Julia and Campaign Trolling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

It's also a fallacy to assume that more money leads to better schools.

---

Well if there are long queues for the better schools then more money would mean more schools and surely SOME of those schools would be as good as the schools people are queuing for. It's not as if there'd be some sort of gold rush scenario where you'd get a bunch of profiteers of middling ability scrambling to soak up the sudden influx of money before it runs out, or some sort of educational apocalypse where the whole system would become destabilised and remain destabilised due to an insufficiently system-oriented approach. I think.

And it'd be awesome because more schools would mean a greater demand for teachers and higher salaries for teachers. And because of S&D there would be more and better teachers. The teachers' union would become more powerful than ever!

I'm not sure how this would work with their whole system of property taxes and lotteries etc, or how they'd be able to work out an appropriate voucher for a student, or how this charter school utopia would compensate for the often-touted advantages offered by efficiencies of scale. I dunno, maybe more charter schools would lead to less overhead, and maybe there wouldn't be any threshold effects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

This is actually a very interesting comment. If you ask the majority of American parents with children in public schools how they feel about their kid's school, they say it is doing a good job. Ask the same people their opinion of the overall American public school system and they say it is failing. How can that be? Simple - Staggering failures in some school systems around the country are being intentionally portrayed as the failure of the entire system and all too many people believe the propaganda.

Interestingly, recent studies in Michigan comparing student performance in charter schools vs publics schools show no improvement in the charters over the local public schools. Ouch. If your intent is to dismantle the public school system and replace it with a for profit private system, then this shouldn't matter at all. But if you are under the false impression that the US public school system is a gigantic failure and charter schools will fix it, well, you might want to take a closer look at things like facts and the actual intentions of conservative policy makers.

---

I've read articles making similar claims about the US public school system's performance not being nearly as bad overall as it's being portrayed in eg. the media. I dunno, maybe it's true, or maybe the whole world sucks. I kinda just imagined that the problems were not due to where the funding came from or where it went but rather grounded in social things like poor home and school environments, gangs of disenchanted and unmotivated youths, parents who lack the resources (financial, educational, intellectual, emotional, personal) to help kids and teachers with the challenges of education. Stuff like that.

Still it's always a little curious to see these results where there are no major differences in performance between charter schools and public schools. I dunno, I woulda expected to see at least a positive effect in favour of charter schools purely due to selection. Maybe the existence of charter schools lead to better performance compared to the time before charter schools (eg. by offloading the public schools) even though charter schools themselves are no better at educating kids than are their contemporary public schools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

This is actually a very interesting comment. If you ask the majority of American parents with children in public schools how they feel about their kid's school, they say it is doing a good job. Ask the same people their opinion of the overall American public school system and they say it is failing. How can that be? Simple - Staggering failures in some school systems around the country are being intentionally portrayed as the failure of the entire system and all too many people believe the propaganda.

Interestingly, recent studies in Michigan comparing student performance in charter schools vs publics schools show no improvement in the charters over the local public schools. Ouch. If your intent is to dismantle the public school system and replace it with a for profit private system, then this shouldn't matter at all. But if you are under the false impression that the US public school system is a gigantic failure and charter schools will fix it, well, you might want to take a closer look at things like facts and the actual intentions of conservative policy makers.

---

Or parents are just deluded (the same way everyone likes their congressman but hates Congress). Every single test comparing American students with students from other countries shows Americans to be worse than students of virtually every comparable country (we barely do better than Mexico and some eastern European states).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I kinda just imagined that the problems were not due to where the funding came from or where it went but rather grounded in social things like poor home and school environments, gangs of disenchanted and unmotivated youths, parents who lack the resources (financial, educational, intellectual, emotional, personal) to help kids and teachers with the challenges of education. Stuff like that.

---

This. This isn't something you're imagining. This is the reason, and worst of all its nearly completely ignored by those that attack the public school system.

This is the 4th or 5th time its been mentioned in this thread, and no one has issued a rebuttal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Indeed, there are a few things that are unique to Obama. But even some of the older programs are sort of presented out of context. Programs like Head Start is meant for low-income parents. It's not a broad-based entitlement, and it's not supposed to be. The subtext behind a lot of the cartoon panels is that these programs are things Obama is making available for everyone. At best, that's simply false. At worst, that's simply Obama's promise.

