UN Bias Hurts The World

[Curiosity]

Surely it would be better for you to keep your religion, your girlfriend to keep hers, and let your children decide when they come of age what they want to be.

That's the thing, she doesn't really have any religious beliefs. She was a staunch atheist, but that was before I got my hands on her. The rubbing off thing works both ways...

I do have one little niggling issue. "Right beliefs", I hope that is "Right beliefs in relation to the Jewish belief system" rather then "My beliefs are right and you are all wrong."

Yes, I did mean the right beliefs in my view.

[Curiosity]

There were some seriously delicious bits of irony in that long piece on why sbm is so great (written by himself). My choice pieces are:

My idea is to stay as close to the facts as I can.

You were proven to be lying about your 'facts' mere days ago...

This is of course hard, but I think it is worth trying to look at what the actual facts of any matter are and them make the conclusions from there, as opposed to making a conclusion and then finding facts to support it

Except that's not what you did a couple of days ago! You made a baseless assertion with no actual basis in fact of any sort and then tried to back it up any way you could, including numerous barefaced lies. You claimed to have a source. You had no source. You claimed that you had checked all the evidence and found the 'least contrived'. You obviously hadn't done that. When every piece of available evidence contradicted you, you stood there and tried to absolve yourself by claiming you had limited your comments very specifically. You hadn't limited them, they showed that themselves.

And now you have the unmitigated gall to stand up and claim that you use facts and make conclusions based on them?

I tend to use a rather Socratic method in many of my arguments,

I've commented before on the validity of using methods of philosophical debate in debates that are rarely philosophical. I commented on the removal of context, situation and other vital factors, which don't exist in philosophical debate. Philosophical debate looks at everything devoid of context and situation. Global geopolitics doesn't work that way.

This can be a messy approach at times, but in the end it generally produces the clearest picture of a person's views.

Not really. I find it produces accusations from you of 'double standards' and 'contradictions', once again after the removal of context and situation from the issue. It also leads you to make insane and insulting comparisons.

I also check facts. This applies firstly to my own facts, but more interestingly to the facts other people provide.

So why did you mess up so badly on abortion? Did you forget to check your facts? And if you did, why couldn't you admit that?

In verbal debates such checking is impossible, so people can make up "facts" or use unreliable or biased sources with impunity (which is one reason verbal debates have become virtually pointless).

In your view. My contention is that the crappy tactics you use would never ever stand up in a verbal debate and that's why you dislike them. By the way, they still verbally debate things in political chambers around the world.

I also don't take absolute positions on things, for instance I am not easily labeled pro-Israel, nor am I easily labeled anti-Israel (I am sure someone may object to that).

Well, that's funny. I distinctly remember you "easily labeling" yourself 'pro-Israel' on a number of occasions, including very recently claiming that you "support Israel". Then I pointed out how cheap your words were and how they really didn't seem to fit with what you said and how supporting a country's right to exist is not supporting a country. Now apparently you aren't easily labelled and aren't either. So if you're not easily labelled why did you easily label yourself up until so recently?

[Banker]

What you hate peace, charity, and the idea of eternal life in paradise. . . Seems like an odd thing to hate. . .

While "Semite" generally refers to the Semitic people, the term anti-Semitism can go both ways. This is largely due to the fact that it is hard to seperate the racial idea of a Jew and the religious idea of a Jew, they are nearly always one and the same (though there are a fair number of Jews who are not of Semitic blood).

This is in much the same way that Anglo-American also implies Christian and Arab implies Muslim.

Peace?
Go read the old testament, the foundation for all of those religions, it talks about slaughter of other people, animals, children, pregnant women etc and war with other people, not peace..
Think that changed with Jesus maybe?
Think again;

"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34 NIV)

As for the other 2, Jews only have the O.T, and Muslims have their own views that are are quite similiar to O.T, most of it is pretty much just a copy of it.

Also, its cause of Christianity we had witch processes, Crusades etc, and every year a few nutcases that kills some people while "driving out demons" or whatever, and Judaism is a big reason the Israelites keep opressing the palestinans, while Islam is the reason most of the arab countries are under-developed and some people there keep blowing themselfs and others up. Not to mention all 3 religions feel they have a right to jam their beliefs down your throat.

And charity? The rich's way to ease their concience, if you want to do something for the poor people, there is only one real solid solution; social reforms and the west got to stop dicking over and plundering the poor countries (and they have to get a new form of leadership.) Charity is just a temporary solution that everyone dont benefit from and it exists mostly to ease the concience of those who donate.

Eternal life...?
Every religion has some kind of idea of it, if you think those 3 religions invented that then you need to study these things more, no offense.

And last, Anglo-American and Arab.. I dont know about Anglo-American, but there is a good deal of Arabs that are Christian, to think every arab is a muslim is just prejudice, no matter if its common to think that or not.

[Banker]

Oh, and btw..

Does it seem to anyone else that Curiosity is taking all the criticisms people have of him and throwing them at others? It just strikes me a very, very funny.

Yep..

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Curiosity: I don't have any real coments to make on the post about the food issues. I have provided the report, you can read it or not. I honestly don't care eitherway. Some of your statements don't even seem to be talking about the same things, so I don't know what to make of them. Again I was simply providing data to shed some light on the situation. I have no interest in trying to convince you of anything. I just thought others might be interested.

There were some seriously delicious bits of irony in that long piece on why sbm is so great (written by himself). My choice pieces are:

My idea is to stay as close to the facts as I can.

You were proven to be lying about your 'facts' mere days ago...

First off, your use of "proof" is highly selective. What you did was nothing resembling "proof". You took a statement out of context and have not listened at all to my explanation of where it came from. It was a very selective count of abortions (only those late term abortions that could be taken as killing a child, as opposed to a bunch of cells). In fact anything I say, you automatically assume is a lie. While I don't like you nor do I like your style or debate (if you can even call it that), I at least listen to what you say and don't assume everything you say is a lie. A lie implies prior knowledge that what you are saying is false. I have never lied in any of my posts. I never post anything I know to be false.

Except that's not what you did a couple of days ago! You made a baseless assertion with no actual basis in fact of any sort and then tried to back it up any way you could, including numerous barefaced lies. You claimed to have a source. You had no source. You claimed that you had checked all the evidence and found the 'least contrived'. You obviously hadn't done that. When every piece of available evidence contradicted you, you stood there and tried to absolve yourself by claiming you had limited your comments very specifically. You hadn't limited them, they showed that themselves.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. . . abortion? If it is that, that was weeks ago. . . and I have explained that more than I feel is necessary.

And how on earth do you know if I have or don't have a source. You act like you are some kind of omniscient being. That is simply stupid and is in very bad taste. If you wanted to talk about that, it should have been in the relevant topic. Not here where no one cares and it is totally out of context (and you claim I am the one taking things out of context).

Not really. I find it produces accusations from you of 'double standards' and 'contradictions', once again after the removal of context and situation from the issue. It also leads you to make insane and insulting comparisons.

That's like when you compare me to a mass murderer is it?

The 'double standards' and 'contradictions' are exactly what I am looking for, so it seems you agree with me that the method is successful. If there are contextual issues then they should be able to be explained, most of the time however this so called "context" is simply an excuse for a hypocritical argument.

I take a very scientific view in this respect. In science we are always trying to find the "univeral theories". That is we are trying to find the ideas that explain large numbers of phenomena. We start out explaining individual phenomena (like the planets' motion, and the falling of an apple). Then we move on to a unifying theory that explains both the planets and the apple (even though they obviously have very different contexts). This would be the "Theory of Gravity" for example. Then we try to find a theory that will explain even more phenomena, such as the "Theory of Relativity". This is how I feel philosophy (which is really what we are generally discussing here) should also progress (for each individual, academic philosophy is a bit different). If I find I am making a exception for one specific situation because it does not fit my overall view I begin to question it. If I find myself doing something I criticize in others I take a very hard look at my justifications. If I still feel I am justified then I also have to accept others might also have valid justifications for taking that particular action and must allow them to do so as well. I think this is really the best way to keep contradictions out of your world view.

In your view. My contention is that the crappy tactics you use would never ever stand up in a verbal debate and that's why you dislike them. By the way, they still verbally debate things in political chambers around the world.

I am actually very good at verbal debates as well (if debate teams and such are any indication), but I don't like the rather shallow nature of them. Also if you look at these "verbal debates" in political chambers around the world, they are generally not all that interesting. In the US for example they generally consist of a senator making a speach to an empty senate chamber, then a day or so later someone making a rebuttle again to an empty chamber. In the UK the PM's Questions session is rather close to a real debate, but the PM always has a huge binder of facts and figures ready to be cited if need be and the MPs generally just ask one question which has been pre-prepared. Even so the verbal debates never reach the level of depth that a written debate can.

Well, that's funny. I distinctly remember you "easily labeling" yourself 'pro-Israel' on a number of occasions, including very recently claiming that you "support Israel". Then I pointed out how cheap your words were and how they really didn't seem to fit with what you said and how supporting a country's right to exist is not supporting a country. Now apparently you aren't easily labelled and aren't either. So if you're not easily labelled why did you easily label yourself up until so recently?

No, that is certainly true. I do label myself pro-Israel and pro-American, however those are not in my mind absolute terms. However many people use them as absolute terms. Many people believe pro-American people should never utter a word against the US. My point is as I state later on that I don't have a blind and unwavering devotion to any state or ideology that keeps me from being critical of it.



Banker: You seem to be taking a rather selective look at the religious texts and also seem to be equating the poor judgement of men (the Crusades, etc) with the religions themselves. The Bible is certainly full of death, but that is largely a product of the time it was written. The core religious sections are quite peaceful.

[Curiosity]

First off, your use of "proof" is highly selective. What you did was nothing resembling "proof".

It resembled something that you could no longer deny and piles of evidence that you had deliberately and repeatedly lied. It resembled proof that your statements were false and you were trying to hide it. Your lack of admission does not weaken that.

You took a statement out of context and have not listened at all to my explanation of where it came from.

Hehe. I took the original statement you made. Then, instead of letting you switch it about and change it and qualify it away to clear yourself, I maintained your original statement in my critique. I see no problem with that. Seeing as you claim to always check your facts, surely every statement you make should be factually accurate without needing to be adapted and changed three times. Because you were not 'explaining' it, you were changing it.

Shall we see your changing comments:

1:

There have been less than 1 million abortions ever reported worldwide. Certainly there are a lot of unreported abortions, but I still think it is a stretch to say millions of deaths can be atributed to abortions. Then there is the whole when does a collection of cells become life debate.

In this quote, we see you claim there have been less than a million abortions reported ever. That is not true. There have been 10s of millions if not hundreds. In the post, you separate out the 'collection of cells become life' issue from your claim.

2:

Yeah, I do not include the morning after pill in the numbers I gave (only what I would call medical and surgical abortions are counted).

You discounted the morning after pill, but maintained that surgical and medical abortions counted. The rest of your post was about the morning after pill and you said "Even most anti-abortion people don't consider morning after pills as a real abortion (though many do)." The statistics I provided had not included the morning after pill which was the excuse you used to explain away the difference.

3:

It was a very selective count of abortions (only those late term abortions that could be taken as killing a child, as opposed to a bunch of cells).

Funnily enough, in your first post you had separated out the whole question of timing from your claims. Neither of your first two posts said that you were discounting all except 'late term' abortions. You singularly failed to say that. For all intents and purposes, this is an all new claim.

Summay:
First you simply said 'abortions', then you said 'surgical and medical abortions', and now you say 'late term surgical and medical abortions'. If I had dramatically changed my ground and switched and altered what I said, you would be calling me on it.

In fact anything I say, you automatically assume is a lie.

I let you get away with unqualified assertions in the past, because I believed they were so easy to prove one way or the other that no-one would bother lying. I have now seen the error of my ways.

A lie implies prior knowledge that what you are saying is false. I have never lied in any of my posts. I never post anything I know to be false.

Oh please...
I took a statement you made and showed you it was entirely false. You then lied repeatedly claiming you had found sources and such and never produced a single source. You claimed you were talking only about surgical and medical abortions. When I pointed out that there were still millions upon millions more than you said, you changed your tune again, for the third time. Your definition of 'abortion' has now changed for about the 3rd time in one debate and no longer fits any definition of anyone else.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. . . abortion? If it is that, that was weeks ago. . . and I have explained that more than I feel is necessary.

More than you feel necessary. Please, you're a liar, you should admit as much.

And how on earth do you know if I have or don't have a source.

Becuase you claimed to have it, I asked you to find it in the strongest terms (almost begging) and you refused. At the same time, I can find no source that comes even close to saying what you claimed. I have not a shred of evidence you having a source, so why am I supposed to believe you do? Your word is cheap.

If you wanted to talk about that, it should have been in the relevant topic. Not here where no one cares and it is totally out of context (and you claim I am the one taking things out of context).

I accused you of being a liar where I found it appropriate and provided evidence where I thought it appropriate. You have not managed to demonstrate a single one of my points to be false.

That's like when you compare me to a mass murderer is it?

*giggles*

Sorry, ME compare YOU to a mass murderer?

Hitler, Bin Laden, Curiosity.

But nice manipulation there, it's a usual tactic, you try to trick people in to believing your asserions and rely on them not remembering or knowing. Unfortunately, I have a very long and very good memory, and I can remember what you called me, where you called me it and I can find it again. Your low deceit doesn't work always...

If there are contextual issues then they should be able to be explained, most of the time however this so called "context" is simply an excuse for a hypocritical argument.

Wow. So you deny that there's valid context and situation in world political situations that can be used? You know someone is talking shit when they start putting "context" in quotation marks, as if it's some concept that is only claimed to exist.
Nice.

In the UK the PM's Questions session is rather close to a real debate, but the PM always has a huge binder of facts and figures ready to be cited if need be and the MPs generally just ask one question which has been pre-prepared.

Ever watched PMQs? Because I think you'll find that a hostile pre-prepared question is regularly followed by supplementaries, which are unseen. Indeed, the PM does not know the precise issues that the Opposition leader in particular might raise, him and his staff can only guess.
Frequently during Hague's tenure as Conservative leader, Blair got his ass handed to him at PMQs despite his big file.

No, that is certainly true. I do label myself pro-Israel and pro-American, however those are not in my mind absolute terms. However many people use them as absolute terms.

You labelled yourself pro-Israel and then later said you could not easily be labelled pro-Israel or anti-Israel and then you labelled yourself pro-Israel again! Are you schizophrenic or really confused?
And they may not be absolute terms, but just because you don't think Israel should be destroyed and it's inhabitants driven in to the sea, does not make you 'pro-Israel' in any shape or form. Your evidence to back up your proclaimed 'pro-Israel' stance is virtually non-existent.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

It resembled something that you could no longer deny and piles of evidence that you had deliberately and repeatedly lied. Your lack of admission does not weaken that.

You provided figures that were not measuring the same thing the ones I gave were. I have tried to explain to you that the figures I gave were a very limited count of abortions (those in which a being resembling a human baby were killed, as per the statement it was in reference to). I made the statement and cited the figures as a trivial aside (much like a spelling correction). It was not part of any larger discussion and so I didn't feel the need to provide much in the way of documentation. I'm sorry if that somehow rubbed you the wrong way, but you now seem obsessed with something that was rather trivial. If you take "abortion" at the dictionary definition there have been I would guess half a billion to a billion abortions carried out in the last 50 years worldwide. However the vast majority of those are early in the first trimester and involve simply sucking out a small collection of cells (an early fetus). The survey I cited only counted specific late term abortions. I believe the criteria was that the fetus could have been born in a certain time period with a significant chance of survival (that is it took an actual surgery to remove the fetus). I probably should have worded my post there better, but I posted it as a throw-away and did not feel it would go anywhere.

You took a statement out of context and have not listened at all to my explanation of where it came from.

Hehe. I took the original statement you made. Then, instead of letting you switch it about and change it and qualify it away to clear yourself, I maintained your original statement in my critique. I see no problem with that. Seeing as you claim to always check your facts, surely every statement you make should be factually accurate without needing to be adapted and changed three times.

It was factually accurate given what fact it was representing. You continue to misrepresent what it was trying to represent. And this is about as out of context as it gets, you have hijacked this thread with a argument about a post that was made months(?) ago.

Just stop lying! It was not limited to 'late term' in any way. First you simply said 'abortions', then you said 'surgical and medical abortions', and now you say 'late term surgical and medical abortions'. If I had dramatically changed my ground and switched and altered what I said, you would be calling me on it.

That's what the survey I quoted was measuring. I am sorry if you don't believe that, but well that is quite frankly your problem.

Oh please...
I took a statement you made and showed you it was entirely false.

But you didn't. You have never even understood what my initial statement was refering to. . .

You then lied repeatedly claiming you had found sources and such and never produced a single source.

That is because I don't feel I need to take the time to hunt back over the web to find a source I used a long time ago. I would have provided it at the time if you would have asked, but now it would take more work to track it down that I feel you deserve.

You have not managed to demonstrate a single one of my points to be false.

Heh, that's funny. . .

That's like when you compare me to a mass murderer is it?

*giggles*

Sorry, ME compare YOU to a mass murderer?[/quote]

Yes, they may "seem" to be a lot of things, but that does a very convenient job of hiding what they really are. A cover of respectability can let you get away with virtually anything. Any mass-murdering doctor will tell you that.

I seem to recall you were the one saying 'Hitler, Osama bin Laden, Curiosity'. But nice manipulation there, it's a usual tactic.

Yes, I did. I stand by those comparisons. You're "foaming at the mouth" style (which you have admitted in this very topic to) is very similar to Hitler and bin Laden.

If there are contextual issues then they should be able to be explained, most of the time however this so called "context" is simply an excuse for a hypocritical argument.

Wow. So you deny that there's valid context and situation in world political situations that can be used? You know someone is talking shit when they start putting "context" in quotation marks, as if it's some concept that is only claimed to exist.
Nice.

I said no such thing, and any 5 year old could see that. I put "context" in quotes because what is often cited as "context" does not change the meaning or significance of the situation, thus is not actually "context". It is as if you have two balls and one is red and one is blue. If I say "hey there are two balls," then someone says, "No there aren't. That red one may be a ball but that blue thing definitely isn't. See its blue! The context is totally different!" the use of context here is totally erroneous. That is what I feel happens in a lot of these discussions.

Ever watched PMQs? Because I think you'll find that a hostile pre-prepared question is regularly followed by supplementaries, which are unseen. Indeed, the PM does not know the precise issues that the Opposition leader in particular might raise, him and his staff can only guess.

I make a point of watching the PM Questions as often as I can. I do so on CSPAN which shows them live in their entirety. Sometimes there are follow-ups, but often not and they are rarely all that substantive.

You labelled yourself pro-Israel and then later said you could not easily be labelled pro-Israel or anti-Israel and then you labelled yourself pro-Israel again! Are you schizophrenic or really confused?

I am tired of this. You are simply being an ass. You have nothing substantive to say so you are back to playing semantics. The meaning of my statement was clear, either address the statement or don't, but this sort of babble is simply stupid.

[Montyphy]

Stewsburntmonkey, I think you made a slight error in some of your quotes....

[Curiosity]

Confusion is most definitely your most trusted ally...

You will confuse the issue until no-one can tell what the hell is happening. This is why I repeat and push on, because otherwise you swamp it and hide your lies, deception and falsehoods in the mess.

There have been less than 1 million abortions ever reported worldwide.

That is simply not true, looked at any way or from any viewpoint or in any regular context.

The only way it could possibly be considered to be accurate is if your definition of 'abortion' is different to everyone elses definition of 'abortion'.

The dictionary definition of abortion is:

1. Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.
2. Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion.

Which completely backs up the contention that there are many many millions of abortions reported. Unless you have a brand new definition of your own, then your claim was wrong and a falsehood.

And this is making the issue simple again. The mountain of lies and deception and excuses you have produced in your defence is still present and documented in this topic.

In many ways, the lies you produced along the way are even more damning:

No, actually I looked up a survey of worldwide abortions and found the one that looked the least contrived.

So, if you did that to come up with your figure on abortions, then why have you recently changed tack to claim that you meant something different all along?

Most figures say there are less that 1.35 million total abortions in the US every year, so your figures are suspect to say the least.

You continually and deliberately defended your initial claim. If all along I had been talking about the wrong thing (as you now contest), why were defences of the nature shown above used by you before you switch to your newest defence tactic?

It seems that after your first wave of excuses was shown to be wrong and full of lies, you've moved on to a new confusing wave of excuses and deception, designed to hide all evidence once again.

You had sunk yourself in to a big hole and you saw it. If you acknowledged you had got your first statements wrong, you'd have to acknowledge you'd been lying all along to cover it. So now you are trying to show that someone is arguing the wrong point and I "don't understand". I do understand. I know your game.

I showed precisely what you said in my previous post in all its contextual glory. You can't say I don't understand.

-----

Amusing how you accused me of comparing you to a mass murderer with this:

Yes, they may "seem" to be a lot of things, but that does a very convenient job of hiding what they really are. A cover of respectability can let you get away with virtually anything. Any mass-murdering doctor will tell you that.

I said that any mass-murdering doctor would tell you something, the comparison between you and the mass-murderer is at most (read some ways) deeply implicit and at least (read other ways) non-existent.

You on the other hand said:

Hitler, Bin Laden, Curiosity.

Compared to your juxtaposing my name with mass-murdering genocidal maniacs, my comparison is incredibly weak and tame.

And yet you raise it still as some sort of point against me? What the hell does that gain you?

-----

I'm not going to tackle your confusing example of what constitutes context. You still, through your very technique, pay far less heed to context and situation than is needed. You have got to learn that we are not arguing philosopical theory but political reality.

-----

And how is pointing out your changing position 'playing semantics'?
I asked for clarification.
You said you were pro-Israel then said you weren't easily labelled pro-Israel then labelled yourself as pro-Israel again!
I point this out and suddenly I'm 'playing semantics'.
And I did address the statement, I said that the evidence for you being "pro-Israel" is decidedly sketchy.

[Curiosity]

I tend to use a rather Socratic method in many of my arguments

I decided to look up in more detail exactly what constitutes the socratic method. Once you get through all the stuff about the socratic educational method and lots of monty python references, you can hit on some very interesting things, like this article about the term 'Socratic':

"Usually used to describe a particular form of philosophical debate or educational technique, in which a person makes her/his point by asking questions rather than supplying answers. Refers to the Greek philosopher Socrates.

Socrates taught that all knowledge was contingent and should be relied upon only so long as it could survive the challenge of reason. When debating with people, he would encourage them to put their positions as clearly as possible, and then ask questions aimed at establishing whether the point of view being articulated was internally consistent. In the process of supplying answers, his interlocutors would come to understand the weaknesses of their arguments and, at least in the accounts of these debates left by Socrates' pupils (especially Plato), change their minds.

A style popular among eccentric teachers, and relied upon at richer universities, this debating style is an effective way to win almost any argument with someone whose cognitive reasoning is slower than your own. That does not mean that someone else couldn't make Socratic mincemeat out of your views. The fact that a Socratic argument tends to lead to obvious victory for the questioner and frustrated embarrassment for the questionee makes it a style to be used with caution if you wish to win friends. Remember that Socrates was executed."

So, all along you've been using a technique that is "an effective way to win almost any argument" and then you insult my intelligence and accuse me of all sorts of things based on this technique, which you are deploying in the wrong place anyway. Maybe if I switched to the Socratic method, I'd have more success against you, apparently my straightforward approach to political argument and debate is not something that can be employed with someone who insists on using a mis-placed Socratic methods...

Maybe if you descended from your plateau of 'eccentric professors' and engaged on real terms it'd all be far more interesting and worthwhile. Anyway, when engaging in philosophical discussion, contradictions are clear and wrong. However in political discussion, what may seem like a contradiction can hinge on incredibly complex real-world issues, nuances and contexts. So you are using a crap technique considering what we discuss.

You are not Socrates, we are not your pupils, we are not debating philosophical abstract concepts. Get. Over. It.

[doormat]

Haven't we been here before?

[Curiosity]

Maybe! But I hadn't found such interesting materials then!

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Yeah, this yet again old stuff. There is still no logical reason to exclude the Socratic method from these discussions. If there real contextual differences then you should be able to explain them.

[Curiosity]

Except for the fact that the Socratic method is basically designed for philosophical debate in which there are no contexts or constraints, and is seemingly used for the main purpose of destroying argument. That makes it a very detrimental tool for political debate, as far from encouraging views, discussion and solutions on specific, contextualised, nuanced situations, it stifles and attacks viewpoints. From any outlook, something that does that in a political debate is not a good thing and should be treated cautiously. Actually, it's not a 'tool', it's more like a 'weapon'. If you want to have real discussions, then why use a destructive weapon so constantly and unflinchingly and as your main method? Do you think it's appropriate? It sure as hell doesn't seem so.
I don't think I should be making a case for you not to use the Socratic method and for it to be 'excluded'. I think you should be trying to explain why you are mis-using a philosophical debating device that exists mainly to stifle and destroy argument.
You have claimed numerous times that you like political argument etc. so why do you advocate the use of a device that stifles it and gets in the way dramatically? The simple answer I can see is that you must be so concerned about 'winning' that you don't care about the actual issues at hand or the argument in itself. You want to put down the opposition and malign their views, you have no real interest in them. You aren't Socrates, you aren't going to make people go away and change their views, because these are not philosophical issues, these are political issues where people have strongly held views. You just send them away irritated and annoyed.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

I fail to see how it can't handle context or how it "stifles and attacks viewpoints" (whatever that is supposed to mean). I am also not misusing anything. I don't always use the Socratic Method, but I do employ it on many occasions. My methods are not designed to stifle argument, but to spotlight hypocrisy. I don't feel any need to explain that. If your arguments can't stand up under such questioning then it is a fault of your argument not the method of argument being employed.