"Equal opportunity editorial"

Open discussion on general Baptist-related topics of interest to Baptists around the world.

Moderator: Dave Roberts

Postby mlovell » Sat Aug 14, 2004 5:35 pm

Keith -- The fact that all these men are veterans in Vietnam does give them credibility about things that went on there.

Anything that went on "there" -- even if they weren't actually present during the actions they're judging?

Keith -- ML, your analogy here should embarrass you. There is no real analogy between it and the situation.

There is a precise analogy, which you refuse to recognize. You don't even identify why, in your view, it isn't an analogy -- just another drive-by "opinion."

Keith -- If you will take my statement of credibility, it had to do with men who had served in combat in Vietnam. They have the credibility to speak about issues there. Clark's comments might be nothing but an attack of his own.

General Clark served in combat in Vietnam, where he earned a Silver Star. Given your "standard" of credibility defined above, Clark must be eminently believable.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your stuff, Keith -- given that it appears to be much like the above -- "opinion" without basis other than your personal preference.

(But do let me know if you manage to come up with twelve -- or eight, or four -- names of those who served on the swiftboats with Kerry and consider him to be a liar, a coward, and unfit for command.) 8)
mlovell
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:28 am
Location: Beautiful East Texas

Postby Keith » Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:22 pm

Quote:
Keith -- The fact that all these men are veterans in Vietnam does give them credibility about things that went on there.

ML:
Anything that went on "there" -- even if they weren't actually present during the actions they're judging?


Keith--- There are some things that can be judged without being there, but many of the men were there.

Quote:
Keith -- ML, your analogy here should embarrass you. There is no real analogy between it and the situation.

ML:
There is a precise analogy, which you refuse to recognize. You don't even identify why, in your view, it isn't an analogy -- just another drive-by "opinion."


Keith--- I am afraid that you will have to point out the precise analogy. Perhaps this is your own drive-by opinion.

Quote:
Keith -- If you will take my statement of credibility, it had to do with men who had served in combat in Vietnam. They have the credibility to speak about issues there. Clark's comments might be nothing but an attack of his own.

ML:
General Clark served in combat in Vietnam, where he earned a Silver Star. Given your "standard" of credibility defined above, Clark must be eminently believable.


Keith--- Okay, but was he in the swiftboats with Kerry? If not, then he should not be speaking on this issue, or at least according to the standards that you have given. My standard on this of people to be listened to were those who were working with Kerry and in the area. Others can speak to what he said after he came back.

ML:
I'm not going to bother with the rest of your stuff, Keith -- given that it appears to be much like the above -- "opinion" without basis other than your personal preference.


Keith--- ML, I am surprised (maybe not) that you would not even respond to your false accusations that I demonstrated were not true. Given your evident standard for what determines truth and how much one must know to obtain it, it is wise for you to cease and desist. It is hard to find newspaper articles to cover logical and epistemological issues.

ML:
(But do let me know if you manage to come up with twelve -- or eight, or four -- names of those who served on the swiftboats with Kerry and consider him to be a liar, a coward, and unfit for command.)


Keith--- But of course that is not the real issue, but I assume that you are not interested in that. However, I assume that you will be coming up with twelve men who served with George Bush who will set us straight on his records? By the way, why don't Kerry release his whole military record?
It is only in Christ that the glory of God can be seen and loved.
Keith
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:27 pm

Postby mlovell » Sun Aug 15, 2004 8:19 am

ML: I'm not going to bother with the rest of your stuff, Keith -- given that it appears to be much like the above -- "opinion" without basis other than your personal preference.

Keith--- ML, I am surprised (maybe not) that you would not even respond to your false accusations that I demonstrated were not true. Given your evident standard for what determines truth and how much one must know to obtain it, it is wise for you to cease and desist. It is hard to find newspaper articles to cover logical and epistemological issues.

"False accusations"? Anything at all "demonstrated by you" -- other than your stated opinion? :lol:

I guess I'm a sucker for being maligned -- so here's another round "demonstrating" the quality of your response.