---

I don't think there was any implication that Obama would be further expanding these programs. So, he wanted to claim that all of the programs he has laid ownership to affected the life of a hypothetical citizen? That's just normal campaign hyperbole, not some projection of a statist future. Were Americans supposed to believe that Joe the Plumber's situation was in any way representative of your average John Q. Public? No, it was just a convenient Republican campaign tool. Ditto with the fictional Julia.

Every country can produce similar excuses. The reality is that most manage to find ways to deal with it; we don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Or parents are just deluded

---

Will these same deluded parents choose to have their kids change schools?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Will these same deluded parents choose to have their kids change schools?

---

I think Chaloobi overstates his point. Or maybe his experience is from suburban schools in rich neighborhoods, where public schools tend to do reasonably well. For instance, I help teach at the top public university in Illinois, and yet I get far more students from the suburbs of Chicago than from Chicago itself. There are also very few students from rural and semi-rural areas, though those areas surround the university and make up a decent portion of the state's population.

You're comparing the wrong numbers. suburb chicago enrollment vs chicago enrollment. shouldn't it be suburb chicago enrollment vs nonenrollment? top public university in illinois doesn't say much if it doesn't rank well against national schools (where chicago enrollment would flee to).


Its been a few years, but college enrollment had very little to do with my parents. It was pushed heavily by the schools, nonstop recruiters, and people trying to push loans. There is only a small group of students, those under 18 at time of graduation/enrollment, that would need parental signatures in order to enroll, move, or apply for loans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Every country can produce similar excuses. The reality is that most manage to find ways to deal with it; we don't.

---

citation. Love to see how the inmate populations and social expectations and beliefs roll into such figures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

You're comparing the wrong numbers. suburb chicago enrollment vs chicago enrollment. shouldn't it be suburb chicago enrollment vs nonenrollment? top public university in illinois doesn't say much if it doesn't rank well against national schools (where chicago enrollment would flee to).

---

That makes no sense. The comparison is Chicago versus the suburbs because their population numbers are pretty similar. Illinois has a few better private colleges (U of Chicago and Northwestern), but they cost far more money. It's more likely that people who went to private schools would end up there (as well as people from other states, since there is no cost differential for in-state and out-of-state students at private colleges).

And if you're so deluded that most public schools in the US are comparable to their European and Canadian counterparts, why don't you have a look at the quality and quantity of information that's taught in those other countries. There's a reason why Americans end up spending their first two years of college learning what's taught in high school in comparable countries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

That makes no sense. The comparison is Chicago versus the suburbs because their population numbers are pretty similar.

---

similiar population numbers or not (hell, flat population numbers have very little to do with this), you're ignoring the why and how for your original claim. In doing that, you're able to ignore the claim that Chaloobi, Aimless, and myself have made.

Quote:

---

And if you're so deluded that most public schools in the US are comparable to their European and Canadian counterparts, why don't you have a look at the quality and quantity of information that's taught in those other countries. There's a reason why Americans end up spending their first two years of college learning what's taught in high school in comparable countries.

---

there is a deeper issue before you attack the quality and quantity of information that public schools are able to present. Thats what we've been attempting to discuss.

Once again, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The comparison is between two groups of populations, not between people who do and do not go to college.

And there are no deeper issues in other countries, right? They're all bastions of harmony, respect for the pursuit of knowledge, and parental caring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Once again, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The comparison is between two groups of populations, not between people who do and do not go to college.

---

You're comparison is invalid. Thats what you don't understand. Saying that one expectingly lower class of students attends a higher caliber of schooling than their more well to do peers means nothing. You're leaving out the more important reason of why that "higher caliber" school is able to enroll so many lowly students. It shows the true level of where that school falls in the pecking order, "top public university" or not. The lower class isn't edging out the upper class, the upper class simply isn't there to compete with.

EDIT:
Just noticed you edited the wording of your original response to Aimless. It now seems to agree with the previous claims that it originally appeared to argue against. That communities where you expect to see more time to focus on educational involvement (outside of school) see increased college attendence. Not sure how that answers Aimless' question now.:think: Unless I misinterrupted his remark to include the effort and level of involvement required to switch schools.

Quote:

---

And there are no deeper issues in other countries, right? They're all bastions of harmony, respect for the pursuit of knowledge, and parental caring.

---

Yes, all countries have exactly the same issues, in exactly the same amounts, for exactly the same reasons :rolleyes:
Oh wait, thats not right...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

It's amazing when people deny the compounding effects of debt interest.

---

What's amazing is how we went from surplus to deficit, and kept spending while cutting taxes.

