being of certain race/sex is some sort of plus" or "minus".

As I said before, having people from a wide variety of backgrounds is definitely a plus in my experience. I've worked at firms without a single woman or minority professional. That clearly left us less aware of certain issues and concerns that faced our clients.

Tell us, do you think an all white male firm is going to be able to understand and anticipate the needs and concerns of a diverse society as well as a firm who's employees more closely reflect that diversity?

Parmenius: or, "Top Five Strawmen the GOP uses to Poison Debate"


And we are done.

Philip Francis Queeg: So are you just babbling here or do you believe that being of certain race/sex is some sort of plus" or "minus".

As I said before, having people from a wide variety of backgrounds is definitely a plus in my experience.

Got it, so that is a "yes".

I had you down as "thinks WU are as bad as Al Queda" this might have to replace that as your tag.


Philip Francis Queeg: Tell us, do you think an all white male firm is going to be able to understand and anticipate the needs and concerns of a diverse society as well as a firm who's employees more closely reflect that diversity?

I think a firm who is all white is probbaly not hiring the most qualified people, so they aren't going to be effective as one that is.

Trading "must be white" for "must be 10% black" is a step in the rigth direction, but is still racist and still worse than hiring who is best.

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: So are you just babbling here or do you believe that being of certain race/sex is some sort of plus" or "minus".

As I said before, having people from a wide variety of backgrounds is definitely a plus in my experience.

Got it, so that is a "yes".

I had you down as "thinks WU are as bad as Al Queda" this might have to replace that as your tag.


Philip Francis Queeg: Tell us, do you think an all white male firm is going to be able to understand and anticipate the needs and concerns of a diverse society as well as a firm who's employees more closely reflect that diversity?

I think a firm who is all white is probbaly not hiring the most qualified people, so they aren't going to be effective as one that is.

Trading "must be white" for "must be 10% black" is a step in the rigth direction, but is still racist and still worse than hiring who is best.

So you don't think that having a workforce from a wide variety of backgrounds is a positive for a company? Really? You are more farked up than I thought.

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: So are you just babbling here or do you believe that being of certain race/sex is some sort of plus" or "minus".

As I said before, having people from a wide variety of backgrounds is definitely a plus in my experience.

Got it, so that is a "yes".

I had you down as "thinks WU are as bad as Al Queda" this might have to replace that as your tag.

If you don't want to change his tag, you can put me down for "likes diversity."

By Jonah Goldberg

fark you.

fta: "Taken literally, the phrase is absurd. Letting 10 rapists and murderers go free will almost surely result in far more harm to society than putting one poor innocent sap in jail."

Wow. When everyone, including Goldberg, conflates the final cause of this phrase with "harm to society", I think we're done.

It's not about broad justice. It's not about society. It's about protecting the rights of that particular, innocent individual.

crab66: Parmenius: or, "Top Five Strawmen the GOP uses to Poison Debate"


And we are done.

If you think about it, the article is actually one big strawman.



Yo dawg, I heard you like strawman fallacies, so I put a strawman in your strawman so you can strawman while you strawman.

Give me five minutes with Jonah Goldberg and I'd be happy to be proven wrong about the "violence doesn't solve anything" cliche.

Philip Francis Queeg: So you don't think that having a workforce from a wide variety of backgrounds is a positive for a company? Really? You are more farked up than I thought

Funny how I am talking about race/sex, as is usually what is meant by diversity, and you keep trying to hide behind "wide variety of backgrounds" becasue you don't want to admit you support racist hiring practices.

From your last response.

Philip Francis Queeg: As I said before, having people from a wide variety of backgrounds is definitely a plus in my experience.

Tell us, do you think an all white male firm is going to be able to understand and anticipate the needs and concerns of a diverse society as well as a firm who's employees more closely reflect that diversity

So you clearly know your "wide variety of backgrounds" is really abotu race/sex. So try, for once to be honest and just admit it.


As to yoru question above if your wife was hurt in a bad accident and you were given two options a team selected based upon having a diverse racial/sexual background or on chosen based upon how good they were at their job, which would you take?

I think if a company tries to put a priority on having a "wide variety of backgrounds" (your code word for diverse race/sex) it will always be at the expense of some other qualification.

It sounded to me like he just admitted that conservatives, in fact, do not use facts, logic or reason in their arguments. Sounds about right.

