Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Elizabeth Warren's Pregnant Pause

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
    That you consistently refuse to ever interpret anything he says in the most charitable way you can; that you are ready to believe every negative report about him. 'Hate' might be too strong a word. But you are clearly biased against him.

    (Which doesn't make Trump good, or correct, or a great President etc etc. It just makes you not a credible source of information or opinion about him.)
    There is a significant history that makes it unwise to interpret anything Trump says 'in the most charitable way you can'. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

    You are being ridiculous. Donald Trump began his Presidency exhibiting unreasoned egomania, denying plain facts obvious to all, and surrounded in unfounded conspiracy theories. (I speak here of the inauguration crowd size idiocy). And little has changed since. Further, those that support him refuse to see any of that or factor any of that into how people not sucked into his rhetoric see him. You just can't toss out some other set of names and say - "see, you don't respond to these people like you respond to Trump". There just is no equivalency among normal people with Trump. And in a very negative way.


    Jim
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; 10-10-2019, 08:18 AM.
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
      You're proving my point. Thanks.

      I don't see you as being anywhere near as objective as you think you are.
      I think the issue is essentially those like oxmixmudd, Sam and others would consider comparing Trump with other politicians to be false equivalence or a category error, as the level or scale of lying for example are totally different, making the comparison apples and oranges (the 'all politicians lie' example). For example, on another thread Roe V Wade has raised it's head again, and someone made the comparison between being pro-life and against abortion, and yet for the death penalty. Naturally, they disagreed with the comparison, believing them to be two separate matters.

      I think it is a similar case here, which is why there is disagreement in the comparisons.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by EvoUK View Post
        ...For example, on another thread Roe V Wade has raised it's head again, and someone made the comparison between being pro-life and against abortion, and yet for the death penalty. Naturally, they disagreed with the comparison, believing them to be two separate matters...
        This is about me, isn't it?

        (Though, maybe not, because I'm not a vocal advocate of the death penalty)
        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
          You're proving my point. Thanks.

          I don't see you as being anywhere near as objective as you think you are.
          Whether you see me or anyone else being objective is less relevant than whether you can demonstrate how me or anyone else are lacking objectivity. It's not enough, in other words, to say "You're just partisan because if the names were swapped, you'd do the opposite". That's not a truism and it's not evidenced.

          It's just a cynicism. So it doesn't prove your point because your point is actually an unfalsifiable counterfactual from the start. And the underlying premise of the counterfactual is that all these politicians are more or less alike -- just as deceitful, repugnant, unfit, immoral -- such that general attitudes toward them are reducible to crass partisanship instead of something else.

          As EvoUK notes, I think that's very wrong and leads to a category error. Regardless, the meritorious response is to demonstrate how partisanship is making a person unreasonable rather than just attributing disagreements to mass partisanship.

          --Sam
          "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Right, the evidence for Russian collusion was so strong that Democrats have abandoned that narrative and moved on to trying to impeach Trump for an innocuous phonecall with the president of Ukraine.
            That's just their immediate focus now, but the whole shebang, including his obstruction of justicice as detailed in the Mueller report will be part of the articles of impeachment filed.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
              That's just their immediate focus now, but the whole shebang, including his obstruction of justicice as detailed in the Mueller report will be part of the articles of impeachment filed.
              Oh, I'm sure if the Democrats ever work up the courage to actually file for impeachment that they'll throw in everything and the kitchen sink no matter how meritless it might be.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                Whether you see me or anyone else being objective is less relevant than whether you can demonstrate how me or anyone else are lacking objectivity. It's not enough, in other words, to say "You're just partisan because if the names were swapped, you'd do the opposite". That's not a truism and it's not evidenced.

                It's just a cynicism. So it doesn't prove your point because your point is actually an unfalsifiable counterfactual from the start. And the underlying premise of the counterfactual is that all these politicians are more or less alike -- just as deceitful, repugnant, unfit, immoral -- such that general attitudes toward them are reducible to crass partisanship instead of something else.

                As EvoUK notes, I think that's very wrong and leads to a category error. Regardless, the meritorious response is to demonstrate how partisanship is making a person unreasonable rather than just attributing disagreements to mass partisanship.

                --Sam
                When absolutely everything is a crisis, nothing is. Your lack of objectivity prevents you from understanding this.
                "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  This is about me, isn't it?

                  (Though, maybe not, because I'm not a vocal advocate of the death penalty)
                  It was just an easy lazy comparison to attempt to highlight my point...

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                    As many as anyone else. (Including Trump)
                    That would been 'none' if we follow the Democrats on Trump.
                    I see no reason to that, nor any reason for you to.

                    I try to give everyone the same benefit of doubt, at least initially. But if you want to maintain a double standard, I can't stop you.
                    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                    mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                    Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                    Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by EvoUK View Post
                      It was just an easy lazy comparison to attempt to highlight my point...
                      And I'm just playing my "it's all about me" song.
                      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        There is a significant history that makes it unwise to interpret anything Trump says 'in the most charitable way you can'. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

                        You are being ridiculous. Donald Trump began his Presidency exhibiting unreasoned egomania, denying plain facts obvious to all, and surrounded in unfounded conspiracy theories. (I speak here of the inauguration crowd size idiocy). And little has changed since. Further, those that support him refuse to see any of that or factor any of that into how people not sucked into his rhetoric see him. You just can't toss out some other set of names and say - "see, you don't respond to these people like you respond to Trump". There just is no equivalency among normal people with Trump. And in a very negative way.


                        Jim
                        You're just going round in circles, Jim.

                        Trump's history of telling nothing but lies justifies your consistent cynicism and interpretation of what he says in a poor light. When he's misquoted or misrepresented (it does happen) you can't see it, because you expect Trump to always lie, be egomaniacal etc. Why do you expect that? Because that's what Trump does. How do you know that's what he does? Because he always lies, boasts, exaggerates, etc etc.

                        You're probably at least partially correct that some people who support Trump get sucked into his rhetoric. How come you can't consider the idea that many of those who oppose Trump are sucked into anti-Trump rhetoric? That he's not as good as his supporters think, and not as bad as his political and media opponents would have us believe?





                        Here's an example from the Independent (British newspaper)

                        Headline on front page: "Trump rages at Fox News after poll shows majority want him impeached"

                        Note the loaded term: "rages"

                        Before we've read the story, we're already being given the impression that Trump is angry, out of control, and very upset with the poll result. If we don't read the story, that's the impression we're likely to take away. Trump is out of control angry, presumably because he's threatened by the idea of impeachment.

                        First line of the story, Trump "... has vented his anger at Fox News..." . Again the idea is that he's angry and expressing it forcefully (it's an intense emotion that has been kept bottled up but now is vented). But note that it's a step down from "Trump rages"

                        After a line about the poll results, the story continues, saying that Trump "...made his displeasure clear with the network...". Note that this is a fair bit more neutral than "Trump rages". Why? Because the actual data doesn't support the claim.

                        What did Trump actually say? Nothing. There is no footage of him 'raging' at Fox. No verbal quotes, nothing.


                        The story is based off a Twitter tweet, which is quoted as: "From the day I announced I was running for President, I have NEVER had a good @FoxNews Poll," and "Whoever their Pollster is, they suck. But @FoxNews is also much different than it used to be in the good old days."

                        Note that the actual tweet(s) itself isn't posted, so it is possible that context or some wording has been omitted. Note that the claim of 'rage' in the headline is not supported by the quotes given. The whole article could be rewritten with the idea that 'Trump is disappointed that he doesn't poll better on Fox News polling', and be just as supported (more supported, actually) by the facts (two unsourced tweet quotes).

                        The whole article is hot trash: a clickbait headline designed to give a (false) negative impression of Trump, angry, out of control and under pressure, and then a slow walkback in the article itself. But the first impression made is likely to colour our assessment of Trump. It's media bias and manipulation of readers.
                        ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                          The whole article is hot trash: a clickbait headline designed to give a (false) negative impression of Trump, angry, out of control and under pressure, and then a slow walkback in the article itself. But the first impression made is likely to colour our assessment of Trump. It's media bias and manipulation of readers.
                          That's because the media knows that a lot of people don't read more than a paragraph or two, assuming they even get past the headline.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Sam View Post
                            Whether you see me or anyone else being objective is less relevant than whether you can demonstrate how me or anyone else are lacking objectivity. It's not enough, in other words, to say "You're just partisan because if the names were swapped, you'd do the opposite". That's not a truism and it's not evidenced.

                            It's just a cynicism. So it doesn't prove your point because your point is actually an unfalsifiable counterfactual from the start. And the underlying premise of the counterfactual is that all these politicians are more or less alike -- just as deceitful, repugnant, unfit, immoral -- such that general attitudes toward them are reducible to crass partisanship instead of something else.

                            As EvoUK notes, I think that's very wrong and leads to a category error. Regardless, the meritorious response is to demonstrate how partisanship is making a person unreasonable rather than just attributing disagreements to mass partisanship.

                            --Sam

                            My point is that we're all (to a greater or lesser degree) biased. We are all prone to overlooking fault in those we prefer, and finding it in those we dislike.

                            Of course we all think that we are objective, reasonable, and calmly logical in our analysis. We're just not any of those things to the same degree that we think we are.




                            Think I'm wrong? Cite where you have defended Trump against an accusation AND where you have also defended Hilary / Warren / Biden / Sanders / Obama against an accusation.

                            I note that you haven't done that.


                            I don't think I can pass that test. Yet surely there have been some attacks made on Trump that were unjustified, and some attacks on Hilary et al that were unjustified.

                            I just dislike Hilary and crew, their politics, and their behaviour, so I am biased against them. Which means that I'm also biased towards Trump, because they hate him, and constantly attack him. I don't believe that they are impartial, fair, unpartisan, and only opposing Trump because he is so bad.

                            I don't think Trump is that great, either. He's a loudmouth, boastful, self-important American nationalist. I think he didn't really expect to be President. But there he is. And I think he's trying to the best he can, by his lights, by and large. I see that he gets a lot of negative and biased media coverage (see my post #131).
                            ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              That's because the media knows that a lot of people don't read more than a paragraph or two, assuming they even get past the headline.
                              You think that "The media knows" ??? Wow, just wow....


                              (Sorry, I didn't read past the first few words...)
                              ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
                                My point is that we're all (to a greater or lesser degree) biased. We are all prone to overlooking fault in those we prefer, and finding it in those we dislike.

                                Of course we all think that we are objective, reasonable, and calmly logical in our analysis. We're just not any of those things to the same degree that we think we are.




                                Think I'm wrong? Cite where you have defended Trump against an accusation AND where you have also defended Hilary / Warren / Biden / Sanders / Obama against an accusation.

                                I note that you haven't done that.


                                I don't think I can pass that test. Yet surely there have been some attacks made on Trump that were unjustified, and some attacks on Hilary et al that were unjustified.

                                I just dislike Hilary and crew, their politics, and their behaviour, so I am biased against them. Which means that I'm also biased towards Trump, because they hate him, and constantly attack him. I don't believe that they are impartial, fair, unpartisan, and only opposing Trump because he is so bad.

                                I don't think Trump is that great, either. He's a loudmouth, boastful, self-important American nationalist. I think he didn't really expect to be President. But there he is. And I think he's trying to the best he can, by his lights, by and large. I see that he gets a lot of negative and biased media coverage (see my post #131).

                                A better scenario would be where you think that Trump has done something for which he's attacked unfairly and I can respond whether I've defended him or jumped in for the attack or simply ignored the noise. Honestly, we've forgotten so many actual Trump scandals (whatever happened with that GSA Trump international decision?) that it's difficult to even remember non-events.

                                One thing I can recall: the Trump administration's decision to back off from demanding North Korea denuclearize in exchange for talks and relief. While Trump gets taken to task for his change in rhetoric and broken campaign promises (legitimately), nuclearization was a decades-long problem that got dumped into Trump's lap at the beginning of his term -- he wasn't going to stop North Korea from becoming a nuclear power and no US president in the near future is going to make NK give up is nuclear weapons. So Trump gets some unfair heat for his administration's failure to prevent/eradicate NK's nuclear arsenal.

                                But, no, Trump's not trying the best he can to fulfill the responsibilities and great expectations of the presidency. He has, more than any other president in modern history, turned the executive branch into an extension of his own desires and animus. And that's so evident, I think, with so many examples of wrongdoing and self-serving action, that I just don't think someone can objectively follow American politics and see Trump as more or less on the same level as past presidents, Republican or Democrat. We're just dealing with someone and something very different here.

                                In any case, the answer to that problem isn't to simply decry partisanship but to show how a given event or issue should break down on objective means. Yes, we all harbor bias -- but holding bias isn't fate. We can, and should, subject those biases to scrutiny and challenge and work to make sure that our opinions stem from justified and warranted beliefs.

                                --Sam
                                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 08:17 AM
                                1 response
                                27 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by LiconaFan97, 10-23-2020, 04:56 PM
                                20 responses
                                165 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by Juvenal, 10-23-2020, 11:08 AM
                                10 responses
                                98 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Juvenal
                                by Juvenal
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 10-23-2020, 08:52 AM
                                6 responses
                                64 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Ronson, 10-22-2020, 10:59 PM
                                62 responses
                                471 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Watermelon  
                                Working...
                                X