25 Aug 16
Originally posted by KellyJayOf course. People who agree with me are paragons of human virtue, while those who disagree with me are subhuman animals. Why would you presume it could possibly be different?
Do you find you only like and defend people and policies that by name line
up with how you ID yourself? Do you find you can always find something
wrong with those that do not line up with the people and policies you
ID with?
25 Aug 16
1 edit
Originally posted by SuzianneTrue
How long have you been posting in these forums?
He may be the only one saying that (tongue-in-cheek I might add), but there are those here who post like they think that. Rampant narcissism is not unknown in these forums.
My wife told me about a meme that asked the question, I hope I'm quoting it correctly.
"Is truth how you define your politics, or does your politics define truth for you?"
Made me think is this why people always line up on the same sides they do, because
even before some arguments are made they know where they belong?
I'm sure we all would like to think we rely on just the facts of any point of discussion.
Since we can almost always pick who is going to argue with who here for as far back as I
can remember, I wonder if we just fill in the blanks without really listening and run to our
respective corners instead. Which is why we think "a lot" others are not really reading
posts instead think they can read minds and answer questions and assume things that
are not true. *Not accusing anyone of anything, not thinking of any one's name here*
I would have to think it is a sort coming I've done to others.
25 Aug 16
Originally posted by KellyJayI try my best to defend people and arguments that are truthful. Policies are a bit more difficult as they are often a matter of choice not truth. I do recognise however that bias does frequently affect my views on things and I am far more likely to criticise someone whose overall beliefs are significantly different from mine.
Do you find you only like and defend people and policies that by name line
up with how you ID yourself? Do you find you can always find something
wrong with those that do not line up with the people and policies you
ID with?
What I do not do, is outright lie to support a belief / political philosophy. Sadly, it seems there are a significant number of people who do think that extreme dishonesty in support of their belief / politics is not only acceptable, but they see it as the norm. In fact I would say that the rise of Trump is almost entirely due to acceptance of such behaviour.
25 Aug 16
Originally posted by KellyJaydepends how they disagree.
Do you find you only like and defend people and policies that by name line
up with how you ID yourself? Do you find you can always find something
wrong with those that do not line up with the people and policies you
ID with?
depends just how opposite their philosophy is.
i am opposed to murder. i can like those that make a good case in defense of capital punishment (i believe that is also murder). i rightfully dislike those that argue they should be allowed to murder whomever they please.
Originally posted by ZahlanziBut are your views on capital punishment a result of political party membership, or independently arrived at? Many people seem to start with the party position then argue themselves into agreeing with it, and the way they argue often shows that they are making it up as they go along.
i am opposed to murder. i can like those that make a good case in defense of capital punishment (i believe that is also murder). i rightfully dislike those that argue they should be allowed to murder whomever they please.
25 Aug 16
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead"But are your views on capital punishment a result of political party membership, or independently arrived at?"
But are your views on capital punishment a result of political party membership, or independently arrived at? Many people seem to start with the party position then argue themselves into agreeing with it, and the way they argue often shows that they are making it up as they go along.
there is no "independent" opinion. ultimately, something influences you. you are asking if i have the intellect to understand my position or if i am a drone, unfit to think for myself. you will have to judge by how i defend my position.
"Many people seem to start with the party position then argue themselves into agreeing with it, and the way they argue often shows that they are making it up as they go along"
that's not what he asked.
25 Aug 16
Originally posted by KellyJayBut picking sides, as it seems one must do in politics, is a matter of adopting all that that side adopts as their platform. Most people who cannot go 'all in' for a party just remain Independent. So most people who do identify with a political party do 'believe' in that party's platform. They like to throw it back at each other that they are just "mindless clones", but that is hardly ever true.
True
My wife told me about a meme that asked the question, I hope I'm quoting it correctly.
"Is truth how you define your politics, or does your politics define truth for you?"
Made me think is this why people always line up on the same sides they do, because
even before some arguments are made they know where they belong?
I'm sure we all would lik ...[text shortened]... inking of any one's name here*
I would have to think it is a sort coming I've done to others.
But most people, especially in America, and especially those new to politics, do get their ideas of the parties from other politicians, often opposing party politicians. Too rare is the person who actually reads the party platforms.
26 Aug 16
2 edits
Originally posted by SuzianneI don't think you will find anyone who is all in on party platforms, but I do think if you see
But picking sides, as it seems one must do in politics, is a matter of adopting all that that side adopts as their platform. Most people who cannot go 'all in' for a party just remain Independent. So most people who do identify with a political party do 'believe' in that party's platform. They like to throw it back at each other that they are just "mindl ...[text shortened]... ften opposing party politicians. Too rare is the person who actually reads the party platforms.
a name in the paper for something done wrong seeing the markings behind that name will
either give us a joy or depression. We will easily accept the flaws announced by those of a
different party than we will accept them in our own. I believe we tend to fill in the blanks on
things said to us by both parties too, if it is our own those things we use to fill in the blanks
will be good and if it isn't those things will be bad.
I believe that when many Republicans hear Trump say make America great again they
think of all the things he didn't say and apply them to Trump's statement that they like,
and those of a different party also fill in the blanks with far less good things, but instead
questionable things. While at the same time in the same ways Hillary's supporters and
detractors will also do the same things.
It is much easier to dislike things you agree with if the wrong person says them too, or
like things you disagree with if the right person says them.
In my opinion.
26 Aug 16
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou went from hero to zero in three seconds flat.
I try my best to defend people and arguments that are truthful. Policies are a bit more difficult as they are often a matter of choice not truth. I do recognise however that bias does frequently affect my views on things and I am far more likely to criticise someone whose overall beliefs are significantly different from mine.
What I do not do, is outrigh ...[text shortened]... fact I would say that the rise of Trump is almost entirely due to acceptance of such behaviour.
While your platitudes outlined in the top half of your post are commendable, the bottom half slips into innuendo and clever inference--- essentially rendering your claims shallow.
"The rise of Trump" infers at least two baseless claims.
One, anyone supporting him does so with at least tacit approval, if not explicit collusion, of lying and/or an acceptance of a Machiavellian approach to power.
Two, the previous status of the political world was in contrast to the same.
While my personal observations of the political scene is brief in comparison to some herein, the last four decades have imparted some conclusions and general rules of thumb.
To wit: they all lie.
Even the presumed good ones.
Further, they all profit, no matter what.
Whether the US is harmed or advanced, whether the citizenry benefits or suffers loss, they all profit.
To my recollection, there was one serious candidate who stood out amongst all of them, who was decisively in stark contrast to 'politics as usual,' and that man was Ross Perot.
They ran him into the ground, threatened his family, essentially blew that candle out.
The field of candidates has and will always be: which flavor of liar do you prefer?
My first blush impression of Clinton over these forty years?
The absolute worst of the worst.
The trail of tears her and her lying husband have dragged through their entire careers will go down in history as the incest period of the US: we knew they were doing it, but we all looked the other way.
27 Aug 16
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnd you believe the earth is flat and we never went to the moon.
My first blush impression of Clinton over these forty years?
The absolute worst of the worst.
The trail of tears her and her lying husband have dragged through their entire careers will go down in history as the incest period of the US: we knew they were doing it, but we all looked the other way.
And oh, yeah, "9/11" was an inside job.
It's not looking good for your "truthiness", dude.
Originally posted by SuzianneAll defensible positions, it seems, and yet even setting those aside, which of my post's statements are you desiring to dismiss?
And you believe the earth is flat and we never went to the moon.
And oh, yeah, "9/11" was an inside job.
It's not looking good for your "truthiness", dude.
That all politicians lie?
That Clinton is the worst of the worst?
That her husband isn't a court-established liar?
That the two do not share a trail of tears?
As with anything else I post (save the ones obviously made in jest), these four claims are incontrovertible, although it is beyond question that someone will try, nonetheless.
Your sneering dismissal is loaded with so many fallacies it has the feel of a Latin test, chief among the many, however, is your reliance on ad hominem in a splended array of colors.
Although it is within the realm of possibility that I might be proven wrong at some point (which has not been the case to date), what has not been demonstrated is the basis for inferring how I, as a source, ought to be dismissed.
Moreover, if we are to rely on 'poison well' rationale, what should the rest of the forum posters conclude in light of the joint campaign (spearheaded by you) between you and the professor, relative to the claim that I have been maintaining two identities: the dazzling brilliant intellectual man before you now, and the world-class beauty with the most scintillating of personalities, trisha80, are somehow one and the same person?
At least when I make a mistake--- even small tactical ones--- I admit it and own up to it.
You and the professor, however, appear to function under a different set of rules.
Perhaps it's a girl thing, and I just simply wouldn't--- or couldn't--- understand.
Perhaps the rest of the forum posters ought to simply consider the source.