(1) We could begin with a tactic you have a history of using -- that is, you attribute to me (post with my initials) statements I did not make, but quoted from someone else. I've pointed out to you before that the fact that I (or anyone else) quote something does not make it "my" statement. That is true whether you put my initials on something you've written or on a quote from a newspaper. That you continue to do this reveals a good bit about your own regard for fact and accuracy.

(2) Then there's your statement that "men who served in combat have the credibility to speak about issues there. Clark's comments might be nothing but an attack of his own." Gen. Clark served honorably in Vietnam, where he, too, earned a Silver Star. By your standard (service in Vietnam = credibility) -- which is not my standard for this issue -- Clark has credibility. His statement is an attack on the attempt to paint Kerry as a liar who wounded himself in order to earn Purple Hearts -- as many other veterans have attacked similar lies -- i.e., McCain is unbalanced due to his time in the Hanoi Hilton, Max Cleland isn't a patriot.

(3) You assert of similar attacks on candidates in the past that "These are not even close to the same kind of issues." They are precisely the same issue -- lies and slurs spread about the characters of other veterans by Bush supporters not directly connected to the Bush campaign so that Bush can appear to have clean hands. To the extent that he fails to disassociate himself from such lies, Bush's integrity and Christian character are questionable. He had a chance to reject this sleaze, as McCain asked him to. He didn't. You say, "Maybe he just does not want to stand against the veterans on this" -- but he is standing against veterans, including McCain, Clark, McPeak, and all those who support Kerry.

(4) As to McPeak, you ask, "Did he serve in Vietnam on the same boat with Kerry? Then he has no credibility to speak on this with you. Did he serve in Vietnam at all even close to Kerry? That is what I have been trying to get at." It's your repeated "opinion" that those who served in Vietnam have "credibility" whether or not they were "even close to Kerry." (You've failed more than once to define "close.") If you'd been as interested in knowing about McPeak as you are in asking rhetorical questions to express your "opinion," you could easily have learned that he did serve in Vietnam. He was an AF pilot -- maybe he looked down and got a bird's eye view of Kerry's swiftboat, which would meet your "standard." :roll: He later served as AF Chief of Staff.

You say, " Being an advisor might even give a reason why he would bash Bush on this." And there you put your cart before your horse. McPeak (and other veterans who disagree with Bush's approach to things military) joined the campaign in order to speak to the issue -- they don't speak to such issues because they joined the campaign. (Though your continued attempt to slur the motives and actions of veterans who served honorably is noted.) (And I note your attribution of McPeak's words to me more than once.)

(5)
Keith -- Searching Google and throwing out an article or two does not prove this issue.

ML: Probably not -- especially if all one found was "an article or two." However, if many articles were found, from many sources, directly quoting people who were actually there, most people would regard that as a substantial basis for deciding what's true. It's called "preponderance of evidence."

Keith--- Or the liberal media has a few sources that all get their information from. It is much like my buying a thousand papers (of the same paper on the same day) and saying that I have a thousand articles from the paper that supports my position.

Sigh. Talk about your blatant misrepresentation.

I spoke of "many articles," you label that "many copies of the same article" -- thus making it quite plain that you yourself read little, though you opine much. (And providing an excellent example of your continued deliberate twist of what I've actually said.) "Many articles from many sources" means just that -- different articles written by different people, quoting different people who were present for the action being reported. Which is why it's useful to read many newspapers -- their writers interview different people and report from different perspectives.

This erecting a straw man you can demolish -- rather than dealing with what was actually said -- affects your own credibility, Keith. Another instance of this is your "Applying logic to these situations is just more helpful than reading several articles from the liberal media." You attempt to paint me as reading only "the liberal media" -- in spite of the fact that I just told you I read newspapers from across the country/world -- and I can assure you that they're not all liberal. A growing number of them which are historically conservative and which continue to support other Republican candidates now question Bush's ability to serve effectively, just as Republican voters are doing.

(6) You say, "I have not misrepresented your argument, I have made a deduction. Notice that I also used the word "apparently" in my sentence. That means that your argument appears to be... You continue to focus on the twelve while denying that the swiftboatvets have any business saying anything about this."

