So, this "Rules for Radicals" would apply to any side that first considers itself 'radical"? What if they aren't 'radicals', but merely disagree with your position?
There are plenty of books that I have read(e) which have premise that I don't agree with, but I wouldn't consider them 'radicals'.
Have you READ Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals?" It is considered by many to be the seminal work for ANY sort of activists--on the left, right, or way out. It is full of TONS of detailed info on grass-roots PR, psy-ops, and manipulation techniques for debate, discourse, and media interaction.
Alinsky is perhaps one of the most disgusting sorts of leftists--but the fact remains that this little book is indispensable for activists.
I recommend that ALL OC people read it--if for no other reason than to better understand how the "anti" media and "anti activists" like Brady and VPC use it's more unsavory techniques, and how to counter them.
We don't need to adopt ALL the techniques detailed in "RfR", but there are plenty of good ideas in this book that you can use and still have a clear conscience.
I'm not saying that anyone who uses this books tricks is a "radical", or is "bad"--quit the opposite. I'm saying that the techniques in this book are largely unknown outside of the very well-trained (or well-read) circles of hard-core dedicated activists and professional agent provocateurs (with the one exception being perhaps professionals in the PR field).
When an individual is stating their view on any particular issue there is not always a reason to cite anything, since, well, it is their view on the issue. For example, if I were to cite Bush II as part of my argument on a particular issue, how would citing Bush II validate, or legitimize my argument, and point of view any more than me simply concluding that my view is what it is based on what I feel is a rational, logical, reasonable examination of the totality of the issue at hand.
When an individual states that his POV is in line with the Law, and Court Rulings, but it is easily provable that he is lying, then they are no longer just stating an opinion. They are "appealing to authority", and when such a spuriously-attributed "fact" can be easily disproven, it should be not only corrected, but the promoter of that "fact" should rightly be chastised, and if they continue to do such things, they should be shunned and excluded from genuine debate and discussions.
At least that's how it works in academia. Since we are not just talking theory here--but matters of law, public policy, and historically verifiable precedents, I feel the same level of rigor should be applied to statements, assertions, and claims.
In other words, when people spew BS, and it is easy to prove as BS, the need to be called out--in fact calling them out is the DUTY of the members of this forum--much like it is the duty of the owners of the forum to expel trolls and spammers...
Humans are emotional beings. What exactly do you consider "proper logical debate techniques." I think that individuals should be open to consider what responders have to say, and you either agree, or disagree. So, you quote them, and follow with a "+1," or "I do not agree, and this is why...."
"Proper logical debate" means not using logical fallacies as a primary debating tactic. It means citing to authority when you make claims of law, history, or court precedent. It means not using ad hominem attacks when people call you out on such behavior, or prove your facts to be patently false.
This isn't rocket science, folks. Get to a library and check out a copy of Irving Copi's "Introduction to Logic". It is an indispensable guide to logic and rhetorical theory and practice.
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-Irving-M-Copi/dp/0130102024
The term "troll" has run its course. As I stated before, you either agree with an individual or disagree. This is a forum where we have discussions about a broad range of issues that affect all of us.
This isn't about disagreeing with a personal belief--its about someone who, as a RULE uses ad hominem attacks, routinely breaks Forum Rules in response to being called out for his bad behavior, refuses to offer any cites to his claims, and makes "tin-foil hat" accusations against anyone who CAN cite reliable sources in refutation of his bogus and erroneous claims.
When will the Mods do something about this guy? He is disruptive, he routinely breaks Forum Rules, and he refuses to cite authority when he makes his "appeal to authority" claims.
Please. Mods and Owners, we're begging you. Do something about "j4l".
He is NOT one of "us"...