Quote:

---

The problem is government promising too much. Beyond the deleterious effect of government promising so many things to so many people, we all know government's ability to deliver is inverse to the scale of the promises being made.

---

The problem is that Americans have grown allergic to all taxes, without acknowledging the necessity and benefit of some taxes. Legislators are political wimps that promise-and-spend instead of promise-and-tax. Then we end up in unfunded Wars while cutting revenue, borrowing or moving money around, to appease the Norquist promise-keepers.

It's not surprising that tax-payers have such a disconnected sense of taxation and public services, when DC political culture has the same disconnect. "Government" has a purpose and can do good things for the public and nation, but our political culture is allergic to "governance". Promising lower taxes always sounds good during campaigns, until people start to see that roads and bridges crumble, airports turn into shitholes, outdated energy grids brown-out....plus fewer police/fire fighters, and public schools cutting teachers or closing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

...Interestingly, recent studies in Michigan comparing student performance in charter schools vs publics schools show no improvement in the charters over the local public schools. Ouch.

---

Same results in my area of PA, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Or parents are just deluded (the same way everyone likes their congressman but hates Congress). Every single test comparing American students with students from other countries shows Americans to be worse than students of virtually every comparable country (we barely do better than Mexico and some eastern European states).

---

I think that's an old throw-back to "America is Exceptional" attitudes, knowing we used to be #1 in so many things. Parents and still comparing us to ourselves, not us to other countries. It's illuminating when our foreign-exchange students, or students whose folks are here on work visas....are placed in higher grades than their home country. Their math and language skills are far ahead (by age), and they have a better foundation in world history than our students. And we have a "highly rated" school district. :(

http://thelifeofjulia.com/

:haha:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Yes, all countries have exactly the same issues, in exactly the same amounts, for exactly the same reasons :rolleyes:
Oh wait, thats not right...

---

Class and social problems still don't excuse the education system for being complete shit though. Many of the social problems could be fixed with better teachers who actually teach and gave real support rather than handing out worksheets or having their kids memorize vocabulary for a test. I'm lucky to attend one of the top schools in the state, but I realize I haven't truly learned anything until I took my Advanced Placement classes (and I had a few exceptional teachers as well in other classes that actually taught). School should be about learning the material (rather than memorizing it) and invoking critical thinking skills. This is what will allow kids to aspire to help their community and pursue more education and a better standard of living. Being forced to go to a hell hole every day isn't going to do anything for them. Even in upper middle class suburban areas, kids suffer from boredom and lack of interest in education if they take lower classes simply because teachers are a joke. In many countries, teachers are as highly regarded as university professors but here in the U.S., they're not any more important than a generic office employee which allows for the hiring of really lazy teachers who rarely even know what they're even teaching.

Oh I fully support removing NCLB which has pushed us into this memorization mindset, and that teachers need more respect. But I'm completely against the idea that teachers need to become the main parent or point of community support for students. Teachers should be able to rely on the community to support them, not the other way around. Huge difference between a teacher who cares, and who is the only one that cares; thats one of the issues that leads to burn out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Oh I fully support removing NCLB which has pushed us into this memorization mindset, and that teachers need more respect. But I'm completely against the idea that teachers need to become the main parent or point of community support for students. Teachers should be able to rely on the community to support them, not the other way around. Huge difference between a teacher who cares, and who is the only one that cares; thats one of the issues that leads to burn out.

---

In inner city schools or gang-affiliated areas though, outside support can be really difficult to come by. School shouldn't just be able learning about academics, it should also teach life skills and provide heavy guidance which it completely fails to do. I've had some teachers that have been completely life changing because they really know what they're talking about. It's role models like that, that should appeal to children. Without this, stealing and violence may be the next best thing; or in the suburban areas, McDonalds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Oh I fully support removing NCLB which has pushed us into this memorization mindset, and that teachers need more respect. But I'm completely against the idea that teachers need to become the main parent or point of community support for students. Teachers should be able to rely on the community to support them, not the other way around. Huge difference between a teacher who cares, and who is the only one that cares; thats one of the issues that leads to burn out.

---

Can you think of many other professions where the best performers often leave, while the worst performers continue working until retirement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Can you think of many other professions where the best performers often leave, while the worst performers continue working until retirement?

---

Politics?

Nah, just kidding. Everyone knows there's no such thing as a good politician.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knux897

In inner city schools or gang-affiliated areas though, outside support can be really difficult to come by. School shouldn't just be able learning about academics, it should also teach life skills and provide heavy guidance which it completely fails to do.