Yeah, Keith -- I focus on the twelve who actually served with Kerry on the swiftboats because I find their testimony about Kerry's fitness to command has a credible basis -- as opposed to those who served on other swiftboats at other times and now offer their view of Kerry. I am happy for those others who were elsewhere to say whatever they choose about anything they know -- but what happened on Kerry's swiftboat with Kerry's crew doesn't fall into that category. They weren't there.

You opine that "Interestingly enough, sometimes people who are back just a bit can actually see things more clearly than those who are right there." Sure -- and some who weren't there at all can "see things more clearly" on the days their crystal balls are in operating order. :roll:

Keith--- "General vicinity" is your statement that is not warranted by the testimony of those there.

ML: So you say. But then, you haven't cited or linked any testimony of those there, have you? That's simply your unsupported "opinion."

Keith--- My statement is not unsupported, it is just that I have not given the links.

Nor have you, nor will you -- because you can't find links which support what you say.

(7) Keith to ml -- Here is what you said.

ml -- Smart beats dumb when it comes to earning my vote, Keith. And, to use your form of argument (tacky though it may be, apparently it's the sort you understand), the cemeteries are full (1000+) of people sent to die by dumb.

I said that in response to Keith's, "So no matter how immoral a person may be, your vote is simply if the person is smart enough. The prisons are full of people who are that smart." You reply, "I am not sure what other conclusion I can draw than that you are calling Bush dumb." To which I reply, "I am not sure what other conclusion I can draw than that you are calling Kerry immoral" -- and (oh so clearly, since I specifically said so) my statement was made in your mode in the (vain) hope that you'd see how weak it was. Though if a weak response is all you have, that's the one you ride, as your continued statements in that vein indicate. 8)

(8. You said, ". . . an eye witness is no longer considered all that valuable in many instances. . ." to which I responded "How about twelve eye witnesses? Any attorney I've known would consider that quite valuable, especially if their testimony was backed up by the official record of what took place. " And your response was, "(a)Even if close to 200 other witnesses said something different? (b)Do you always believe the official version?"

(a) I note you dropped the "eye witness" criterion for "witness" -- though you don't establish what such people might actually have "witnessed."
(b) Not always -- but when the official record agrees with the "version" of those who were actually there, I believe it until it's proven wrong. In this case, it hasn't been. You have "opinions" from people who were "there" -- though "there" remains unspecified, and when one reads the stuff on the swiftboat slur site, "general vicinity" turns out to be quite accurate. Though you continue to argue, "There are some things that can be judged without being there, but many of the men were there." Wherever "there" was.

(9) You say, "It is hard to find newspaper articles to cover logical and epistemological issues." :lol:

But it isn't difficult at all to find the personal testimony of people who served with Kerry on his swiftboats and found him a good commander, reliable under stress, and fit to command to this day.

"Epistemology" appears to shape your black hole "logic" so that it views the opinions of those who weren't there as more reliable than the factual testimony of those who were. But to those of us out here in the clear light of day, eye witnesses are more credible.

Sayonara, Keith. I'm headed out of town for a couple of days, so you can talk to yourself for a while. 8)
mlovell
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:28 am
Location: Beautiful East Texas

Postby Keith » Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:45 pm

Quote:
ML: I'm not going to bother with the rest of your stuff, Keith -- given that it appears to be much like the above -- "opinion" without basis other than your personal preference.

Keith--- ML, I am surprised (maybe not) that you would not even respond to your false accusations that I demonstrated were not true. Given your evident standard for what determines truth and how much one must know to obtain it, it is wise for you to cease and desist. It is hard to find newspaper articles to cover logical and epistemological issues.

ML:
"False accusations"? Anything at all "demonstrated by you" -- other than your stated opinion?

I guess I'm a sucker for being maligned -- so here's another round "demonstrating" the quality of your response.


Keith--- Yes, ML, your accusations that I intentionally misrepresented your position or argument were false and even demonstrably so.