I got as far as "Diversity isn't good for education because Einstein wasn't educated in a diverse environment" (paraphrased) and I had to stop reading right there.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: logic and rhetoric need to be taught EVERY YEAR starting in grade school. This author is an example of a student progressing through (ostensibly) 16 years of education without picking up on some very, very basic concepts.

/I know, welcome to the politics tab, yeah yeah

MrBallou: By Jonah Goldberg.

Jonah Goldberg is just Ann Coulter with a smaller penis.

I know it's already been mentioned, but seriously.......


WTF mods?

Are you all collectively PMSing today, or just being pissy?

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: So you don't think that having a workforce from a wide variety of backgrounds is a positive for a company? Really? You are more farked up than I thought

Funny how I am talking about race/sex, as is usually what is meant by diversity, and you keep trying to hide behind "wide variety of backgrounds" becasue you don't want to admit you support racist hiring practices.

From your last response.

Philip Francis Queeg: As I said before, having people from a wide variety of backgrounds is definitely a plus in my experience.

Tell us, do you think an all white male firm is going to be able to understand and anticipate the needs and concerns of a diverse society as well as a firm who's employees more closely reflect that diversity

So you clearly know your "wide variety of backgrounds" is really abotu race/sex. So try, for once to be honest and just admit it.


As to yoru question above if your wife was hurt in a bad accident and you were given two options a team selected based upon having a diverse racial/sexual background or on chosen based upon how good they were at their job, which would you take?

I think if a company tries to put a priority on having a "wide variety of backgrounds" (your code word for diverse race/sex) it will always be at the expense of some other qualification.

You do love false dichotomies don't you?

So you don't believe that a company is stronger with a mix of male and female employees and a mix of employees of different races, ethnic and other demographic backgrounds? Huh, you're more farked up than I thought.

Do you assume your minority coworkers beat out a more qualified worker because of their race or gender?

BigLuca: I got as far as "Diversity isn't good for education because Einstein wasn't educated in a diverse environment" (paraphrased) and I had to stop reading right there.

Plus it's not true to begin with.

liam76: I would argue that is variety.

What the hell is the functional difference?

liam76: I am not the one here arguing that race should be a factor.

No, but you've certainly argued that it is.

liam76: If I am tasked to hire the best applicant who has the right race/sex I will not have the most qualified person for the job.

I mean, that is pretty blatant.

You could have said "might not".

But you didn't. You said "will not".

Ick.

WombatControl 2012-05-01 02:06:16 PM
(favorite: pants-on-head retarded)

I love it every time there's an article posted that states that American "liberals" are close-minded, intolerant, and juvenile. Because then you get a hoard of comments demonstrating that the liberals on Fark are close-minded, intolerant, and juvenile.

/ happens like clockwork.

And you're a bastion of tolerance and wisdom, right?

verbaltoxin: His book "The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas" will be published Tuesday.

Good god, that is the most butthurt-sounding title he possibly could've used. It practically screams, "Waa! Liberals Say Things I Don't Like!" at the reader.

True. But he does have his Rovian tactics down pretty well though. I think we also found out who randomlibbynomore2 is

Because if there is anyone who is an expert on cliches, it's conservatives.

Wooly Bully: justinguarini4ever: Jonah Goldberg is an annoying twat.

Here are my five cliches that liberals use.
1. Sweden manages to do just fine with socialism
2. Illegal immigrants pay more in taxes than the average citizen.
3. The two-state solution will lead to peace in the Middle East.
4. Raising taxes only cuts into profit margins.
5. If we paid teachers more, our schools would be a lot better.

You wish you could troll as effectively as that twat. You still haven't got a single bite. Punch yourself and cry.

Goldberg is what liberals believe all conservatives are. He clearly is a Randian with no conscious. He doesn't see income inequality or war or the climate change as bad things. I do see these things as bad things, but I don't agree with how Democrats chose to address these problems.

justinguarini4ever: I do see these things as bad things, but I don't agree with how Democrats chose to address these problems.

How did Democrats choose to address these problems?

Mrtraveler01: Nina_Hartley's_Ass:
"diversity is Strength"

Putnam discovered that as a community becomes more ethnically and socially varied, social trust and civic engagement plummet.

How come Canadian cities like Toronto and Vancouver don't seem to have this problem?

Uhhh, yes we do. Its slowly dawning on even the thickest Canadian that "celebrating diversity" is simply back handed racism. Not that I agree with this bonesmoker, but, we need more of a competitive/melting pot, because what we are creating are dysfunctional pockets of smaller societies, than one large society. There is plenty of racism in Vancouver, but we aren't armed to the teeth and desperate as other places. Yet.

Soon as I saw it was written by Jonah Goldberg I laughed and then closed the page. When I want fantasy, I'll read A Song of Ice and Fire. At least than it's entertaining.

corporate mustache: Uhhh, yes we do. Its slowly dawning on even the thickest Canadian that "celebrating diversity" is simply back handed racism. Not that I agree with this bonesmoker, but, we need more of a competitive/melting pot, because what we are creating are dysfunctional pockets of smaller societies, than one large society. There is plenty of racism in Vancouver, but we aren't armed to the teeth and desperate as other places. Yet.

So does this "melting pot" involve you becoming more like others, or just others becoming more like you?

corporate mustache: Uhhh, yes we do. Its slowly dawning on even the thickest Canadian that "celebrating diversity" is simply back handed racism

wat

Question... how many wars of we officially 'won' while we had a republican president?

Im just wondering.Cause a few of the comments said that liberals are soft hearted pansies.

cameroncrazy1984: justinguarini4ever: I do see these things as bad things, but I don't agree with how Democrats chose to address these problems.

How did Democrats choose to address these problems?

They address the symptoms and not the root causes. Cap-and-trade instead of carbon taxes, raising the upper tax rate instead of tax code reform, the terribly inefficient healthcare law, etc....

justinguarini4ever: They address the symptoms and not the root causes. Cap-and-trade instead of carbon taxes, raising the upper tax rate instead of tax code reform, the terribly inefficient healthcare law, etc....

How does cap-and-trade address the symptoms while carbon taxes don't?

How does raising the upper tax rate preclude tax code reform?

How does a healthcare law that has saved seniors $3 billion in prescription drugs alone "inefficient"?

AngryPanda: Ned Stark: I got as far as "we argue like D&D geeks" but then my brain was to full of reasons why 4e is better than 3.5 to continue.

Why can't I know more people like you? I like 4e and think 3.5 is too convoluted, but many of my friends are 3.5 diehards.

As for the article, I was assaulted by a wall of derp. Where's the articles talking about silly things conservatives do? Seriously.

Normally I wouldn't want to derail a thread with this, but it's about a Jonah Goldberg article, so I'll just say that if you think 3.5 was convoluted, thank your lucky stars you never played 1st ed. AD&D. 3.5 is about where I think D&D hit that sweet spot of accessibility and flexibility. 4e just dumbs things down way too much and makes it all too, for lack of a better word, video-gamey.

By Jonah Goldberg,

Stopped reading there.

Hope you did too.

mrshowrules: Kome: Soon as I saw it was written by Jonah Goldberg I laughed and then closed the page. When I want fantasy, I'll read A Song of Ice and Fire. At least than it's entertaining.

See my earlier post.

Ha! I didn't bother to read the thread, but that's funny.

Mrtraveler01: Washington Post is the legit one. Washington Times is the one run by a loony cult leader.

The Post seems to have decided to give the Times a run for their money in the last couple years.

cameroncrazy1984: justinguarini4ever: They address the symptoms and not the root causes. Cap-and-trade instead of carbon taxes, raising the upper tax rate instead of tax code reform, the terribly inefficient healthcare law, etc....

How does cap-and-trade address the symptoms while carbon taxes don't?

How does raising the upper tax rate preclude tax code reform?

How does a healthcare law that has saved seniors $3 billion in prescription drugs alone "inefficient"?

1. Cap-and-trade addresses countries like China and India through blanket tarriffs on their products. Not only could this provoke a trade war, but it eliminates the incentive for factories in those countries to individually reduce their carbon output. The bill also grandfathered in the largest polluters. It was a corporate giveaway.
2. Since noone actually pays the upper tax rate, tax code reform would likely raise more revenue and would raise this revenue more equitably.
3. The healthcare law failed to address the following - a) the shortage of new doctors due to the lack of new mdeical schools and fellowships, b) changing medicare and medicaid from a fee-based system to an outcome-based system. c) the lack of incentive for individuals in premium healthcare plans to ration medical services.

Is one of the cliches the use of Top Five lists?

/dnrtfa

Quite frankly, I think Goldberg gives liberals far too much credit - as lame as those five cliches are, at least they resemble arguments. Looking at this and every other politics thread or your typical HuffPo/Kos/TPM comment thread, etc. most liberals can't even formulate an argument that goes beyond the elementary-school playground level.

Most liberals don't have the argumentation skills or manners to argue even in cliches. Instead, it's a stream of silly little ad hominems one after another - and this thread demonstrates that quite well.

That isn't to say all conservatives are better - many of them aren't. But quite frankly, Jonah Goldberg knows more about the intellectual history of the left than 99% of the left has. The Right frequently harkens back to Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, or William F. Buckley - because the Right is in touch with the moral, political, and philisophical framework of conservatism.

And there's a reason for that - higher education is, by and large, a political monoculture. An "educated" liberal can go through the entire life without ever having to grapple with a dissenting view. A conservative does not generally have that option - conservatism in America grew up in the shadow of liberalism, and had to evolve as an ideology in the face of the domininant left-wing orthodoxy. An educated conservative has to refine their worldview subject to challenges from the other side - an educated liberal rarely has such a baptism by fire.

That's why "liberalism" in America today has become a stale and reactionary ideology while it's conservatism that has the intellectual force behind it. Goldberg is right - liberalism is an ideology of cliches because it's never had to be anything but.

whidbey: By Jonah Goldberg,

Stopped reading there.

Hope you did too.

Only if you're close-minded and wilfully ignorant.

Maybe you should try reading something that challenges your worldview for a change. Because maybe, just maybe, you'll learn something.

Oh wait, this goes to my point about the intellectual curiosity of liberals and conservatives - conservatives enjoy taking apart the arguments of the other side. Liberals ignore them...

WombatControl: That's why "liberalism" in America today has become a stale and reactionary ideology while it's conservatism that has the intellectual force behind it

WombatControl: whidbey: By Jonah Goldberg,

Stopped reading there.

Hope you did too.

Only if you're close-minded and wilfully ignorant.

Maybe you should try reading something that challenges your worldview for a change. Because maybe, just maybe, you'll learn something.

Oh wait, this goes to my point about the intellectual curiosity of liberals and conservatives - conservatives enjoy taking apart the arguments of the other side. Liberals ignore them...



Do you really think anyone still takes Jonah Goldberg seriously? The only reason that guy even has a job is because his mommy pulled some strings for him. The guy is a hack.

WombatControl: Maybe you should try reading something that challenges your worldview for a change. Because maybe, just maybe, you'll learn something.

Nothing Jonah Goldberg has ever written has ever been at all challenging to anyone. Everything is just filled with half-truths and cliched argument stoppers (which is kind of ironic, considering the subject of his latest brainfart).

Better to use cliches than falacies (look it up fox drones)

Halli: WombatControl: whidbey: By Jonah Goldberg,

Stopped reading there.

Hope you did too.

Only if you're close-minded and wilfully ignorant.

Maybe you should try reading something that challenges your worldview for a change. Because maybe, just maybe, you'll learn something.

Oh wait, this goes to my point about the intellectual curiosity of liberals and conservatives - conservatives enjoy taking apart the arguments of the other side. Liberals ignore them...

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x336]

Do you really think anyone still takes Jonah Goldberg seriously? The only reason that guy even has a job is because his mommy pulled some strings for him. The guy is a hack.

Unlike you, I read that book - and had you done the same, you would have noticed that the argument was quite well-researched.

What's interesting about the reaction to Liberal Fascism is how few defenders of liberalism even tried to refute its actual arguments. But again, that just proves my point: liberalism isn't about ideas anymore, it's about maintaining a tribal identity.

But please, if you're so open-minded, tell the group what you think Mr. Goldberg's thesis was and exactly why you think it's wrong.

So far all the responses to my argument have gone towards proving it...

WombatControl: Maybe you should try reading something that challenges your worldview for a change. Because maybe, just maybe, you'll learn something.

So you've read the complete works of John Locke, David Hume and Adam Smith?

WombatControl: its actual arguments.

When your arguments are based in logical fallacies and historical inaccuracies, among other issues, there's nothing to really refute.

WombatControl: Unlike you, I read that book - and had you done the same, you would have noticed that the argument was quite well-researched.

Really because it was more or less panned by anyone with a history degree. Using discredited bs books about how the Nazis were full of gays was especially hilarious.

WombatControl: What's interesting about the reaction to Liberal Fascism is how few defenders of liberalism even tried to refute its actual arguments. But again, that just proves my point: liberalism isn't about ideas anymore, it's about maintaining a tribal identity.

But please, if you're so open-minded, tell the group what you think Mr. Goldberg's thesis was and exactly why you think it's wrong.

So far all the responses to my argument have gone towards proving it...

It was more or less Hitler liked dogs and therefore people who like dogs are Hitler. I've seen interviews with him trying to defend it. They were cringe inducing and the man is an intellectual lightweight to say the least.

WombatControl: Only if you're close-minded and wilfully ignorant.

Maybe you should try reading something that challenges your worldview for a change. Because maybe, just maybe, you'll learn something.

Oh wait, this goes to my point about the intellectual curiosity of liberals and conservatives - conservatives enjoy taking apart the arguments of the other side. Liberals ignore them...

Also I find it funny that WC is constantly going on about Buckley. Wasn't his son "fired" from National Review for having a different opinion? Very open minded. They took a lot longer to get rid of all those white supremacists.

WhyteRaven74: WombatControl: Maybe you should try reading something that challenges your worldview for a change. Because maybe, just maybe, you'll learn something.

So you've read the complete works of John Locke, David Hume and Adam Smith?

Complete works? No. But The Second Treatise on Government is a favorite of mine. Both Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments and (of course), On the Wealth of Nations are foundational to free-market conservatism.

Haven't read Hume in a long time though...

Carth
2012-05-01 12:53:47 PM
FTFA:"Letting 10 rapists and murderers go free will almost surely result in far more harm to society than putting one poor innocent sap in jail."

What did Thomas Jefferson know anyhow? They didn't have rapers & killers back in his day, right?

Philip Francis Queeg: You do love false dichotomies don't you?

So I guess that means you don't think diversity is important if we are talking about work you think is important.


Philip Francis Queeg: So you don't believe that a company is stronger with a mix of male and female employees and a mix of employees of different races, ethnic and other demographic backgrounds? Huh, you're more farked up than I thought.

If they got that way by not hiring the most qualified people, no they aren't.

Just like a company of all white males that got there by overlooking more qualified minorities isn't going to be stronger.

But lets get back to the root of your problem. You think being the right or wrong race can be a minus or a plus.

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: So are you just babbling here or do you believe that being of certain race/sex is some sort of plus" or "minus".

As I said before, having people from a wide variety of backgrounds is definitely a plus in my experience.

Got it, so that is a "yes".

We have also established that diversity isn't important enough to determine who operates on your wife.

Lets pin it down. How important is racism to hiring practices for you?

Deucednuisance: liam76: I would argue that is variety.

What the hell is the functional difference?

Functional, none. With respect to the conversation, everything.

Deucednuisance: liam76: I am not the one here arguing that race should be a factor.

No, but you've certainly argued that it is.

In some fields, yes it is. It also plays a role in many colleges.

Deucednuisance: liam76: If I am tasked to hire the best applicant who has the right race/sex I will not have the most qualified person for the job.

I mean, that is pretty blatant.

You could have said "might not".

But you didn't. You said "will not".


My mistake. I was talking about hiring practices for more than one person. Yes sometimes the preferred race/sex combo will be the most qualified, but many times not, so if you are putting an emphasis on that for your hiring practices you won't have the most qualified employees.

Halli: Also I find it funny that WC is constantly going on about Buckley. Wasn't his son "fired" from National Review for having a different opinion? Very open minded. They took a lot longer to get rid of all those white supremacists.

No, he was not.

WombatControl: Halli: Also I find it funny that WC is constantly going on about Buckley. Wasn't his son "fired" from National Review for having a different opinion? Very open minded. They took a lot longer to get rid of all those white supremacists.

No, he was not.

That's why I put the fired in quotes. The open minded people who read National Review just lovingly sent him lots of hate mail and the people writing for NR got a massive hissy fit as well.

WombatControl: Oh wait, this goes to my point about the intellectual curiosity of liberals and conservatives - conservatives enjoy taking apart the arguments of the other side. Liberals ignore them...

What passes for "conservative thought" currently deserves to be ignored. Does Jonah Goldberg speak for you, junior?

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: So you don't believe that a company is stronger with a mix of male and female employees and a mix of employees of different races, ethnic and other demographic backgrounds? Huh, you're more farked up than I thought.

If they got that way by not hiring the most qualified people, no they aren't.

and there's that false dichotomy again.

Keep trying, you'll get someone to buy into it, eventually.

Would take great issue with what Goldberg says. Always would look at the GOP today and go "I told you so".

Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: So you don't believe that a company is stronger with a mix of male and female employees and a mix of employees of different races, ethnic and other demographic backgrounds? Huh, you're more farked up than I thought.

If they got that way by not hiring the most qualified people, no they aren't.

and there's that false dichotomy again.

Keep trying, you'll get someone to buy into it, eventually.

Don't understand a false dichotomy do you?

Keep throwing out logical fallacies that don't apply if that helps you ignore your racism.

They forgot "you're a racist if you disagree with me"

Oh, and fark you Washington Post for the register screen

the problem with arguments like "well we stopped ghaddafi with violence and hitler, so violence does solve problems" is that it doesn't take into account why we had to use violence against those people.... because THEY were using violence to get what they wanted in the first place.

and on top of that, what did we "solve" with the violence in those situations? the violence to stop hitler led to the cold war. the violence against ghaddafi has led to all sorts of human rights abuses by the victors. violence doesn't solve anything, it just changes the dynamic of who is being violent at that time. At best we can say we redirected the violence in slightly more positive directions for ourselves.

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: So you don't believe that a company is stronger with a mix of male and female employees and a mix of employees of different races, ethnic and other demographic backgrounds? Huh, you're more farked up than I thought.

If they got that way by not hiring the most qualified people, no they aren't.

and there's that false dichotomy again.

Keep trying, you'll get someone to buy into it, eventually.

Don't understand a false dichotomy do you?

Keep throwing out logical fallacies that don't apply if that helps you ignore your racism.


As to yoru question above if your wife was hurt in a bad accident and you were given two options a team selected based upon having a diverse racial/sexual background or on chosen based upon how good they were at their job, which would you take?

The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when the arguer claims that his conclusion is one of only two options, when in fact there are other possibilities. The arguer then goes on to show that the 'only other option' is clearly outrageous, and so his preferred conclusion must be embraced.

There is a third option that you consistently and willfully ignore: Selecting people having a diverse racial/sexual background AND chosen based upon how good they were at their job.

But tell us again how making the statement: "that a company is stronger with a mix of male and female employees and a mix of employees of different races, ethnic and other demographic backgrounds" is racism.

Jonah doesn't ever leave his echo chamber. How could he have an argument with a liberal? But I'll bite.

'Diversity is strength'

Exposure to new ideas is hardly ever a bad thing. And sure Aristotle didn't need to hang out with Chinese people to come up with all he did. But its also worth mentioning that his peers are the reason why western civilization thought the Sun revolved around the Earth for nearly two thousand years, so its not like they're some infallible supermen or something. Its interesting that Jonah cites great minds of the past. Interesting in that we don't live in the same world those men did. Only one of those guys mentioned lived in a time when penicillian was available. But if we look at the statment Jonah takes issue with from Lee Bollinger we see that Bollinger isn't talking about past peoples but people of today who do, in fact and contrary to what I assume are Jonah's wishes, live in a world that is very diverse. Understanding other people is key to being an informed citizen, a duty of EVERY American.


'Violence never solved anything'

Personally I always prefered to say that violence is a solution when you have failed. Sure, killing everyone who disagrees with you is a solution of sorts. But I think most liberals would rather put the time and effort, two things that make responsibility-dodgers like ultra-cons cringe, into actually solving problems.


'The living Constitution'

This part is an outright insult. I wouldn't answer this "arguement" because it is not grounded in merit but instead in propagandist dogma. Plus adding in that last sentence is mind-boggling in that he then says that cons like him want to the same thing he just spent the last few paragraphs blasting his oppenents for. He says that conservatives do agree that the Constitution is a fluid thing capable of changing with the times and the fact that there is a process to do so is proof. So what's the argument here???


'Social Darwinism'

"There was no intellectual movement in the United States called "social Darwinism" in the first place." No sh*t, a-hole. Its how we choose to label it. "..didn't use the term and wasn't even a Darwinist (he had a different theory of evolution)." Wow, now you're too dumb to realize why the term Darwinism is used with this. It isn't about the theory of evolution but the notion of "survival of the fittest." Also one man's "private charity and limited government" is another's "diminished power of the general populace who bow to the largess of their betters."

"The "reform Darwinists" - namely the early-20th-century Progressives - loathed such classical liberalism because they wanted to tinker with the economy, and humanity itself, at the most basic level." Reform Darwinists? Holy monkey cock, how does that even make sense??? Again, Jonah too dumb to realize the context of the phrase Darwinism here. And when a representative government elected by popular vote, therefore an extension of the will of the people, enacts public and economic policy that's Bad. But when private business owned and controlled by private individuals with little or no accountability to the people or country they live in and no motivation outside of personal gain does it, its Good?


'Better 10 guilty men go free ...'

"Taken literally, the phrase is absurd. Letting 10 rapists and murderers go free will almost surely result in far more harm to society than putting one poor innocent sap in jail." Tell that to the poor sap you threw in jail. Rapists often don't suffer consequences for their crimes. In large part its because its never reported or lacks enough evidence. But murderers seldom ever go free. It happens but rarely. Not acceptable but understandably inevitable. So where do we draw the line? Yeah, see we have these guys called "judges" who are (suppose to anyway) chosen from the best legal minds of their respective fields to weigh these matters on a case by case instance. Where do we draw the line? In what our judges decide and who we choose to be and to select them and who writes the laws the judges use as guidelines.

After all, didn't Hitler believe in something called "social Darwinism"?

No, he believed in eugenics and Lamarkian evolution. Darwin disproved the latter and rejected the former. Also Origin of the Species was banned literature in Nazi Germany.

Philip Francis Queeg: The fallacy of false dichotomy is committed when the arguer claims that his conclusion is one of only two options, when in fact there are other possibilities. The arguer then goes on to show that the 'only other option' is clearly outrageous, and so his preferred conclusion must be embraced.

There is a third option that you consistently and willfully ignore: Selecting people having a diverse racial/sexual background AND chosen based upon how good they were at their job.

So you know what a false dichotomy is, too bad you don't understand the situation.

You haven't described a "third option". Once you add racial/sexual background into the criteria you decrease the importance of how good they are at their job. It is really that simple.


For example if I was hiring programers and "graded" them on how well they programmed and used that to base hiring decisions I would have the best programmer (or at least the best programmers who want that job). If I also started to add "weight" into the hiring matrix because I hated fatties after time I would no longer have the best programmers. Once you add a new category into the hiring matrix all other aspects become less important. Now unless you think there is something intrinsic to race/sex that makes someone better at their job, then using race/sex as a hiring factor will get you less qualified people.


Philip Francis Queeg: But tell us again how making the statement: "that a company is stronger with a mix of male and female employees and a mix of employees of different races, ethnic and other demographic backgrounds" is racism

That statement by itself isn't racist, when you ignore the hiring practices that get to that "diverse" mix is, and when I asked you if you thought being of a certain race/sex made you better at a job and you went on about pluses and minuses that was racist.

WombatControl: What's interesting about the reaction to Liberal Fascism is how few defenders of liberalism even tried to refute its actual arguments. But again, that just proves my point: liberalism isn't about ideas anymore, it's about maintaining a tribal identity.

What ARE its actual arguments?

cameroncrazy1984: WombatControl: What's interesting about the reaction to Liberal Fascism is how few defenders of liberalism even tried to refute its actual arguments. But again, that just proves my point: liberalism isn't about ideas anymore, it's about maintaining a tribal identity.

What ARE its actual arguments?

You know you guys are arguing with the Farker that is most likely to be a paid GOP shill, right?

I thought this was all settled years ago during the health care reform debate. His lies and wingnut talking points are way too well rehearsed for him to be just another dolt like tenpoundsofcrap. Arguing with him only serves to provide him with a platform to repeat the stale, tired, propaganda that he picks up from Townhall/Limbaugh/WND .

Let it be.

Gyrfalcon: Of all the ridiculous marsupial arguments, this one makes me laugh the hardest. "You should try reading something from the other side...." with the implication that a) we don't and b) if we did, we'd be so overwhelmed with the cogent brilliance and logic we'd instantly change our minds "My god! How could I have been so blind!"

Or you could learn something. Or maybe learn better counterarguments than schoolyard ad hominems. Or maybe broaden your farming horizons a bit.

FYI, I read Goldberg every time his peurile essays show up in the LA Times. He's one of the shallowest, most inane hacks the right has going for them. All his arguments boil down to: When we do it, it's different. When "liberals" do something policy-driven, it's because socialism; when conservatives do it, it's the will of the people. When "liberals" decry violence, it's because they're cowardly appeasers; when conservatives do it, they're wisely seeking the safety of the American public. On and on and on.

So don't think for a second some of us haven't read your guru, pouch-breeder. We just don't want to read him any MORE.

You clearly haven't read anything the man's written. Let's see if what he really has written matches your close-minded, knee-jerk straw man, shall we?

The Whiggish assumption in contemporary politics that today must be better than yesterday, this year more advanced than last year, this century wiser than the one that preceded it is held most dogmatically by so-called progressives. For them history is a vehicle with no reverse gear, and the engine that powers it is nothing more or less than the State. This is the hardened, metaphysical, dogmatic cliché that makes it possible for journalists to glibly describe any expansion of the government into our lives as a "step forward" or an "advancement" and any retrenchment of government as a step "backward." A Republican proposal of market-based reform always amounts to "turning back the clock." As discussed at length in a subsequent chapter, this is the core assumption behind the idea of the "living Constitution"-an idea that assumes with Hegelian ortho- doxy that expansions of the State are the sine qua non of progress (see Chapter 14, Living Constitution).

Yeah, that sounds so much like your silly little strawman, doesn't it?

WombatControl
2012-05-01 07:23:53 PM
(favorite: pants-on-head retarded)

Gyrfalcon: Of all the ridiculous marsupial arguments, this one makes me laugh the hardest. "You should try reading something from the other side...." with the implication that a) we don't and b) if we did, we'd be so overwhelmed with the cogent brilliance and logic we'd instantly change our minds "My god! How could I have been so blind!"

Or you could learn something. Or maybe learn better counterarguments than schoolyard ad hominems. Or maybe broaden your farming horizons a bit.

FYI, I read Goldberg every time his peurile essays show up in the LA Times. He's one of the shallowest, most inane hacks the right has going for them. All his arguments boil down to: When we do it, it's different. When "liberals" do something policy-driven, it's because socialism; when conservatives do it, it's the will of the people. When "liberals" decry violence, it's because they're cowardly appeasers; when conservatives do it, they're wisely seeking the safety of the American public. On and on and on.

So don't think for a second some of us haven't read your guru, pouch-breeder. We just don't want to read him any MORE.

You clearly haven't read anything the man's written. Let's see if what he really has written matches your close-minded, knee-jerk straw man, shall we?

The Whiggish assumption in contemporary politics that today must be better than yesterday, this year more advanced than last year, this century wiser than the one that preceded it is held most dogmatically by so-called progressives. For them history is a vehicle with no reverse gear, and the engine that powers it is nothing more or less than the State. This is the hardened, metaphysical, dogmatic cliché that makes it possible for journalists to glibly describe any expansion of the government into our lives as a "step forward" or an "advancement" and any retrenchment of government as a step "backward." A Republican proposal of market-based reform always amounts to "turning back the clock." As discussed at length in a subsequent chapter, this is the core assumption behind the idea of the "living Constitution"-an idea that assumes with Hegelian ortho- doxy that expansions of the State are the sine qua non of progress (see Chapter 14, Living Constitution).


Yeah, that sounds so much like your silly little strawman, doesn't it?

Actually, yeah, it kinda does. I mean, sure there's no mention of socialism/fascism/Marxism/anti-colonialism, then again selective quoting is handy that way.

It is comically broad and vague in its condemnation of the evils of "progress", and buys into the fairy tale of some bygone "yesteryear" utopia.

Dan the Schman: WombatControl
2012-05-01 07:23:53 PM
(favorite: pants-on-head retarded)


That made my evening.

Jonah Goldberg, the guy who wrote a book about how liberals are fascists, is lecturing people about frivolous arguments?

WombatControl: Quite frankly, I think Goldberg gives liberals far too much credit - as lame as those five cliches are, at least they resemble arguments. Looking at this and every other politics thread or your typical HuffPo/Kos/TPM comment thread, etc. most liberals can't even formulate an argument that goes beyond the elementary-school playground level.

Hey look, it's the guy who, in order to support a ridiculous argument about how oppressive building codes are, went directly to inventing a lie about someone having to pay $10,000 for a building permit to build a shower. The guy who when called out on this pathetically transparent lie just doubled down on it, then muttered something about "I heard it from my friend's business partner", and when amazingly that wasn't accepted as a cite cried about how it doesn't matter that the only support they could muster for their argument was a lie, their argument was true anyway.

Yes, please lecture others about formulating an argument. Most people learn in elementary school that outright lying is not how you do it. So it would seem you can't even argue at an elementary school playground level. Shall I cite your lies for you. I can link the thread for everyone to laugh at if you want.