Full Version: Most Convincing Post
For this category, the following information is required for a nomination to be valid:
*A link to the post that contains the most convincing individual post (not the entire thread).
*The name of the member who made the post
*The post must have been submitted on or after July 1, 2006
*A link to the post that contains the most convincing individual post (not the entire thread).
*The name of the member who made the post
*The post must have been submitted on or after July 1, 2006
Agh. I hate this category like Dick Cheney hates a salad. Trying to choose a one-liner or a pithy quote from a year's worth of candidates is a losing proposition. You can never be 100 percent right because spend another hour or so and you'll find a better one than the quote you chose previously.
But if I gotta go with one here it is courtesy of Ultimatejoe from the Addiction thread in the Health and Medicine forum (topic starter: Lederuvdapac).
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=187554
I think this is an excellent example of how to attack the argument and not the poster making the argument. Way to go, Ultimatejoe
But if I gotta go with one here it is courtesy of Ultimatejoe from the Addiction thread in the Health and Medicine forum (topic starter: Lederuvdapac).
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ May 24 2006, 02:38 AM) 
Lederuvdapac, let me ask you this... do you base all your opinions based solely on your own observations and experiences? So far you've argued that mental illness doesn't exist because you are able to think rationally and don't see how other people can't do the same, that global warming is junk science because you don't see how scientists can accurately model the climate, and now that addiction doesn't exist because you are able to exercise free will.
Since you are intent on following this path, let me broach this debate on your own terms. Have you ever woken to the sound of your alarm clock (or something similar) and hit snooze, or chosen to stay in bed despite the fact that you probably shouldn't? Ever gone to bed when you know you shouldn't (you need to get up soon for some reason, just ate, etc?) I'm Twilling to bet you have at some point (either that or you continue to scare me with your general chastity
.) You are making a decision in that scenario that you probably wouldn't make in the clear light of day; however fatigue influences your decision making process. The chemical composition of your brain changes during extreme fatigue, the result of which is not only drowsiness and red eyes for example, but the compulsion to sleep.
Now assuming for the moment that you're not actually going to embarrass yourself and argue that behavior isn't influenced by brain chemistry, I'm curious as to where your argument comes from. If it's from the esteemed Dr. Szasz, then there are two problems. One, the guy's argument is seriously out of date. The guy has been making the same statements for about 35 years without doing much academic legwork. On top of that he is by and large a crackpot. Most of his research is published in political journals and other non-academic sources,I don't throw this accusation out lightly, but it is impossible for someone to corroborate the study of psychiatry and a tacit support of Scientology. Lets look at your source a bit. Criticizing addiction you have a man who has essentially run a 40 year moral crusade against psychiatry, a lawyer, and a public policy academic. This is not to dismiss their argument out of hand, but to force us to consider it for what it is, politically/morally driven opinions with a tenuous medical foundation.
So what's the second problem? The actual arguments they are making. From Professor Schaler, when asked about patients (which he has never had) going to medical professional (which he isn't) asking for help in quitting:
No elucidation, no foundation. Being the trained academic he is though, he used the phrase I think. What does this tell me? That what he is sharing isn't a hypothesis or theory, but rather an opinion. Now, ignoring these shortcomings for a moment, lets look at what they're really trying to say.
What I can distill from their argument is that drugs are a choice, and that the behavior of using drugs becomes a habit. Nobody is disputing that. What is up for dispute is the idea that my habit of say doing sit ups before I hop in the shower is essentially the same as someone's habit of injecting heroin.
What I want to be clear on is if that is your argument. Because if it is, you need to do a better job justifying it. As you have done here and elsewhere, you are interested in research. However, instead of finding evidence or support for your argument, all you are doing is going out and finding people who share your beliefs. You have not refuted the psychology of addiction theory, or offered any evidence to support your claims; instead you have posted a symposium which features people agreeing with you in equally insubstantial ways.
Your argument has all the credibility of a "3 out of 4 dentists recommend" type statement, because it is the exact same process.
Since you are intent on following this path, let me broach this debate on your own terms. Have you ever woken to the sound of your alarm clock (or something similar) and hit snooze, or chosen to stay in bed despite the fact that you probably shouldn't? Ever gone to bed when you know you shouldn't (you need to get up soon for some reason, just ate, etc?) I'm Twilling to bet you have at some point (either that or you continue to scare me with your general chastity
.) You are making a decision in that scenario that you probably wouldn't make in the clear light of day; however fatigue influences your decision making process. The chemical composition of your brain changes during extreme fatigue, the result of which is not only drowsiness and red eyes for example, but the compulsion to sleep.Now assuming for the moment that you're not actually going to embarrass yourself and argue that behavior isn't influenced by brain chemistry, I'm curious as to where your argument comes from. If it's from the esteemed Dr. Szasz, then there are two problems. One, the guy's argument is seriously out of date. The guy has been making the same statements for about 35 years without doing much academic legwork. On top of that he is by and large a crackpot. Most of his research is published in political journals and other non-academic sources,I don't throw this accusation out lightly, but it is impossible for someone to corroborate the study of psychiatry and a tacit support of Scientology. Lets look at your source a bit. Criticizing addiction you have a man who has essentially run a 40 year moral crusade against psychiatry, a lawyer, and a public policy academic. This is not to dismiss their argument out of hand, but to force us to consider it for what it is, politically/morally driven opinions with a tenuous medical foundation.
So what's the second problem? The actual arguments they are making. From Professor Schaler, when asked about patients (which he has never had) going to medical professional (which he isn't) asking for help in quitting:
QUOTE
I think they are liars. They are not telling the truth.
No elucidation, no foundation. Being the trained academic he is though, he used the phrase I think. What does this tell me? That what he is sharing isn't a hypothesis or theory, but rather an opinion. Now, ignoring these shortcomings for a moment, lets look at what they're really trying to say.
What I can distill from their argument is that drugs are a choice, and that the behavior of using drugs becomes a habit. Nobody is disputing that. What is up for dispute is the idea that my habit of say doing sit ups before I hop in the shower is essentially the same as someone's habit of injecting heroin.
What I want to be clear on is if that is your argument. Because if it is, you need to do a better job justifying it. As you have done here and elsewhere, you are interested in research. However, instead of finding evidence or support for your argument, all you are doing is going out and finding people who share your beliefs. You have not refuted the psychology of addiction theory, or offered any evidence to support your claims; instead you have posted a symposium which features people agreeing with you in equally insubstantial ways.
Your argument has all the credibility of a "3 out of 4 dentists recommend" type statement, because it is the exact same process.
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=187554
I think this is an excellent example of how to attack the argument and not the poster making the argument. Way to go, Ultimatejoe
That post by UJ was awesome, and I'd probably vote for it myself, but I think it's too old....dated May 2006. 
It only made the cut by 10 days, but I’ve always liked this informative and beautifully written rebuttal to aevans176 by Cyan.
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=191212
On this thread.
"Wiccan GI doesn't get pentacle etched headstone, Christianity favored in half of designs"
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=191212
On this thread.
"Wiccan GI doesn't get pentacle etched headstone, Christianity favored in half of designs"
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Jun 12 2007, 08:02 PM)
That post by UJ was awesome, and I'd probably vote for it myself, but I think it's too old....dated May 2006.
Boy, I need a vacation.
Double AGH. I think I just had a senior moment.
Good catch, there Mrs. Pigpen. Sorry about that Ulitimatejoe. Guess I'll just have to find another example of deathless prose (And a eligible one too!)
Or as Homer Simpson once said, "Why do things that happen to stupid people keeping happening to me?"
New candidate and a very worthy one at that.
Everybody has their opinion and most of us argue it with considerable fervor and passion. Sometimes we even have facts. But most of the time we do it from a distance. We have plenty of ammo in our rhetorical gunbelt and we're cocked and loaded and ready to spray any fool that comes within shooting range.
But a few of our posters don't deal with the subjects we debate from a intellectual distance. They're in the middle of the drama and they're quite literally in the line of fire.
That is why I have to give this post by Dontreadonme the nod for The Most Convincing Post.
I suppose your definition of oath differs from mine. Your words above specify no oath. I took no oath to protect Iraq. I took an oath to defend and serve my country. It would be simply peachy if the area was to be stable and flourish, but that goal is simply not worth my life, nor those of my comrades.
I could find myself agreeing with you that AQ is an enemy that needs to be fought and defeated. But the percentage of actions against AQ pale in comparison with those conducted against the various Shia and Sunni insurgent groups. We are standing between two groups bent on the others destruction, and ours……all the while failing to have much impact on AQ operations. Even the simplest math will tell you that we’re not getting the bang for our buck. And our buck is measured in lives. To top that, the Shia and Sunni militia’s either believe, or are fostering the belief, that US forces destroyed the twin minarets of the Golden Mosque in Samarra yesterday. Nothing like a little whipped up religious fervor to brighten ones day.
Are you honestly claiming that some sort of vague national credibility or face-saving is worth the ongoing cost of human life?
I have evolved from a position where I got my dander up at every perceived slight to the military. I was optimistic about our chances of success in Iraq. I still believe the ‘surge’ is the only plan that has a hope of making any difference, but it is being conducted about two years too late. My initial optimism also assumed that the Iraqi people would welcome a chance at a peaceful democratic way of life. But now, being on the ground, I see that the Imams and the mosques rule everyday life here, and nothing we do is likely to change that, especially at the hands of infidels……
The Iraq Ministry of Defense (and probably all other ministries) are completely corrupted by religion or power, or both. The leadership of the National Police and the Iraqi Police are by and large under the control of Jaysh Al-Mahdi. We have lost countless lives and limbs to IED’s, leading us to up armor our vehicles, leading to countless more casualties by way of EFP’s and the spalling that is produced by the armor. We conduct joint patrols to clear neighborhoods, only to find that the NP's disappear by midday, leaving us to continue on unilaterally. As soon as a bridge or an electrical grid is repaired, the insurgent group opposed to the group in that area, comes and destroys or disables it.
How’s this for political correctness…………the Iraqi people do not deserve the lives of fallen Americans. They cannot or will not see past the Koran or the flavor of the month Imam. Iraq is a trash strewn wasteland, where the residents seemingly have no desire to improve their life. Perhaps we are the interlopers, the infidels............we are certainly amateurs at Middle Eastern culture. All the more reason to leave these people to their religiously fueled fate.
But this I know, the time has passed for vague themes of ‘strong leadership’ and the nations ‘strong commitment’. What is that supposed to mean anyway?
I don't necessarily give more weight to the words of DTOM because he's living a lousy reality the rest of us can only discuss in abstract theory, but I sure can't give it any less.
Everybody has their opinion and most of us argue it with considerable fervor and passion. Sometimes we even have facts. But most of the time we do it from a distance. We have plenty of ammo in our rhetorical gunbelt and we're cocked and loaded and ready to spray any fool that comes within shooting range.
But a few of our posters don't deal with the subjects we debate from a intellectual distance. They're in the middle of the drama and they're quite literally in the line of fire.
That is why I have to give this post by Dontreadonme the nod for The Most Convincing Post.
I suppose your definition of oath differs from mine. Your words above specify no oath. I took no oath to protect Iraq. I took an oath to defend and serve my country. It would be simply peachy if the area was to be stable and flourish, but that goal is simply not worth my life, nor those of my comrades.
I could find myself agreeing with you that AQ is an enemy that needs to be fought and defeated. But the percentage of actions against AQ pale in comparison with those conducted against the various Shia and Sunni insurgent groups. We are standing between two groups bent on the others destruction, and ours……all the while failing to have much impact on AQ operations. Even the simplest math will tell you that we’re not getting the bang for our buck. And our buck is measured in lives. To top that, the Shia and Sunni militia’s either believe, or are fostering the belief, that US forces destroyed the twin minarets of the Golden Mosque in Samarra yesterday. Nothing like a little whipped up religious fervor to brighten ones day.
Are you honestly claiming that some sort of vague national credibility or face-saving is worth the ongoing cost of human life?
I have evolved from a position where I got my dander up at every perceived slight to the military. I was optimistic about our chances of success in Iraq. I still believe the ‘surge’ is the only plan that has a hope of making any difference, but it is being conducted about two years too late. My initial optimism also assumed that the Iraqi people would welcome a chance at a peaceful democratic way of life. But now, being on the ground, I see that the Imams and the mosques rule everyday life here, and nothing we do is likely to change that, especially at the hands of infidels……
The Iraq Ministry of Defense (and probably all other ministries) are completely corrupted by religion or power, or both. The leadership of the National Police and the Iraqi Police are by and large under the control of Jaysh Al-Mahdi. We have lost countless lives and limbs to IED’s, leading us to up armor our vehicles, leading to countless more casualties by way of EFP’s and the spalling that is produced by the armor. We conduct joint patrols to clear neighborhoods, only to find that the NP's disappear by midday, leaving us to continue on unilaterally. As soon as a bridge or an electrical grid is repaired, the insurgent group opposed to the group in that area, comes and destroys or disables it.
How’s this for political correctness…………the Iraqi people do not deserve the lives of fallen Americans. They cannot or will not see past the Koran or the flavor of the month Imam. Iraq is a trash strewn wasteland, where the residents seemingly have no desire to improve their life. Perhaps we are the interlopers, the infidels............we are certainly amateurs at Middle Eastern culture. All the more reason to leave these people to their religiously fueled fate.
But this I know, the time has passed for vague themes of ‘strong leadership’ and the nations ‘strong commitment’. What is that supposed to mean anyway?
I don't necessarily give more weight to the words of DTOM because he's living a lousy reality the rest of us can only discuss in abstract theory, but I sure can't give it any less.
I nominate Seamus' post in When does regulation = socialism?, And laws = nanny state?
I nominate This post by moif for 'most convincing post.'
c
c
Over 6 months old, yet ageless...I nominate Eeyore's post here: What Makes an American and American?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.