---

Largely because its so overburderned to perform a task its not intended to perform. Blaming schools for not picking up the slack because they are placed in environments that don't encourage the behavior you want... something is off with that idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Can you think of many other professions where the best performers often leave, while the worst performers continue working until retirement?

---

Is this a segue into the previous remarks about respect? or pay? or you going to go off on another off topic rant about unions?

No, just wanted to point out how you support the very characteristics of a system that lead it to being so dysfunctional.

I've spoken against the causes of teacher burn out several times. No idea what you're reading into, but its way off the mark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

http://thelifeofjulia.com/

:haha:

---

Is it funny because its created by a web designer who apparently can't link to their own website properly (change the https to http)? Or embed fonts? :bulb:

Besides that, I don't think you understand that this comic isn't representing your viewpoint, as its written by two self-proclaimed libertarians, so its more of a critique of what they view is wrong with The Government, and people who support it, not just Barack Obama.

Apparently...go to Dread's original link in the OP. Right click the page and choose your browser's version of "View Source"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

Besides that, I don't think you understand that this comic isn't representing your viewpoint, as its written by two self-proclaimed libertarians, so its more of a critique of what they view is wrong with The Government, and people who support it, not just Barack Obama.

---

Because in the Things I Agree With™ Venn Diagram, there is no overlapping between libertarian viewpoints and those of anyone else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Because in the Things I Agree With™ Venn Diagram, there is no overlapping between libertarian viewpoints and those of anyone else?

---

I'm addressing Dreadnaught, not anyone else. I'm also addressing the entirety of his viewpoint (hence the lack of pluralization of it), not the individual parts of it (otherwise I would have said 'viewpoints'). If this had been Dread posting a comic that details two guys ripping on all ice creams, and Dreadnaught viewed it as supporting his belief that strawberry ice cream was terrible, and chocolate ice cream was better, and I came along and pointed out to him that they are not in fact supporting chocolate ice cream, and bashing just strawberry ice cream, but decrying all flavors of ice cream, including his own favorite possibly, would you have been so quick to make a comment about me pointing this out? No? Okay then...

Edit: Oh I've got an even better one! So because both the KKK and Dreadnaught both don't want Obama re-elected in 2012, the KKK's reasons for not wanting Obama re-elected would be representative of Dreadnaught's viewpoint? Would you say it was representative of his viewpoint even if there was some overlap?

Or even more bluntly: Dreadnaught is not a libertarian, therefore a libertarian's political viewpoint is not going to be representative of Dreadnaught's political viewpoint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

I'm addressing Dreadnaught, not anyone else. I'm also addressing the entirety of his viewpoint (hence the lack of pluralization of it), not the individual parts of it (otherwise I would have said 'viewpoints'). If this had been Dread posting a comic that details two guys ripping on all ice creams, and Dreadnaught viewed it as supporting his belief that strawberry ice cream was terrible, and chocolate ice cream was better, and I came along and pointed out to him that they are not in fact supporting chocolate ice cream, and bashing just strawberry ice cream, but decrying all flavors of ice cream, including his own favorite possibly, would you have been so quick to make a comment about me pointing this out? No? Okay then...

---

Why don't you let Dread speak as to what his opinion is, instead of trying to tell him what it should be. That's the most basic of common courtesies.

Quote:

---

Or even more bluntly: Dreadnaught is not a libertarian, therefore a libertarian's political viewpoint is not going to be representative of Dreadnaught's political viewpoint.

---

Put most bluntly, that's a ridiculously infantile comparison. To say that only libertarians can agree with what was represented in the comic, (the majority of which are hardly positions unique to libertarianism) is to paint such a starkly black and white picture that it would make even Lewk blush.

To use your own example, it's saying that the only reason the KKK, or members of the KKK could oppose Obama is because he is black. True, he might be black, but that is likely not the only reason they object to him being in office. It could be a mixture of his race, and his foreign and fiscal policy, etc... If the KKK puts out a pamphlet bashing Obama on his fiscal policy, but ignoring his race, you are in essence saying anyone who does agree with their position on fiscal discipline must also have a white hood in their closet and gasoline soaked cross in their garage.

It honestly seems more like you are using this as an easy way of dismissing something you don't agree with, while making a vain attempt to troll Dreadnaught, not that you have any truly valid point to make. It's not even a cheap shot, it's a non sequitur.

