Why Are Liberals So Condescending?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Krugman is committing a logical fallacy, but not in a particularly condescending tone. He's basically combining limited intelligence and red-handed lying into a jointly exhaustive explanation for the editorial assertion. This, of course, is discrediting the possibilities that 1) the editorials are right, or (more likely) 2) the editorials are the columnist's attempt at a poorly supported conspiracy theory.

With all due respect Krugman explicitly stated "they’re not stupid" so your claim that he is implying they're stupid is not accurate.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

To suggest that 2) can only be caused only by limited intelligence or a flat lie and nothing in between is poor reasoning.

I am afraid this is a nonsensical statement. With respect making an assertion you either don't have your facts straight (ignorance/limited intelligence) or you're purposefully misleading (lying). The Law of Excluded Middle applies to such assertions and so there is nothing in-between the two. Please enlighten us as to what this in-between could possibly be.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think the author's point is that Krugman is condescending because he's not giving the necessary evaluation to properly discredit 1) ("this is par for the course for WSJ, so of course it's wrong"), although I believe that's a stretch by the author.

WSJ emphatically stated that the election was stole while in the paragraph above stating that there were provisional ballots that weren't counted. The notion that the election was stolen is simply not true and Krugman said as much though not explicitly. Rossi twice lost in court and if he was in the same position he would have done the same exact thing Gregoire did. Ditto for Coleman.

BTW, Krugman is an opinion guy as are WSJ editorial people. They are paid to give their poinions and it's up to the reader to decern opinion from fact.

[Trample the Elderly]

Want some snow Saden? You can have all of mine.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Want some snow Saden? You can have all of mine.

TTL, I didn't know you did drugs. Thanks but I'm going to have to decline your offer. Hard drugs are haraam.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by saden1

TTL, I didn't know you did drugs. Thanks but I'm going to have to decline your offer. Hard drugs are haraam.

Oh, that must be Left Coast thing. Here in VA we call Cocaine, cocaine. I'm talking about all of this snow. We have more than our fair share. You might say we're, "snow rich"! I would like to redistribute my snow wealth to all of you lovely people in Seattle.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Oh, that must be Left Coast thing. Here in VA we call Cocaine, cocaine. I'm talking about all of this snow. We have more than our fair share. You might say we're, "snow rich"! I would like to redistribute my snow wealth to all of you lovely people in Seattle.

It depends on what snowfall bracket you're in on what percentage you get to redistribute. We've also got to consider your snowfall exemptions/deductions; How fast did your snow get plowed? Did it get plowed at all? Did you use any for snowmen (oops snow-persons), snowballs? Did you make any snow angels? Do you have any dependent snow angels? Do you intend on long-term storage/freezing of any snow in case global warming melts the ice caps?

[budw38]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

It depends on what snowfall bracket you're in on what percentage you get to redistribute. We've also got to consider your snowfall exemptions/deductions; How fast did your snow get plowed? Did it get plowed at all? Did you use any for snowmen (oops snow-persons), snowballs? Did you make any snow angels? Do you have any dependent snow angels? Do you intend on long-term storage/freezing of any snow in case global warming melts the ice caps?

Funny . You know .... if we make snow angels we also have to make snow devils . If my snowman melts 20% over the weekend , I hope to be able to deduct it on my W-2 I would love to see Al Gore shoveling all of this snow preaching global warming " the sky is falling " ; "the sky is falling"

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by budw38

Funny . You know .... if we make snow angels we also have to make snow devils . If my snowman melts 20% over the weekend , I hope to be able to deduct it on my W-2 I would love to see Al Gore shoveling all of this snow preaching global warming " the sky is falling " ; "the sky is falling"

Global Warming Causes Stratospheric Cooling : Weather Underground

this is why liberals are condescending :p

[mlmdub130]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

It depends on what snowfall bracket you're in on what percentage you get to redistribute. We've also got to consider your snowfall exemptions/deductions; How fast did your snow get plowed? Did it get plowed at all? Did you use any for snowmen (oops snow-persons), snowballs? Did you make any snow angels? Do you have any dependent snow angels? Do you intend on long-term storage/freezing of any snow in case global warming melts the ice caps?

i think we have the first nominee post of the year

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Oh, that must be Left Coast thing. Here in VA we call Cocaine, cocaine. I'm talking about all of this snow. We have more than our fair share. You might say we're, "snow rich"! I would like to redistribute my snow wealth to all of you lovely people in Seattle.

