Accusing your opponents of being paid operatives

[LoZoccolo]

is a way of avoiding actual arguing with them as is therefore lame la-la lame la lame lame la lame.

[AllentownJake]

1. As is accusing people of teaming with Tea Baggers

wanting a Palin Presidency, or any of the other bullshit we spew. Things would be better if everyone starts to take the temperature down.

[Deep13]

2. If there is a real basis for the claim, then it does undermine ...

...the credibility of ones opponent. I think it is perfectly fair to point out that the loudest critics of health care reform happen to be in the employment of the insurance companies. Same with "scientists" who deny global warming tend to work for oil and coal companies.

[TZ]

10. Well a person can work in the industry

And be a legitimate critic/supporter. Take me, I work for Big Pharma according to the gospel of DU I should be opposed to HCR. And I think you know I'm not. FWiW I believe the OP is talking about discussions on DU. And having been called a shill more than a few times, I agree with the OP 100%.

[Deep13]

23. I think one problem is that these allegations are made with no basis in fact.

And you are not "Big Pharma's" official spokeswoman. Look, I'm not dumping on anyone here, but the simple fact is that self interest can lead to bias which is a reason to question credibility. If someone draws a paycheck specifically for the purpose of promoting someone's interests, then that really undermines credibility. There is a difference between pointing out bias or even reason to lie and making an ad hominem argument. You are probably more reliable than most on questions of pharmaceuticals because of where you work. Anyway, it certainly puts you way ahead of proponents of quack "theories."

[evan2]

3. Those posts get deleted.

Now, you can argue that not allowing people to conjecture that there might be those whose reason for saying what they do is based
on them having a professional duty or even a partisan duty maybe should be allowed, but this is NOT a free speech zone. It's a
privately owned business. (might be a corp., I don't know)

[HughMoran]

42. They wouldn't have been deleted if I hadn't

pointed them out to the mods.

[Luminous Animal]

4. LoZoccolo (who I consider an opponent), is correct.

[evan2]

5. Those posts get deleted.

Now, you can argue that not allowing people to conjecture that there might be those whose reason for saying what they do is based
on them having a professional duty or even a partisan duty maybe should be allowed, but this is NOT a free speech zone. It's a
privately owned business. (might be a corp., I don't know)

[asdjrocky]

6. Have you ever had an op not unreced into oblivion?

[LoZoccolo]

9. No, because paid operatives are commanding a botnet army of unrecommenders. n/t

[asdjrocky]

13. You mean I could get paid for calling you on your bs?

Who do I send my resume to?

[Starry Messenger]

7. Are you saying you're a volunteer?

[IndianaGreen]

11. LMAO. He could be Rahm himself!

:rofl:

[AllentownJake]

41. Too few F words. nt.

[LoZoccolo]

14. The arguments I engage in generally boil down to these.

1. Pay attention to strategy rather than your emotions.
2. Participation in democracy requires work.
3. Question what politicians and activists promise is possible.

I don't see how this cannot be ones' sincere beliefs about politics.

[Starry Messenger]

21. That isn't what I asked.

You've claimed to work for the Party in Illinois. So do you work for pay or do you volunteer? I wasn't being sarcastic.

[LoZoccolo]

24. I'm a volunteer.

I don't work for the Democratic Party itself, though; rather, I think you're talking about me promoting Illinois Dem Net. The only real common denominator in that group is that you think Democrats are better than Republicans; it's neither "centrist" nor "progressive".

[Starry Messenger]

32. Thank you for your answer.

I was recalling a post you made about working on something with wyndycty, who I know has worked for the Party. I wasn't clear what the connection was.

[sabrina 1]

30. Accusing people who disagree with you of acting on emotion

with no proof whatsoever, rather than giving them credit for having thought through strategy and disagreeing with for good reasons, (such as ~ is it good strategy for a party to tell their base they intend to ignore them) doesn't contribute much to the discussion either.

If you're going to complain about people falsely accusing you of something you are not, which is a legitimate complaint, then you are expected to act towards others the way you believe you should be treated.

[LoZoccolo]

33. If I argue about strategy, I generally lay mine on the table for scrutiny. n/t

[sabrina 1]

34. And by that statement you're implying that others don't.

That's what I meant. There can't be a real discussion if you accuse others of not acting in good faith. I say what I mean also, and usually back it up with links or whatever is necessary to demonstrate how I came to the conlusions I came to. If someone still disagrees, well that's fine with me.

People disagreeing with you doesn't equate to them being 'emotional' or 'irrational'. It just means they don't agree. Sometimes if you do it right, and the person has an open mind, you can persuade them to see your pov. And sometimes you are just wrong, or they are wrong. But accusing people of being stupid, or emotional or whatever, will never win you any points at all. Even if you're right.

[LoZoccolo]

40. Many times I can't get people to explain how what they're doing will yield results.

If you catch me making an unfounded accusation, feel free to point it out.

[sabrina 1]

43. I think you just have a different way of looking at things

than many other people here. I don't know what you are referring to so I can't comment on why people won't back up what they say. Maybe it's just that there are times when people simply cannot agree on something and it's better to move on.

I probably would point it out, as I'm sure you'd point it out to me if I made an unfounded accusation. But I know I would do it without calling you an idiot, or any other name. I know that is a losing strategy so I try to avoid it.

Anyhow, I do agree with your point in the OP fwiw.

[BeHereNow]

26. ROTFL!!! Beat me to it. n/t

bhn

[Junkdrawer]

8. If it's getting THAT obvious...

someone needs better operatives.

[Bluebear]

12. Who on earth would think someone would pay you?

[LoZoccolo]

15. You have actually given the best argument so far. n/t

[asdjrocky]

16. +1

[flvegan]

17. Seriously. A refund would be in order.

[freddie mertz]

20. LOL x 50000000000!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :spray: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot: :patriot:

[freddie mertz]

18. Who paid you to post that?

Just kidding.

:rofl: :patriot: :hide: :nuke:

[Posteritatis]

19. Only a paid operative would say such a thing!

;)

[ret5hd]

22. Dooga dooga dooga dooga dooga?

[Nikki Stone1]

25. Only a paid operative would post a thread like this.

:)

[G_j]

28. only a bad paid operative, get smart?

figured I'd give it a rec out of sympathy

[Nikki Stone1]

29. LOL!

You soft hearted guy, you. ;)

[el_bryanto]

27. Yeah but what you don't take into a ccount is how much easier it is than arguing with them

I mean it takes a fraction of the time - and who's to say what's right these days, what with all our modern ideas...and products?

Bryant

[varelse]

31. It's against the rules to do that on DU (nt)

[Warren Stupidity]

35. Splinterist!

[azmouse]

36. Plus one million!

Or + 1,000,000!



:hi:

[rucky]

37. Alright, how much did they pay you to say that?

:evilgrin:

[HuckleB]

38. Exactly.

[Political Heretic]

39. I COMPLETELY AGREE. Those are the dumbest responses I've ever read.

We often disagree right? I don't remember but I agree with you completely here.

[mmonk]

44. It's why I don't accuse anyone of it if I don't know.

I debate straight up.

[phasma ex machina]

45. +1 K&R