A - The letter to the left of this sentence is representative of a Blue Capital A. True or False?

a - The letter to the left of this sentence is representative of a Blue Capital A. True or False?

B - The letter to the left of this sentence is representative of a Blue Capital A. True or False?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

A - The letter to the left of this sentence is representative of a Blue Capital A. True or False?

a - The letter to the left of this sentence is representative of a Blue Capital A. True or False?

B - The letter to the left of this sentence is representative of a Blue Capital A. True or False?

---

I'm sure there's a brilliant point in here punctuated by damning bon mot, but I'm not really feeling a compelling need to play ball. You might try by actually making a relevant point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I'm sure there's a brilliant point in here punctuated by damning bon mot, but I'm not really feeling a compelling need to play ball. You might try by actually making a relevant point.

---

I'm trying to gauge your logic in the usage of "representative" because obviously its not the same as my own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

I'm trying to gauge your logic in the usage of "representative" because obviously its not the same as my own.

---

Why do the views have to be completely representative in their entirety in order to be more perfectly representative in part? Do the views you hold correlate exactly with any single group, organization, or political party? Should you never be able to post an article you find interesting or might agree with, simply because it was put out by the Reason Fondation, a self-proclaimed libertarian organization that in no way is representative of your views in their entirety? Is this really a position that you find compelling?

For that matter, I'm not sure how you've drawn any conclusion at all from a link and a smiley face.

Speaking of campaign trolling: http://news.yahoo.com/romney-donor-f...--finance.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Speaking of campaign trolling: http://news.yahoo.com/romney-donor-f...--finance.html

---

That WSJ article has over a thousand comments, including this link about Vandersloot: http://www.salon.com/2012/02/17/bill...ics/singleton/

Sounds to me like this Idaho dude has been campaign trolling for several years, long before "team Obama". Check out the anti-homosexual billboard he sponsored, and the law suits he's been using as threats to silence journalists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Why do the views have to be completely representative in their entirety in order to be more perfectly representative in part?

---

They don't, but they do if I want to relate something to a viewpoint in its entirety.

Quote:

---

Do the views you hold correlate exactly with any single group, organization, or political party? Should you never be able to post an article you find interesting or might agree with, simply because it was put out by the Reason Fondation, a self-proclaimed libertarian organization that in no way is representative of your views in their entirety? Is this really a position that you find compelling?

---

If I were to post an article by the Reason Foundation, I would make the effort to highlight the specifics of it that I liked so that no one would confuse my liking part of the article with liking all of the article. This could even include mentioning the fact that I am not in support of whatever group I'm quoting. Which is what I was trying to point out to Dread. He might like part of the comic, but I find it doubtful that he supports all of it.

Quote:

---

For that matter, I'm not sure how you've drawn any conclusion at all from a link and a smiley face.

---

A conclusion that can be drawn is that Dread likes the comic, however from previous posts of Dread's I find it doubtful that he supports all of the motives of the people who made it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

They don't, but they do if I want to relate something to a viewpoint in its entirety.

---

Which is valuable for the purposes of this conversation... how again?

Quote:

---

If I were to post an article by the Reason Foundation, I would make the effort to highlight the specifics of it that I liked so that no one would confuse my liking part of the article with liking all of the article. This could even include mentioning the fact that I am not in support of whatever group I'm quoting. Which is what I was trying to point out to Dread. He might like part of the comic, but I find it doubtful that he supports all of it.

---

So, the next time someone posts an article by Krugman, or a video clip from John Stuart, can we expect you to demand that they fully appreciate, understand, and agree with their positions - on everything - in their entirety? In fact, if they don't concede those facts, is it then a tacit admission on their part that whatever Krugman or Stuart has, or will write, will heretofore be identical to their positions?

That seems reasonable.

Quote:

---

A conclusion that can be drawn is that Dread likes the comic, however from previous posts of Dread's I find it doubtful that he supports all of the motives of the people who made it.

---

My God! Someone may or may not agree entirely with the motives or positions of someone else? Here? On the internet? Say it's not so!

And to think, there was once a time when people who authored political satire would walk in lockstep with the audience that consumed them, and the sanctity of their political speech could only be appreciated by those that grasped their ideology in its entirety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

Which is valuable for the purposes of this conversation... how again?