I probably shouldn't assume you're on drugs. My bad. We're rain and electricity rich in Seattle so we have no use for snow....thanks for the offer though. I may call on you if this global warming thing takes off and we have droughts.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by saden1

TTL, I didn't know you did drugs. Thanks but I'm going to have to decline your offer. Hard drugs are haraam.

lol good stuff

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by saden1

TTL, I didn't know you did drugs. Thanks but I'm going to have to decline your offer. Hard drugs are haraam.

Getting Semite religion now?

[The Goat]

[QUOTE

BTW, Krugman is an opinion guy as are WSJ editorial people. They are paid to give their poinions and it's up to the reader to decern opinion from fact.[/QUOTE]

Not to nitpick but calling Krugman an opinion guy, especially in the context of the WSJ jackasses, doesn't hold water. Krugman won the John Bates Clark when he was about 40 and now has a Nobel. His "opinions" are more informed than those of the actual news staff at the Journal, not to mention the goofballs working down the hall.

Krugman reminds me a lot of Stiglitz in that his practical intelligence, combined w/ the academic brilliance, makes for an extremely rare combination.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by The Goat

Not to nitpick but calling Krugman an opinion guy, especially in the context of the WSJ jackasses, doesn't hold water. Krugman won the John Bates Clark when he was about 40 and now has a Nobel. His "opinions" are more informed than those of the actual news staff at the Journal, not to mention the goofballs working down the hall.

Krugman reminds me a lot of Stiglitz in that his practical intelligence, combined w/ the academic brilliance, makes for an extremely rare combination.

Given Krugman's credentials his opinions should certainly have more weight but that doesn't excuse his audience from having to do their own fact check of what he has to say. Trust be verify, always.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by saden1

I am afraid this is a nonsensical statement. With respect making an assertion you either don't have your facts straight (ignorance/limited intelligence) or you're purposefully misleading (lying). The Law of Excluded Middle applies to such assertions and so there is nothing in-between the two. Please enlighten us as to what this in-between could possibly be.

Ignorance of the facts and limited intelligence have never been, and never will be, synonymous. Neither are ignorance and lying. By not even considering ignorance of the facts (or more likely, considering it, but ignoring it because it doesn't jive with the narrative he is trying to neatly write), it really does kill the rest of that part of his argument.

It's pretty clearly a logical fallacy, whether you want to see it that way or not.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Ignorance of the facts and limited intelligence have never been, and never will be, synonymous. Neither are ignorance and lying. .

And who is saying they are synonymous? There are two plausible reason why someone doesn't have their facts straight...they're ignorant (my word) of the facts or they are of limited intelligence (your words). As i have stated before Krugman doesn't think the people at WSJ are of limited intelligence.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

By not even considering ignorance of the facts (or more likely, considering it, but ignoring it because it doesn't jive with the narrative he is trying to neatly write), it really does kill the rest of that part of his argument.

Why would we assume WSJ people are ignorant? They have an army of fact-checkers at their disposal. If they are ignorant of facts WSJ has serious problem. Reading Krugman writing one should get the impression that he thinks they are a bunch of liars not idiots. Feel free to read the links in Kurgman's post, one of which refutes WSJ's claims with facts.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It's pretty clearly a logical fallacy, whether you want to see it that way or not.

At this point I'm inclined to believe you have no idea what you're talking about. You certainly haven't enlightened me and even worse, you've just gone in crazy loopy paths that leads to intellectual death. Anyone want to take a shot at explaining what GTripp0012 is trying to say?