The Mueller Report

[Cow Poke]

Unfortunately, your analysis of my reply is a clear indication of your own incapacity for objectivity OBP.

A) Everybody ELSE is unobjective
2) You are being gaslighted

[oxmixmudd]

How so? Give me an objective analysis of my reply.

I have been accused of not being objective because of my passion over the issue of not compromising moral principles in ones support of a political figure. I answered that this way. First I recognize that I can't claim to be perfectly objective. No one can (much the same as you do below). But that one measure of objectivity is the capacity to hear an argument that shows one is wrong and then back down, admit one was wrong. So while I can't claim perfect objectivity, I can show that I have shown myself to be MORE objective than MM. And I can do so by pointing out the fact that there are a good many instances on this website where I have been shown I am wrong and I have publicly backed down and admitted I was wrong. OTOH, MM has never(or very nearly never) done so. And then I show an example where there can be no subjective confusion over the fact he was wrong, and yet he would not, could not, and never did admit he was wrong.

So where you then show your own lack of objectivity in this case is by the lack of capacity to show that one has understood a point by reflecting back a non distorted summary of that point. One can't objectively evaluate the point another person has made if one can't reflect that point back in a way that is equivalent to the original.

Oh, I can hardly claim true objectivity here; I merely aspire to it. Political discussions tend to be the very antithesis of objective; this is true of all sides in a typical debate. I don't recall "hammering on how bad you are as a person" however, so perhaps you're not referring to me in that regard.

No - I am not referring to you. And I will try to keep your aspiration in mind if I see something from you that strikes me as not being objective. That should make it easier for both of us to discuss whatever it is.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

A) Everybody ELSE is unobjective
2) You are being gaslighted

2 is simple to show - apply the definition.

gaslighting: manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity.

The entire TDS sideline is an attempt at gaslighting.


1 is a mischaracterization of what I said, which by definition demonstrates your own lack of objectivity. To be objective, you must be able to reflect back the other person's point without distorting it.


Jim

[Cow Poke]

2 is simple to show - apply the definition. The entire TDS sideline is gaslighting.

1 is a mischaracterization of what I said, which by definition demonstrates your own lack of objectivity. To be objective, you must be able to reflect back the other person's point without distorting it.


Jim

You're right, Jim.

[oxmixmudd]

You're right, Jim.

thanks!


Jim

[Bill the Cat]

2 is simple to show - apply the definition.

gaslighting: manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity.

The entire TDS sideline is an attempt at gaslighting.

No it isn't. TDS has nothing to do with your sanity and everything to do with obsessing over specific traits.

[Mountain Man]

I can't claim perfect objectivity, I can show that I have shown myself to be MORE objective than MM. And I can do so by pointing out the fact that there are a good many instances on this website where I have been shown I am wrong and I have publicly backed down and admitted I was wrong. OTOH, MM has never(or very nearly never) done so. And then I show an example where there can be no subjective confusion over the fact he was wrong, and yet he would not, could not, and never did admit he was wrong.

Seriously, man, you're losing it. You're almost as obsessed with me as you are with Trump.

Maybe I'll do you a favor and put you on ignore just so I don't ever respond to you and perpetuate your psychosis.

[Sparko]

Everybody ELSE is unobjective

1 is a mischaracterization of what I said, which by definition demonstrates your own lack of objectivity. To be objective, you must be able to reflect back the other person's point without distorting it.

Jim

Jim, you just told CP that his accusation was a mischaracterization of what you said, then you turn around and accuse him of not being objective. Just like you did OBP a few posts ago.

You realize CP was just being hyperbolic, right? a bit of sarcasm?

[One Bad Pig]

And then I show an example where there can be no subjective confusion over the fact he was wrong, and yet he would not, could not, and never did admit he was wrong.

A problem with your example is that MM was very much not alone in his rejection of your explanation; either everyone but you was similarly non-objective, or perhaps your "simple facts" were neither as "simple" or "factual" as you allege. Just sayin'.

So where you then show your own lack of objectivity in this case is by the lack of capacity to show that one has understood a point by reflecting back a non distorted summary of that point. One can't objectively evaluate the point another person has made if one can't reflect that point back in a way that is equivalent to the original.

Perhaps you could have challenged me to do that before assuming I "clearly" could not - for it is fairly evident that my reply was not intended to make an attempt at doing that. Inflammatory and hyperbolic language is a more than sufficient indication of a lack of objectivity. That you are apparently unaware of using inflammatory language and think that your language is not at all hyperbolic is why I questioned your own objectivity.

[One Bad Pig]

Maybe I'll do you a favor and put you on ignore just so I don't ever respond to you and perpetuate your psychosis.

TBH, that would do all of us a favor. It's not as if either of you is likely to convince the other of anything.

[Sparko]

I am not objective.

[oxmixmudd]

No it isn't. TDS has nothing to do with your sanity and everything to do with obsessing over specific traits.

obsession is itself a type of insanity.

There is also the fact it is a pseudo-diagnosis, as in mental illness, as in not mentally well.

When you dismiss a person's objection as "TDS", you are saying that they are not mentally stable, they have a mental illness and thus their objections can be summarily dismissed.

Further, you'd like them to believe the same thing so they will doubt their own objectivity or sanity in evaluating Trump's actions -> gaslighting.


NOT gaslighting, not trying to manipulate the person by implicitly casting doubt on their sanity, would be to discuss the issues and show them, objectively, why their concerns are not valid or are based on false information.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Seriously, man, you're losing it. You're almost as obsessed with me as you are with Trump.

Maybe I'll do you a favor and put you on ignore just so I don't ever respond to you and perpetuate your psychosis.

Not really talking about you MM. I was explaining a different post that was misunderstood where I was talking about you.

Putting me on ignore would be great! Then I don't have to watch you distort almost everything I say when you reply to me! Please DO!


Jim

[ke7ejx]

Ox, I'm really starting to think that you'd be better off withdrawing from Civics. For the past year, you have become more frustrated than not and with that an increased levels of belligerence. I'd be more than happy to discuss theology, literature, film or any topic of your choosing that doesn't involve President Trump or other political topics.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, you just told CP that his accusation was a mischaracterization of what you said, then you turn around and accuse him of not being objective. Just like you did OBP a few posts ago.

You realize CP was just being hyperbolic, right? a bit of sarcasm?

yep.

(1) (discounting sarcasm) being unable to reflect back the other person's argument without distortion makes objectivity impossible.

(2) Am I not allowed my own sarcasm in my reply to a sarcastic comment?


Jim