ML:
(1) We could begin with a tactic you have a history of using -- that is, you attribute to me (post with my initials) statements I did not make, but quoted from someone else. I've pointed out to you before that the fact that I (or anyone else) quote something does not make it "my" statement. That is true whether you put my initials on something you've written or on a quote from a newspaper. That you continue to do this reveals a good bit about your own regard for fact and accuracy.

Keith--- Actually, that is not the case. When I did this in this case, it appeared to me that it was obvious that you were quoting someome else. It has nothing to do with my lack of regard for fact and accuracy, though your accusation just might reveal your own lack of regard for those.

ML:
(2) Then there's your statement that "men who served in combat have the credibility to speak about issues there. Clark's comments might be nothing but an attack of his own." Gen. Clark served honorably in Vietnam, where he, too, earned a Silver Star. By your standard (service in Vietnam = credibility) -- which is not my standard for this issue -- Clark has credibility. His statement is an attack on the attempt to paint Kerry as a liar who wounded himself in order to earn Purple Hearts -- as many other veterans have attacked similar lies -- i.e., McCain is unbalanced due to his time in the Hanoi Hilton, Max Cleland isn't a patriot.

Keith--- My statements about Clark were simply this: 1) Using your own standard you should not have quoted him (had to be there with Kerry). 2) He was not close to the situation with Kerry. My statement about crdibility with the Kerry situation is that the people who were there should be listened to. Clark, after all, is just a Democratic activist (you do remember you line on that one?).

ML:
(3) You assert of similar attacks on candidates in the past that "These are not even close to the same kind of issues." They are precisely the same issue -- lies and slurs spread about the characters of other veterans by Bush supporters not directly connected to the Bush campaign so that Bush can appear to have clean hands.

Keith--- These are not the same issues at all. You have not demonstrated that all those other veterans are liars. These are men who are coming forward with information that they have spoken about against Kerry for years.

ML:
To the extent that he fails to disassociate himself from such lies, Bush's integrity and Christian character are questionable. He had a chance to reject this sleaze, as McCain asked him to. He didn't. You say, "Maybe he just does not want to stand against the veterans on this" -- but he is standing against veterans, including McCain, Clark, McPeak, and all those who support Kerry.


Keith--- There you go again assuming as facts that those men are liars and that Bush knows those things are lies. You do not know that those men are liars, you just want them to be so you can bash Bush. Now what kind of character would that speak of?

ML:
(4) As to McPeak, you ask, "Did he serve in Vietnam on the same boat with Kerry? Then he has no credibility to speak on this with you. Did he serve in Vietnam at all even close to Kerry? That is what I have been trying to get at."


Keith--- But, ML, I was just using your own argument against you. You say that a person had to be on the same boat with Kerry to have credibility on this. McPeak was not, so that means from you view that he has no credibility. By the way, you would have no credibility either.

ML:
It's your repeated "opinion" that those who served in Vietnam have "credibility" whether or not they were "even close to Kerry." (You've failed more than once to define "close.")


Keith--- Indeed, but not as you say. I am saying that the men who were with Kerry (other boats close to his and stationed from the same area) have credibility to speak. So why call them all liars who are only intent on sliming Kerry for the only reason so that Bush would win?

ML:
If you'd been as interested in knowing about McPeak as you are in asking rhetorical questions to express your "opinion," you could easily have learned that he did serve in Vietnam. He was an AF pilot -- maybe he looked down and got a bird's eye view of Kerry's swiftboat, which would meet your "standard." He later served as AF Chief of Staff.


Keith--- ML, please read with more understanding. By "serve in Vietnam" in that context simply means those who were in Vietnam at the same time as Kerry and in that area where they could observe him. He does not meet the standard that I was talking about earlier.

ML:
You say, " Being an advisor might even give a reason why he would bash Bush on this." And there you put your cart before your horse. McPeak (and other veterans who disagree with Bush's approach to things military) joined the campaign in order to speak to the issue -- they don't speak to such issues because they joined the campaign. (Though your continued attempt to slur the motives and actions of veterans who served honorably is noted.) (And I note your attribution of McPeak's words to me more than once.)