---

I don't know what conversation you are referring to since what I said was a statement to Dreadnaught alone, and you decided to jump down my throat because it had the word libertarian in it. :bored:

Quote:

---

So, the next time someone posts an article by Krugman, or a video clip from John Stuart, can we expect you to demand that they fully appreciate, understand, and agree with their positions - on everything - in their entirety? In fact, if they don't concede those facts, is it then a tacit admission on their part that whatever Krugman or Stuart has, or will write, will heretofore be identical to their positions?

That seems reasonable.

---

Would you like to state that posting/exclaiming "I agree." or some equivalent in response to statements someone else made is poor communication when you do not in fact agree with all of the statements?

Quote:

---

My God! Someone may or may not agree entirely with the motives or positions of someone else? Here? On the internet? Say it's not so!

And to think, there was once a time when people who authored political satire would walk in lockstep with the audience that consumed them, and the sanctity of their political speech could only be appreciated by those that grasped their ideology in its entirety.

---

Why do you keep bringing other people into this? I'm addressing Dreadnaught. The statement was about Dreadnaught. Last I've checked Dreadnaught is not a political satirist. You've even stated yourself that "I'm not sure how you've drawn any conclusion at all from a link and a smiley face." Oh, excuse me, I'm so sorry I mentioned libertarians. Crime of crimes! I never even said anything bad about them, just that Dread doesn't agree with them (in their entirety). Is this a factually wrong statement? Please, go back and quote me and list what is incorrect with what I said, that started all of this. Go ahead. Because this becoming annoying and ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Illusions

I don't know what conversation you are referring to since what I said was a statement to Dreadnaught alone, and you decided to jump down my throat because it had the word libertarian in it. :bored:

---

I'm referring to the conversation we were having about something you said. I'm sure you realize that on a public forum, statements you make can be seen and commented on by others, right?

Quote:

---

Would you like to state that posting/exclaiming "I agree." or some equivalent in response to statements someone else made is poor communication when you do not in fact agree with all of the statements?

---

I think that is fairly typical behavior, both here and in the real world, and yet you don't seem bat an eye then. Whether or not it's because this had to do with libertarianism, or Dreadnaught's personal views, I'm not sure.

Quote:

---

Why do you keep bringing other people into this? I'm addressing Dreadnaught. The statement was about Dreadnaught. Last I've checked Dreadnaught is not a political satirist. You've even stated yourself that "I'm not sure how you've drawn any conclusion at all from a link and a smiley face." Oh, excuse me, I'm so sorry I mentioned libertarians. Crime of crimes! I never even said anything bad about them, just that Dread doesn't agree with them (in their entirety). Is this a factually wrong statement? Please, go back and quote me and list what is incorrect with what I said, that started all of this. Go ahead. Because this becoming annoying and ridiculous.

---

The political perspective doesn't matter, (though I suspect you'd be singing a different tune if Lewkowski had posted an article by someone with a liberal bias) Illusions, and the satirist was the creator of the website. You seem to be under the impression that agreeing with a political view in part means you must agree with a completely separate plank, and indeed the entirety of a given platform. This is both sloppy and myopic thinking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I'm referring to the conversation we were having about something you said. I'm sure you realize that on a public forum, statements you make can be seen and commented on by others, right?

---

The same thing goes with comments made in real life in public, but apparently in real life people have a better ability to discern whether or not a comment is directed at them, and whether or not they should involve themselves. :bored:

Quote:

---

I think that is fairly typical behavior, both here and in the real world, and yet you don't seem bat an eye then. Whether or not it's because this had to do with libertarianism, or Dreadnaught's personal views, I'm not sure.

---

You know me in real life? We should get together some time then...

Quote:

---

You seem to be under the impression that agreeing with a political view in part means you must agree with a completely separate plank, and indeed the entirety of a given platform. This is both sloppy and myopic thinking.

---

I've detailed this numerous times already and its aggravating me quite a bit to have to continue pointing this out, but I'll make it even blunter than I have previously: Dreadnaught's laughing smiley face could be construed as support for the linked comic's viewpoint, and not just amusement at part of it, in addition to my being uncertain if Dreadnaught knows what the comic's viewpoint is. Done. Thats it.

I feel your pain, Illusions. :( Innuendo and sarcasm don't translate well here. Neither do comments made to one specific person, using the quote function, when it turns into a free-for-all with others piling in, taking things out of context.

It's much easier to take an offensive position, intended to drive others toward defensive positions. *Or into silence, and eventually absence.* That doesn't make for very civil discourse, or truly understanding others' viewpoints. After all these years, I still don't understand why a contentious style of posting is so commonplace. Especially since our "numbers" have dwindled. :confused: