Red Dawn Really Brings Out the Idiots

Well, the Red Dawn remake has finally been released ((I’m pretty sure there’s a law on the books in the US somewhere that every piece of IP from before 2005 has to be rebooted or remade, so it was inevitable)), and it’s fucking terrible. Seriously, at just 11% on Rotten Tomatos, it apparently ranks among the worst films in recent memory. I say “apparently” because I haven’t actually seen it; don’t worry though, I’m still capable of discussing it more intelligently than any of the people we’re about to examine.

First up is “Red Dawn shows nostalgia for Cold War mindset,” which features the classic Global Times trademark (garbled regurgitation and a total lack of self-awareness) mixed with a twinge of bipolar insanity. Let’s watch:

The 1984 cult classic Red Dawn did not stint in its demonization of Soviets, which was prevalent during the Cold War era.

But two decades later, Hollywood is still stuck in the clichéd storytelling of beautifying itself and oversimplifying the world.

Hollywood filmmakers never seem to tire of telling stories of the US saving the world from the brink of collapse, while the opponents are wicked villains, be they Chinese or North Koreas.

In Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, good and evil are also in sharp contrast: A US agent desperately endeavors to save the world, while a Russian lunatic uses every means to instigate a nuclear purging of the Earth.

The Avengers probably reaches the peak in this regard: A long list of US heroes is assembled in the movie to kill evil and save Earth.

Apparently, Hollywood blockbusters have a profound impact on the US audience, given their huge box office takings. The thread bare plots in a world divided between devils and angels reinforce how audiences look at the world.

It’s hard to know where to even start here, but I guess crushing irony is as good a place as any. Hollywood is certainly guilty of pushing out gluts of oversimplified action films with black-and-white good vs. evil plots, but if any other nation’s cinema is more guilty of this, it’s probably China. There are exceptions ((I recently saw City of Life and Death, which is about as nuanced a picture of Japanese soldiers as I’ve seen in Chinese cinema. It’s a masterful film, but it’s horrific and depressing as all hell. Fitting for the subject matter, of course, but it’s hard to recommend you watch it if you already know what happened in Nanjing. It just makes you feel sick.)), of course, but the vast majority of films and television programs China produces about its own history are so black-and-white (figuratively) that its a wonder they even bother to film in color at all. Zing!

OK, that wasn’t as clever as I had been hoping it was. But any Chinese language student who has grudgingly worked their way through almost any TV series about the Sino-Japanese war (for example) would laugh out loud at the idea that China’s entertainment is any more nuanced than Hollywood’s. In this instance, the figurative pot and kettle are both jet black.

It’s also odd that the Global Times picked these three films in particular to indicate how American filmgoers apparently eat up this dumbed-down shlock. But are Americans really eating these films up? “Huge box office takings”? Red Dawn is getting absolutely shit on in the box offices, despite this past weekend being its opening weekend. It’s even losing out to a boring costume drama about Lincoln that has, like, no explosions. It’s also losing to Life of Pi, the Twilight movie, Skyfall, Wreck-it Ralph (which has been out for a month already), and some movie called Rise of the Guardians that I’ve never even heard of. So far, Red Dawn is the 2,576th best-selling movie in America. (Unless you adjust the box office numbers for inflation, in which case it’s way lower).

The Mission Impossible film, admittedly, did much better in the US, but it did nearly as well in China too, grossing more than $100 million. Not too shabby for a foreign-language film! And while Avengers is one of the top-grossing films ever, it’s a superhero film; the whole point is that they’re good vs. evil. Oh, and they made over $100 million in China on that one, too. So if Hollywood stupidity is making US audiences stupid, apparently it’s doing the same thing to China.

Actually, many of the US’s top grossing films, while still simplistic, aren’t really good vs. evil. Avatar, which holds the number one spot, certainly isn’t the kind of good vs. evil nationalism the Global Times is complaining about since the film was probably inspired by American colonists’ violent battles with Native Americans. And Titanic isn’t much of a good vs. evil story either, unless you consider the iceberg evil.

Many film critics believe that the Cold War has made a comeback to Hollywood movies in recent years. In real politics, it is not uncommon for Americans to demonstrate their tendency to see the world from a rigid ideological perspective.

When the Global Times is criticizing other people for “seeing the world from a rigid ideological perspective,” it’s difficult to keep your head from exploding with the irony. But strap your dome down with duct tape because we’re about to go deeper. Not to be outdone by some guy whose name is Chen Chenchen (they’re running out of ways to disguise the fact that the editorial staff is writing the op-eds over there too, eh?), in steps the Global Times editorial team, featuring a Hu Xijin who is fresh off his disappointing number 9 finish on the rankings of 2012’s most horrible people and looking to stake a higher spot on the list for next year. He really knocks it out of the park in “Elton John’s outburst met with indifference”, which is about the Elton John concert and is pretty damn crazy. At the end, though, for some reason the subject shifts to Red Dawn. And miraculously, just a day later, Red Dawn has now become a shining example of Sino-US friendship and indicative of a positive worldwide trend in Sino-global relations!

To please Chinese audiences, Hollywood movie Red Dawn changed some parts which could have harmed China’s image. This incident caused a sensation in the West while the news caused by Elton John was only fleeting, as the former can better represent the general trend of the relationship between China and other countries.

It’s hard to know what I should think about Red Dawn, then — come on, Global Times, is it a sickening example of American nationalism or a shining example of American willingness to cooperate when millions of box-office dollars are at stake? Also, why is the film even getting so much attention in the Chinese press at all given that it’s no longer about China and that it is, as I mentioned before, a terrible, terrible film.

But let’s stop giving the Global Times Opinion pages grief and turn our attention to the other side of the globe. By and large, Americans have been doing their country proud by going out and not seeing Red Dawn in droves. But unfortunately, some people did see Red Dawn, and some of those people are racist idiots.

It’s hard to even know what to say about the people quoted in that story. No, not because it’s a complex feeling that’s difficult to verbalize; it’s just that it’s difficult to type while smashing one’s head repeatedly and savagely against a wall. Is it un-American of me to suggest that these people ought to be loaded into a cannon and fired directly into the sun?

Probably. But if NASA were to begin work on a Sun Cannon, I certainly wouldn’t be opposed, and Twitter racists would make excellent test candidates. Perhaps we could even bounce a few off the moon first to see if a ricochet shot would be — what’s the scientific term again? — awesome. I’m no astrophysicist, but I hypothesize that it would.

Advertisements

67 thoughts on “Red Dawn Really Brings Out the Idiots”

  1. “Yes, you’ve asserted that I haven’t made my case, but have failed to show how”
    —LOL.
    “The total voter turnout is a huge sample. The problem is that you can’t extrapolate those who voted onto those who didn’t vote. In other words, voters do NOT represent a RANDOM SAMPLE of American adults at large.” – me, Dec 11, 1336hrs.
    ” taking the rough number of the Romney vote as 50% of total voter turnout, how did you surmise that “it is reasonable to conclude that 50% of Americans view minorities as peripheral (and almost certainly non-essential) to the life of America”? Now, we’ve already debunked the suggestion that there is any representation of “50% of American” here; but where did you even come up with the concept of “it is reasonable to conclude that [50% of American voters] view minorities as peripheral…”?” – me, same post.
    ” Voters either CHOSE to vote, or they CHOSE not to. There is nothing random about it.” – me, Dec 11 at 1342hrs.

    Not to mention that what you are asking for is nonsense logically. You are asking me to show how you FAILED to make your case, which means you’re asking me to prove a negative. You should’ve learned that’s not a valid defense in kindergarten of logic school. You made the affirmative assertion, so the onus is on you to substantiate it. So far, I’ve riddled your arguments like Swiss cheese. I assert that you haven’t made your case, because you haven’t. I’m not sure how I can spell it out for you any clearer than that.

    ” we cannot make reasonable deductions about a society based on an immense sample size. Thus, no survey, or poll, can be trusted to tell us anything about anyone, because they don’t include 100% of the population”
    —that’s complete and utter, not to mention disingenuous, nonsense. The problem isn’t with the fact that the 120+million people who voted is not an adequate “sample size”. THe problem, for the n-th time, is that the voters chose to vote, and the non-voters chose not to, thereby rendering the voting group as NOT a RANDOM sample of the American population overall.
    Let me break it down for you in infantile terms. If a pollster calls you and 1000 others randomly out of a phone book to solicit your opinion, that is a random sampling. But if a pollster advertises for a survey, and you and 1000 other call in to respond, that’s NOT a random sampling, because of RESPONDER bias and SELECTION bias. The latter sample is of people who have selected themselves out as being keen to respond, and hence they are not a RANDOM sample of the population in general. The “voter block” represents the same responder/selection bias. If you still can’t grasp such a basic concept, then clearly I can’t help you. I can teach, but only as well as the substrate I’m given to work with.

    “Surveys and polls include people who declined – as in “offered no opinion” – yet are still put forward as representative of society in general.”
    —wrong again. If you want to project that onto the election, then you have (approx) 26% GOP, 28% Dem, and 46% undecided (ie the folks who DIDN’T VOTE). No sane individual who knew the first thing about surveys would look at that result and say that the results show that 48% of all Americans support the GOP. At best, they would say that 48% of decideds (ie those who voted) support the GOP. Yet you’re trying to say based on this that 50 (or 48)% of all Americans support the GOP. As I’ve repeatedly shown you, that is patently ridiculous. Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

    ” I haven’t grossly generalized, or made groundless assumptions. Your only response is that you don’t like what I am saying – that isn’t a refutation.”
    —wrong, yet again. Whether I “like” it or not is immaterial. I’ve merely been pointing out to you repeatedly that your opinion remains unsubstantiated. Like I said, you’re welcome to it, but it’d be worth a lot more if you could back it up, as opposed to it being simply the random (ahem) musings of some random dude.

    “nowhere have I said that race was the primary reason Romney voters voted the way they did. Please point out where I said that.”
    —and nowhere have you tried to justify, let alone substantiate, that a vote for Romney was a vote for marginalizing minorities, despite my repeated invitations for you to do so. You said Romney got 50% of the vote, and you said this means that “50% of Americans view minorities with a less than inclusive attitude”. Now, I’ve repeatedly dispensed with the 50% nonsense, but qualitatively, you are stating that every Romney vote was a vote for viewing minorities non-inclusively. So here’s the logic again: prove it. You can’t, so you may as well own that fact.

    I haven’t seen Red Dawn, but some people will see what they want to see, even in fictional pastimes. No idea where this Asian demonization sub-culture exists, but again, people see what they want to see. I’m not aware of any sweeping trend of racism towards Asian students in American schools, but if such a trend exists, then clearly that is deplorable.

    “ignoring minorities indicates that the GOP sees them as peripheral to American life.”
    —ahhh, change of tune. Well done. Now, indeed, the Republican party might be guilty of that to a certain extent. Difficult to substantiate, but far more believable than your ridiculous assertions that people who voted GOP MUST have shared this view, and that VOTERS are a representative sample of NON-VOTERS.

    Like

  2. No, I’m not asking you to prove that I failed to make my case, I’m saying that you failed to show that I haven’t made my case – or more simply, your objections are mundane.

    I have not said that voters are a representative sample of non-voters (do your objections really hinge on – perhaps, a deliberately dishonest – misrepresentation of my position?). My suggestion is that voters represent the general mood of America, and as such we wouldn’t expect to see radical or drastic differences in the attitudes of voters versus non-voters. Your sad attempts to obfuscate this issue is laughable and embarrassing for you.

    This means that I would expect to see non-voters fall for the most part on one or the other side of the Dem/GOP line. this means that we wouldn’t expect to see a majority, or sizeable minority, calling for a return of the British monarchy, we wouldn’t expect to see significant support for Cuba becoming the newest state, and we wouldn’t expect to see a significant number supporting secession.

    This is what drastic and radical differences mean – don’t tell me that I have to provide word definitions for you as well? Since in our everyday observations of American society, we don’t see much in the way of drastic opposition to the offerings of the two parties, it is, thus, reasonable to presume that the attitudes of non-voters would fall somewhere not too radically different from that of voters. There, nice and easy for you. Got it now?

    Plus, where have I said that there was a sweeping trend of racism towards Asian students in America’s schools? I pointed out a study that showed that up to two thirds of Asian kids experience racially inflected harassment and bullying. Part of the problem that you are reading (almost delusionally) much more into what I write than is actually there.

    Plus, why insinuate that I’m incorrect in my assessment of Red Dawn when you haven’t seen it? And is it your super-logic skillz speaking when you imply that because you have no idea of demonization of Asians, that it somehow doesn’t exist. That’s not very sciencey of you.

    Like

  3. “you failed to show that I haven’t made my case”
    —I already showed you at 0624 hrs, and several times before that. Don’t blame the teacher for being a slow learner.

    “I have not said that voters are a representative sample of non-voters…My suggestion is that voters represent the general mood of America, and as such we wouldn’t expect to see radical or drastic differences in the attitudes of voters versus non-voters.”
    —you have managed to contradict yourself literally from one sentence to the next. Maybe you do have special talents after all. If voters are NOT a representative sample of non voters (which is the smartest thing you’ve said in a while), then how do they “represent” the “general mood”, when nearly half of that “general mood” are NON-VOTERS? In fact, we simply DON’T KNOW the attitudes of non-voters, since they chose not to respond to the ‘survey’ that was going to assess their mood (ie the vote/election). If you want to keep digging, I’m happy to keep burying you. You should realize that repeating crappy logic does not improve it.

    “This means that I would expect to see non-voters fall for the most part on one or the other side of the Dem/GOP line.”
    —why is that? One reason why people don’t vote is because neither option appeals to them. Once again, you’re making assumptions which are without foundation.

    “calling for a return of the British monarchy, we wouldn’t expect to see significant support for Cuba becoming the newest state, and we wouldn’t expect to see a significant number supporting secession.”
    —and we wouldn’t expect a majority wanting 100% income tax. And we wouldn’t expect a majority wanting to eliminate medicare/medicaid. And we wouldn’t expect a majority wanting to do away with social security.
    Yes, there are obviously things that people would not want, for which you are safe to presume. But you are presuming a specific racial attitude among people who did not vote, when it is entirely feasible that they may have different attitudes altogether. I can presume you DON’T want your leg cut off, but I can’t presume that you want chocolate ice cream. So while you might presume that 48% of non-voters don’t want secession (and in fact it is likely a much higher number than that), you have no basis for the affirmative presumption that they hold minorities in disdain.

    ” it is, thus, reasonable to presume that the attitudes of non-voters would fall somewhere not too radically different from that of voters.”
    —again, you’re hopelessly mistaken. The lack of opposition does not mean approval. I’m not opposed to people liking licorice, but that doesn’t mean I like licorice. It’s another basic logic principle you haven’t grasped. Not opposing something doesn’t mean you’re for that thing.

    But let me make it really easy for you. You can “presume” you have a point, but it would still take that and $2.50 to get on that bus. Cuz that presumption, if you haven’t figured it out yet, ain’t worth much. Presumption hardly meets the burden that you have yet to bear.

    ” where have I said that there was a sweeping trend of racism towards Asian students in America’s schools?”
    —that’s just lame. I said “… if such a trend exists…”, where the “if” should have clued you in that I was making a supposition. To harp on minutiae like that is a sign of someone who has lost his marbles…though admittedly there have been tell-tale signs for some time.

    ” why insinuate that I’m incorrect in my assessment of Red Dawn when you haven’t seen it?”
    —I’m not insinuating that you’re wrong; I’m stating that people will see what they want to see. You saw out of that movie what you wanted to see. Maybe it’s correct, maybe it’s not. But let’s just say, based on your comments, that I’m not surprised that you saw what you think you were seeing.

    Anyway, you seem to be shying away from responding to my specific criticisms, so let me recap for you. Roughly 26% of Americans voted for Romney (which represented roughly 48% of the vote). You have failed to establish that even those 26% ” view minorities with a less than inclusive attitude”, because you can’t establish that “ignoring minorities” was the sole or primary reason they voted for Romney. Furthermore, you have no basis for saying that voters represent non-voters especially when it comes to valuing “ignoring minorities”. So really, you haven’t gotten very far.

    Now, you are perfectly within your rights to hold tightly to this (” it is reasonable to conclude that 50% of Americans view minorities as peripheral (and almost certainly non-essential)to the life of America”). But with that firmly in hand, please, at least let me help you with bus fare. The $2.50 is in the mail.

    Like

  4. The only contradiction is between what I wrote and what you seem incapable of comprehending. It isn’t hard. There is little observeable evidence of drastic political differences across the spectrum of American society. Can you point out where such drastic and significant differences might exist? You are implying that it is reasonable – based on your self-inflated scientific pretensions – that there is an extreme difference in the attitudes of voters and non-voters, even though there is no observeable evidence to support this. You’re still failing at sciencey-ness. You don’t understand logic, so don’t pretend that you have a grasp of it.

    “you have no basis for the affirmative presumption that they hold minorities in disdain.”

    There I did it in bold again. You are sloppy. And dishonest. Where have I presumed that anyone “holds minorities in disdain”? I’ve said nothing even remotely like that – it seems to be becoming harder for you to disguise your dishonesty. My contention is that the GOP ignored minorities, and this exclusion (deliberate or not, I’ve made no claim on that)was accepted by Romney supporters – otherwise they wouldn’t be supporters. That doesn’t mean that it was the primary reason for their support – it just means that it was accepted as part of the package. Thus, Romney supporters are comfortable with thinking that minorities are peripheral to American life. This is by far a less extreme contention than what you have tried, unsuccessfully, to portray as my position. Whether they actively disdain, hate, or dislike minorities is not the issue, and it is not what I have said – although you have desperately (and dishonestly) tried to frame my points that way. You fail the honesty and logic test again.

    Thus, your “specific criticisms” are ludicrous, because it is not necessary to establish that ignoring minorities was the sole or primary reason people voted Romney. That is just a random and meaningless caveat that you have applied that has no basis in logic or common sense.

    But again, you belie your self-proclaimed science-skillz. You just don’t know if what I saw was what I wanted to see in the movie – if fact, I would actually prefer not to see what I saw in the movie. Show me your sciencey work that proves that I “saw what I wanted to see”.

    Like

  5. “There is little observeable evidence of drastic political differences across the spectrum of American society”
    —jeez, am I teaching a remedial Logic 101 class here? Absence of evidence of a difference is NOT evidence of the absence of such a difference. I can see no evidence that you have a brain, but that is not evidence that you in fact lack a brain…maybe it’s there and you just choose not to use it.

    “Can you point out where such drastic and significant differences might exist?”
    —there you go again trying to shirk your burden of proof. You’re the one suggesting that voters are the same as non-voters. The burden is on you to show that to be the case. The burden is NOT on me to show that ISN’T the case. Dude, have you finished grade school, cuz this is not even a passable display you’re putting on here.

    “You don’t understand logic, so don’t pretend that you have a grasp of it.”
    —see above. I’ve explained it so many times to you, that I’m running out of new variants for saying the same thing. Quick study, you are not.

    “Where have I presumed that anyone “holds minorities in disdain””
    —OMG dude. You are going from ‘lame’ to ‘lamer’. “view minorities as peripheral” were your words, which I’ve paraphrased. Is this the play now? Can’t argue the concepts so you’ll just fuss over individual words? What is up with you?

    “this exclusion (deliberate or not, I’ve made no claim on that)was accepted by Romney supporters – otherwise they wouldn’t be supporters”
    —I’ve addressed this before. Can you not read or process what you’ve read? Romney didn’t say “I’m going to ignore minorities”. His actions/policies were perceived by minorities as him not emphasizing their priorities. That is why minorities FELT they were being ignored. So you’re saying that white folks voted for Romney because they liked the fact that minorities FELT they were being ignored? Are you on glue? Also, must a Romney supporter absolutely support everything he stands for, and everything he ignores? For instance, he’s ok with abortion in cases of rape/incest. There are many Republicans who do not want abortion in such circumstances. But they still voted for Romney. Does that now mean those GOP voters suddenly changed their philosophical/ethical position, by virtue of voting for the guy? Gimme a break. You have no basis for saying that people voted for Romney due to his weak stance on the priorities of minorities, and you have no basis for saying that people who voted for Romney did so for this particular reason above, or to the exclusion of, all other reasons. How many times must I say this for it to percolate through your thick skull, into the brain you may or may not have?

    “Romney supporters are comfortable with thinking that minorities are peripheral to American life”
    —and where did you get this from? Did Romney’s platform say that minorities are peripheral to American life? Did he say ‘white folks, vote for me in part based on what I haven’t done to support minority priorities’? Or ‘vote for me because you can clearly see my thoughts regarding minorities’? Not only are you suggesting that voters must have read his mind, you’re suggesting non-voters must be doing so in similar proportions. With you, this is no longer an issue of logic, cuz clearly you have none and aren’t capable of any. This is the Red Dawn-esque you will see what you want to see, regardless of whether the evidence supports it or not.

    “it is not necessary to establish that ignoring minorities was the sole or primary reason people voted Romney.”
    —huh? OK, so it was not the reason people voted for Romney, but because they voted for Romney, that is the attitude they must have, or must be endorsing. See the abortion example. Completely and utterly devoid of all logic or common sense. But I can clearly see that you will see what you want to see, regardless of reality.

    “Show me your sciencey work that proves that I “saw what I wanted to see””
    —LOL. You clearly are hopelessly out of my depth. I have no proof of that. Just my opinion. Just as everything you’ve said is utterly without foundation, and with those opinions in hand, plus the $2.50 you’ll be getting in the mail, you should be able to board that bus to the logic-free land where you reside.

    Like

  6. Well, I don’t see any significant objections coming from you, just the usual obfuscation and dishonesty. Plus, I doubt very much that you are capable of teaching logic – you don’t even abide by it. There happens to be an absence of evidence for fairies at the bottom of my garden, and an absence of evidence that both Obama and Romney were aliens, but your logic would have me believe that it would be unreasonable for me to dismiss such claims.

    You have deluded yourself into believing that your silly stubbornness and use of cliche in lieu of substantial objections somehow shows that you are a logic god. Maybe there are 100 million Americans who are secretly commies, or 100 million people who think that minorities should be thrown into the Atlantic, or 100 million people who think that they are French. I’ve seen little observeable evidence for it, but maybe you do see fairies and know better. Plus, I don’t think that your alleged education has done you any favours.

    You are going from ‘lame’ to ‘lamer’. “view minorities as peripheral” were your words, which I’ve paraphrased. Is this the play now? Can’t argue the concepts so you’ll just fuss over individual words? What is up with you?

    Thanks! And I had to embolden it again for posterity. More evidence of your dishonesty, and apparent inability to grasp even the most broad nuances of the English language. You seem to, rather embarrassingly, think that “disdain” can be used to paraphrase “peripheral” – and you are proud of the fact. This is such a basic lack of English comprehension on your part that it suggests you should stop worrying about logic 101 (which you don’t understand), and take first-grade English comprehension.

    And no, I’m not shirking the burden of proof – I’m simply asking for some indication for why it is reasonable to think that there are potentially 100 million Americans who might have drastically different political sensibilities (do you know that word?) than the other 100 million. You must know since you might be in contact with fairies at the bottom of your garden – why don’t you ask them.

    So you’re saying that white folks voted for Romney because they liked the fact that minorities FELT they were being ignored?

    I don’t really know why I’m dignifying your silly uncomprehending “paraphrases” (misrepresentations) with substantial answers. I should just highlight and embolden all of your dishonest misrepresentation and write “LOL” at the bottom. I actually shocked that you are even still trying to deny that Romney ignored and excluded minorities – even some prominent Republican supporters have come out and used these exact words. Why don’t you read some news before you embarrass yourself trying to dismiss something you apparently know little about.

    Finally, repeatedly asserting your logical prowess makes you seem stupid, because you are not exhibiting any.

    Like

  7. “There happens to be an absence of evidence for fairies at the bottom of my garden, and an absence of evidence that both Obama and Romney were aliens, but your logic would have me believe that it would be unreasonable for me to dismiss such claims.”
    —Listen, you obviously have no comprehension of logic, so you shouldn’t even try to use it. When you do, you write nonsense like you’ve done here. If you’re “absent” any evidence for fairies in your garden, then you have NO REASON to believe they are there. If you’re “absent” any evidence that Obama and Romney are ET, then you have NO REASON to believe that they are. What you have is NO EVIDENCE for those beliefs (fairies/aliens). But what you DON’T have is EVIDENCE (or try ‘proof positive’ to keep it simple for plebs like you) against those beliefs. In logic, there is a clear distinction between those two concepts. So if you’re “absent” any evidence of fairies in your garden, you can in fact quite reasonably dismiss the claim that there are fairies in your garden. And you know the best part about you mangling logic? You’ve inadvertently outlined precisely why your earlier claims have no logical footing. You are “absent” any evidence that voters represent the views of non-voters, which is precisely why your claim can be dismissed. You’re also “absent” any evidence that voters for Romney harboured those views of minorities, which is also why that claim can also be readily dismissed. You know what I love? Showing up folks like you who have crappy (or no) logic. You know what I love more? When logic-free people try a come-back, end up shooting yourself in the foot by precisely showing the flaw in your reasoning, and being too stupid to realize that fact. So thanks for that.

    “Maybe there are 100 million Americans who are secretly commies, or 100 million people who think that minorities should be thrown into the Atlantic, or 100 million people who think that they are French.”
    —LOL. Moving from the sublime to the ridiculous now, are we. Listen, you’re “absent” any evidence for those things, so I suggest you re-read my earlier paragraph, and move on. I love watching stupid people make fools of themselves, but even I think there should be a mercy rule. Might be time for you to invoke that rule on yourself.

    “think that “disdain” can be used to paraphrase “peripheral””
    —oh dear god. I wasn’t paraphrasing the single word. I didn’t say they were synonyms, for christ’s sake. I was paraphrasing the concept you were trying to sell, such that by voters viewing minorities as peripheral, they are showing disdain for them and their role in society. But I guess when you have no logic and are out of your depth (not to mention lacking any evidence for your airy-fairy theories about non-voters and their attitudes), this is what you’re left with. Sad, really.

    ” I’m simply asking for some indication for why it is reasonable to think that there are potentially 100 million Americans who might have drastically different political sensibilities (do you know that word?) than the other 100 million”
    —how many ways must I spell it out for you? Haven’t we been over this ad nauseum? There is no particular reason to think they are drastically different, completely identical, or somewhere in between. But since your assertion is predicated on them being similar, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that. Which you haven’t. I sure hope you’re a fine arts or liberal arts guy, cuz anything that requires critical thinking is clearly not for you. Now, it’s beyond obvious that you don’t have such proof, so you may as well own that already. You don’t even need to change your opinion. But for the purposes of debate, your opinion won’t amount to anything of value. But it’s still all yours, baby. It’ll keep you warm on that bus ride.

    “still trying to deny that Romney ignored and excluded minorities – even some prominent Republican supporters have come out and used these exact words.”
    —again, I’ve explained the logic repeatedly. The point has nothing to do with Romney himself. Yes, he did those things. But your assertion is based on voter perceptions of his actions. So the fact that he ignored minorities is actually irrelevant to your point. Your point requires that voters who voted for him realize that minorities FELT Romney was ignoring them (when he never said so), and to vote for him in whole or in part because of that realization. Naturally, you are “absent” any evidence of this, as I’m sure you’re now aware (…or are you…?). So based on what I’ve said above, your claims can in fact be dismissed.

    ” Why don’t you read some news before you embarrass yourself trying to dismiss something you apparently know little about.”
    —the fact that you would say something like this clearly illustrates that you don’t even understand the logic and reasoning necessary to establish the opinion that you’re trying to convey. And yet here you are. So it should surprise no one who understands logic that you have utterly and completely failed to sustain either of the 2 parts of your assertion. Don’t worry, I’ve got you pegged as “surprised” at this point.

    “A man’s gotta know his limitations”, as Dirty Harry once famously said. In logic and critical thinking, you reach yours instantly. Time for you to awaken to that uncomfortable fact. But don’t beat yourself up too much. Logic and critical thinking aren’t for everyone.

    Like

  8. More dishonesty and now you’re even trying to wax philosophical, but still incapable of thinking logically. Yes, there is an absence of evidence that there are drastic differences between the 100 or so million voters and the 100 or so million who didn’t, so you have just acknowledged in a (probably unconscious) break from your dishonest thought process that there is no reason to believe that such a radical and drastic difference exists. You just can’t think.

    Accordingly, please take your own advice and learn your limitations, but even better, stop lying to yourself about how sciencey and logicky you are. You are not, you’re a clown.

    “But your assertion is based on voter perceptions of his actions. So the fact that he ignored minorities is actually irrelevant to your point. Your point requires that voters who voted for him realize that minorities FELT Romney was ignoring them (when he never said so), and to vote for him in whole or in part because of that realization.”

    LOL!! More poor English comprehension. You are talking absolute nonsense. This has nothing to do with what I have said. Obfucsation (do you know the meaning of this word?).

    Like

  9. “Yes, there is an absence of evidence that there are drastic differences between the 100 or so million voters and the 100 or so million who didn’t,”
    —another day, another lesson.
    “What you have is NO EVIDENCE for those beliefs (fairies/aliens). But what you DON’T have is EVIDENCE (or try ‘proof positive’ to keep it simple for plebs like you) against those beliefs.”(me, Dec 13 1445hrs). Ok, follow along here, m’boy. I’ll talk slowly. There is NO EVIDENCE that there are drastic differences. But that is NOT THE SAME as saying there is EVIDENCE of NO drastic DIFFERENCES. In your assertion, you need to provide EVIDENCE of NO drastic DIFFERENCES in order to establish that you can generalize voters onto non-voters. How many times have I said this? Was it slow enough this time? How about an example. I think you have no brain. I say this because I have seen no evidence that you have a brain, based on what you’ve said here. Does that suffice? Of course not. For me to make an assertion that you have no brain, I have to PROVE that you have no brain; it is NOT ENOUGH to just say I have seen no evidence of it. Apply that to your stupid assertion, cuz it’s a direct parallel. I’m actually impressing myself with the number of ways I’ve come up with to explain a basic concept to a pleb like you. I must say I’ve never met anyone who is as slow as you. Let me boil it down to the most basic terms here for you, as applied in this scenario: NO EVIDENCE of a DIFFERENCE is NOT the same as EVIDENCE of NO DIFFERENCE. The burden of proof lies in the latter, and is on you. You are nowhere close to meeting that burden, and you seem to grossly lack the intellectually capacity to even realize it.

    “This has nothing to do with what I have said.”
    —are you sure you even understood the logical implications of what you said? Cuz you’ve given no indication that you have. You seem to suggest, based on your quip about reading the news, that it is sufficient, as long as Romney ignored minorities, to substantiate your assertion that voters who voted for him did so as tacit approval of that attitude. Such a position is bereft of logic, which no longer surprises me, cuz the positions you’ve taken so far are remarkably logic-free. What does surprise me is your inability to wake up and smell the coffee when I’ve led you by the hand with free logic lessons. But as I said before, I can only do as much as the quality of substrate allows, and you are most definitely sub-standard. Just ask yourself this: Romney is OK with abortion in incest – does that mean every person who voted for Romney is OK with abortion in incest? If you answered no, then there may be a glimmer of hope for you yet. If you answered yes, then that is quite funny, but also rather sad (for you).

    Like

  10. In your assertion, you need to provide EVIDENCE of NO drastic DIFFERENCES in order to establish that you can generalize voters onto non-voters.

    Another day of dishonesty on your part. You just admitted in your previous post that my reasoning is sound – you just seem too caught up in your own denseness to realize it. You are perfectly welcome to believe in fairies despite there being a lack of evidence (can you provide evidence that they don’t exist), but personally I don’t find good reason to.

    Since you don’t comprehend English too well, I’ll spell it out for you again; it is reasonable to believe that there are no drastic differences in political attitudes between voters and non-voters because no such difference has been observed. Got it? That is as simple as one could possibly go – which one of those words don’t you understand? By the way, observation is evidence. Do you know what “observation” means?

    “If you’re “absent” any evidence for fairies in your garden, then you have NO REASON to believe they are there.”

    LOL!!! Another day, more dishonesty and obfuscation. I didn’t point this out earlier because I wanted to see just how dishonest – or maybe even inane – you are. You have already conceded to my argument. Perhaps your English comprehension is so bad that you don’t even understand the meaning of what you wrote.

    Here, I’ll spell it out for again using your own words, but with slight modifications….

    If you’re “absent” any evidence for drastic differences in attitudes between voters and non-voters, then you have NO REASON to believe they are there.

    You are failing to impress with your self-proclaimed logic talentz.

    Like

  11. ” it is reasonable to believe that there are no drastic differences in political attitudes between voters and non-voters because no such difference has been observed”
    —here we go again. We’re talking burden of PROOF. “reasonable”-ness is NOT PROOF. At one time, it was “reasonable” to believe the earth was flat. And how did that turn out? Let me spell it out another way: all you have as basis for your assertion is an assumption. Assumptions aren’t proof. In fact, by having to lean on “it is reasonable to believe”, you’ve already tacitly acknowledged that you fall far short of proof. And so you’re free to believe whatever you want, but as I said, that and $2.50 will get you on that bus to logic-free land.

    So since you have no proof and no evidence to support your assertion, and are relying solely on your beliefs, let’s examine those further, shall we?
    You said: “it is reasonable to believe that there are no drastic differences in political attitudes between voters and non-voters because no such difference has been observed.”
    —ok, so you choose to believe without proof that there are no drastic differences between voters and non-voters. How all-encompassing is this lack of “drastic difference”? Does that apply to taxes? Well, I’d tend to believe that a significant portion of American non-voters want lower taxes, just as Romney voters likely wanted lower taxes. Is there proof of that? Well, no…but it is “reasonable to believe” it. But here’s the question for you (which you won’t be able to answer): how many specific issues are there where it is reasonable to believe this similarity, in the absence of proof? You are asking us to believe that “viewing minorities as peripheral” is one area of such similarity. Is that “reasonable”? I don’t think so. Wanna know why? Cuz you can’t prove it.

    “By the way, observation is evidence.”
    —wow, science talk? From you? Dude, you’re not cut out for it. And your juvenile statement here again illustrates it. Yes, observation is evidence. As I said earlier, my observation based on what you’ve said so far is that you have no brain. I guess for you, that is sufficient evidence to establish that you have no brain. Ironically, for me, that’s actually not good enough. But then I do hold myself to higher logical standards than you.

    ““If you’re “absent” any evidence for fairies in your garden, then you have NO REASON to believe they are there.”…You have already conceded to my argument. ”
    —that was so predictable. Let me show you yet again where you’re being dumb. Replace “fairies…” with “drastic differences between voters and non-voters”, then OMG I’m agreeing with you!!! Oh, but wait…if you replace “fairies…” with “similarities between voters and non-voters”, then OMG I’m not, and you have egg on your face. How can that be, Sherlock, where changing the wording produces opposing results? Oh, it’s because you stopped reading, or lacked the requisite mental capacity to understand what you read.
    “What you have is NO EVIDENCE for those beliefs (fairies/aliens). But what you DON’T have is EVIDENCE (or try ‘proof positive’ to keep it simple for plebs like you) against those beliefs.” (I said this already 2 comments ago). And then, ” There is NO EVIDENCE that there are drastic differences. But that is NOT THE SAME as saying there is EVIDENCE of NO drastic DIFFERENCES. In your assertion, you need to provide EVIDENCE of NO drastic DIFFERENCES in order to establish that you can generalize voters onto non-voters.” (my last comment).

    When I write an explanation, or for you, a teaching module, I at least expect you to read through the whole thing. You’re not going to get it if you pick one part and ignore the other. And in your case, you’re also not going to get it if you’re slow and dense, as we’ve seen.

    Ok, so this time, be a good little boy and swallow your medicine whole, otherwise it ain’t gonna work:
    “absent any evidence of a drastic difference in attitudes does NOT constitute evidence of an absence of drastic differences in attitudes”. And then to really bring it down to your level: “absent any evidence of your brain’s existence does NOT constitute evidence of an absence of your brain’s existence”. So here’s the pop quiz, Einstein – do you agree with that last statement, or not? If you do agree, you’ve just detonated your assertion. If you disagree, then you better start looking for something to stuff into that space between your ears.

    BTW, why no cutesy reply to this: ” Just ask yourself this: Romney is OK with abortion in incest – does that mean every person who voted for Romney is OK with abortion in incest? If you answered no, then there may be a glimmer of hope for you yet. If you answered yes, then that is quite funny, but also rather sad (for you).”
    I always find it revealing when people of poor logic run away from the pointed questions.

    Like

  12. Well here again is where your dishonesty and lack of basic English comprehension handicaps your delusions of scientific grandeur. My claim is that there are “NO REASONS” to believe that drastic differences exist. You don’t read too good and you like to misrepresent my claims.

    My claim – which is a point that you have conceded, but embarrassingly insist that you haven’t – is that the lack of observeable evidence for drastic differences in attitudes between voters and non-voters lends itself to reasonably conclude that no no such drastic differences exist. Thus, non-voters would largely be expected to lean Dem or Republican. Even worse, you are stupidly implying that observation cannot constitute a reasonable basis for evidence. You just can’t stop embarrassing yourself. Here are some observations that lend support to my contentions; no large-scale calls for return to monarchy, no large-scale reports of armed rebellion, no large-scale support for any third political party, no observeable evidence that non-voters differ drastically from voters. But this is not evidence because you don’t like it – even though you actually conceded the point.

    Your objections are simple-minded obfuscations and you have even stopped trying to hide the fact that you are incredibly intellectually dishonest, as well as an internet-tough-guy-wannabe. What you can’t hide is your inability to think reasonably and engage in debate without misrepresentation of the oppositions position. I feel sorry for you.

    BTW, why no cutesy reply to this: ” Just ask yourself this: Romney is OK with abortion in incest – does that mean every person who voted for Romney is OK with abortion in incest? If you answered no, then there may be a glimmer of hope for you yet. If you answered yes, then that is quite funny, but also rather sad (for you).”

    There was no reply to this because I felt sorry for you. Unfortunately, this objection is irrelevant. This doesn’t show that Romney supporters see minorities as peripheral to American life. You are making the rudimentary mistake of inflating the epistemological significance of allegory. The fact that you believe that such a silly objection constitutes a devastating refutation of my position only highlights your non-sciencey-ness.

    Here, I”ll re-quote you, this time in bold…..

    “If you’re “absent” any evidence for drastic differences in attitudes between voters and non-voters, then you have NO REASON to believe they are there.”

    Hey I agree!

    Like

  13. Oh, and it hasn’t gone unnoticed that you have continually and repeatedly shifted the goal-posts, both through mis-comprehension and, even, worse dishonest misrepresentation.

    Like

  14. “there are “NO REASONS” to believe that drastic differences exist.”
    —look, like I said, you can claim whatever you want. Your claim is not proof of that very same claim, unless you live in circular-ville. In order to substantiate your claim, you need proof of absence of such drastic differences. That, for the n-th time, is what you don’t have.

    “lack of observeable evidence for drastic differences in attitudes between voters and non-voters lends itself to reasonably conclude that no no such drastic differences exist.”
    —and I’ve already explained to you in the clearest and simplest terms that you can logically draw no such conclusion. This is the part about ‘absence of evidence of difference is NOT evidence of absence of difference’. Clearly, the concept, as basic as it is, eludes you.

    “non-voters would largely be expected to lean Dem or Republican.”
    —huh? If they were “leaning” Dem or GOP, what made them not vote Dem or GOP, and in fact not vote at all. Why would they “largely be expected” to lean in either direction? A much more reasonable assumption, when you observe a group of people who, when presented with a choice, decided not to choose at all, is that they weren’t enamoured with either option. You are introducing even more concepts that you HOPE might be true, but for which you have no factual or evidenciary basis whatsoever.

    “even though you actually conceded the point.”
    —after repeatedly tearing your argument to shreds, this is what you get out of it? It appears that you do see what you want to see…

    “no large-scale support for any third political party, no observeable evidence that non-voters differ drastically from voters”
    —once again, you are ASSUMING that since people seem to share the view that they don’t seem to want a third political party, then they must also share their specific views about minorities. What is the basis for THIS assumption? Instead of proof, it seems all you are good for is a litany of assumptions.

    “This doesn’t show that Romney supporters see minorities as peripheral to American life”
    —OMG you’re dense. Of course abortion views don’t reflect views on minorities. It is beyond stupid to even mention that. But it is the logical principle that served the basis of the question. If you say voters voting for Romney must share his view of minorities, then the principle extends to you saying that voters voting for Romney must share his views on abortion. Does that sound “reasonable”? LOL, with each passing comment, you demonstrate the extent to which you lack any capacity for logic, common sense, and really, basic human thought processes.

    Oh, nice repeating of a partial and selected portion of my comment. I already corrected you last time, and yet you still did it again. Nice. For the intellectually weak and the logically obtunded, i suppose that serves as an argument, to go along with healthy servings of unsubstantiated assumptions and the need to see what they want to see. Seen your type before. Deja vu all over again.

    “you have continually and repeatedly shifted the goal-posts,”
    —if repeatedly asking for the proof that you don’t have is what you mean by shifting goal-posts, then absolutely. Listen, you’re the one who offered unsubstantiated assumptions. So either get some, or suck it up and own the fact that you’ve foolishly over-reached. Whining about being beaten upside the head with a logic stick is unbecoming.

    Like

  15. “look, like I said, you can claim whatever you want.”

    Look, like you said you have conceded the point – maybe you don’t read your own words too well to understand it……

    “If you’re “absent” any evidence for drastic differences in attitudes between voters and non-voters, then you have NO REASON to believe they are there.”

    LOL!

    I’ll leave you with the last word – just know that I will be laughing at it.

    Like

  16. The logic-free man from the logic-free land continues with the logic-free repetitions of the same stuff. How typical and predictable.

    Like I said, I see no evidence that he has a brain, so I have no reason to believe he has one. Certainly, nothing he’s said in the last several days has even begun to make me doubt my assumptions.

    BTW, I’m open to letting people who wear foil hats have the right to their opinion. They can certainly claim whatever they want, just as I’m happy to let you claim whatever you want. That in no way implies that I concede your claims to be anything other than utterly ridiculous and insane. Letting you claim what you want = me conceding the point? Man, you really have no brain.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s