Keith--- I am not attempting to slur the motives and actions of veterans, ML, I leave that to you. You are calling close to 200 veterans liars because of what they say about Kerry. You say that these men were Republican activists. I am simply giving you a dose of your own medicine. I see that you don't like it. By the way, it is clear who was speaking on those quotes.

(5) Quote:
Keith -- Searching Google and throwing out an article or two does not prove this issue.

ML: Probably not -- especially if all one found was "an article or two." However, if many articles were found, from many sources, directly quoting people who were actually there, most people would regard that as a substantial basis for deciding what's true. It's called "preponderance of evidence."

Keith--- Or the liberal media has a few sources that all get their information from. It is much like my buying a thousand papers (of the same paper on the same day) and saying that I have a thousand articles from the paper that supports my position.

ML:
Sigh. Talk about your blatant misrepresentation
.

Keith--- So don't do it. I did not misrepresent your position in the slightest, I am arguing against it.

ML:
I spoke of "many articles," you label that "many copies of the same article" -- thus making it quite plain that you yourself read little, though you opine much. (And providing an excellent example of your continued deliberate twist of what I've actually said.) "Many articles from many sources" means just that -- different articles written by different people, quoting different people who were present for the action being reported. Which is why it's useful to read many newspapers -- their writers interview different people and report from different perspectives.


Keith--- What I said did not misrepresent your position. I am pointing out to you that many articles can simply come from the same source or have the same opinion. I am pointing out to you (now) that many articles from the newspapers (as seen by recent scandals) are simply rewritten from the wire services. It also shows that no matter how much you quote error, it is still error and has no more impact on the truth than if it had only been quoted once. I am trying to get you to see what epistemological straw you are standing on.

ML:
This erecting a straw man you can demolish -- rather than dealing with what was actually said -- affects your own credibility, Keith.


Keith--- However, I was not doing what you said, so it appears that you are the one who has erected a straw man.

ML:
Another instance of this is your "Applying logic to these situations is just more helpful than reading several articles from the liberal media." You attempt to paint me as reading only "the liberal media" -- in spite of the fact that I just told you I read newspapers from across the country/world -- and I can assure you that they're not all liberal. A growing number of them which are historically conservative and which continue to support other Republican candidates now question Bush's ability to serve effectively, just as Republican voters are doing.


Keith--- But my point is still the same. You have been brainwashed by the liberal media and so read all things about Kerry and Bush in that light. The fact that you do read some conservativepapers is not really against the point, since the more conservative papers also use the same wire services that the liberal papers do. They still have the same sources.

ML:
(6) You say, "I have not misrepresented your argument, I have made a deduction. Notice that I also used the word "apparently" in my sentence. That means that your argument appears to be... You continue to focus on the twelve while denying that the swiftboatvets have any business saying anything about this."

ML:
Yeah, Keith -- I focus on the twelve who actually served with Kerry on the swiftboats because I find their testimony about Kerry's fitness to command has a credible basis -- as opposed to those who served on other swiftboats at other times and now offer their view of Kerry. I am happy for those others who were elsewhere to say whatever they choose about anything they know -- but what happened on Kerry's swiftboat with Kerry's crew doesn't fall into that category. They weren't there.


Keith--- Those who served on other swiftboats were in the same area as Kerry and observed him. Whether they are telling the truth or whether the Kerry twelve are telling the truth I do not know. However, what Kerry did after the war by talking about all the war crimes did impugn the men who were there and they can talk about that. They were there.

ML:
You opine that "Interestingly enough, sometimes people who are back just a bit can actually see things more clearly than those who are right there." Sure -- and some who weren't there at all can "see things more clearly" on the days their crystal balls are in operating order.


Keith--- So I take it that you are looking into your crystal ball and can tell that all those other veterans are lying?

Quote:
Keith--- "General vicinity" is your statement that is not warranted by the testimony of those there.

ML: So you say. But then, you haven't cited or linked any testimony of those there, have you? That's simply your unsupported "opinion."

Keith--- My statement is not unsupported, it is just that I have not given the links.

ML:
Nor have you, nor will you -- because you can't find links which support what you say.


Keith--- Sure I can.

(7) Keith to ml -- Here is what you said.

ml -- Smart beats dumb when it comes to earning my vote, Keith. And, to use your form of argument (tacky though it may be, apparently it's the sort you understand), the cemeteries are full (1000+) of people sent to die by dumb.

ML:
I said that in response to Keith's, "So no matter how immoral a person may be, your vote is simply if the person is smart enough. The prisons are full of people who are that smart." You reply, "I am not sure what other conclusion I can draw than that you are calling Bush dumb." To which I reply, "I am not sure what other conclusion I can draw than that you are calling Kerry immoral" -- and (oh so clearly, since I specifically said so) my statement was made in your mode in the (vain) hope that you'd see how weak it was. Though if a weak response is all you have, that's the one you ride, as your continued statements in that vein indicate.


Keith--- Haaa. If the swiftboatvets are telling the truth, then Kerry is immoral. It is clear that he has lied once, though the story keeps shifting about his taking the CIA agents into Cambodia on a certain date. My statement was not weak in that you appear to be willing to take the chance that Kerry is a very immoral man in an effort to get Bush out of office. That is not weak at all. I have been arguing from the beginning that it is not possible for us to know the truth about this situation at this point. Why jump for one or the other at this point?

ML:
(8. You said, ". . . an eye witness is no longer considered all that valuable in many instances. . ." to which I responded "How about twelve eye witnesses? Any attorney I've known would consider that quite valuable, especially if their testimony was backed up by the official record of what took place. " And your response was, "(a)Even if close to 200 other witnesses said something different? (b)Do you always believe the official version?"

(a) I note you dropped the "eye witness" criterion for "witness" -- though you don't establish what such people might actually have "witnessed."


Keith--- I have not dropped that at all, I am just trying to get you to see your version is not very strong.

ML:
(b) Not always --1) but when the official record agrees with the "version" of those who were actually there, I believe it until it's proven wrong. In this case, it hasn't been. You have "opinions" from people who were "there" -- though "there" remains unspecified, and when one reads the stuff on the swiftboat slur site, "general vicinity" turns out to be quite accurate. Though you continue to argue, "There are some things that can be judged without being there, but many of the men were there." Wherever "there" was.


Keith--- 1) Maybe the historical record (the part that is public) agrees with their version because it was based on that version? Have you ever heard of men who would say good things about someone to get rid of him? Have you ever heard of men who would say good things about a boss when they did not really believe it? I am not claiming those things, by the way, just to keep you from going off the path again, I am just saying that these are possibilites that have to be considered.

ML:
(9) You say, "It is hard to find newspaper articles to cover logical and epistemological issues."

ML:
But it isn't difficult at all to find the personal testimony of people who served with Kerry on his swiftboats and found him a good commander, reliable under stress, and fit to command to this day.


Keith--- Which, even if true, does not even begin to state the whole issue.

ML:
"Epistemology" appears to shape your black hole "logic" so that it views the opinions of those who weren't there as more reliable than the factual testimony of those who were. But to those of us out here in the clear light of day, eye witnesses are more credible.


Keith--- But again, a lot happened after Kerry got back in the US and that is not the whole case. You whole case appears to rest on twelve men and twelve men only who would have had to have been with Kerry the whole time he was in Vietnam and no one else could have observed him. Now, as to logic, you have been in the liberal darkness so long that a little light of truth has blinded you making you think that light is darkness. How dark is the darkness of those who have darkness as their light.

ML:
Sayonara, Keith. I'm headed out of town for a couple of days, so you can talk to yourself for a while.


Keith--- I hope you can find some good reading while you are gone. You know, like find a good book on logic and/or ways of evaluating truth claims.
It is only in Christ that the glory of God can be seen and loved.
Keith
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:27 pm

Previous

Return to Baptist Faith & Practice Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests