|
Post by True Patriot on Dec 4, 2016 23:11:27 GMT -5
Good post but your perspective is so different from mine that to reply would be to encourage a long off-topic discussion. No-go. I'd like the Health Care thread to get back on track. If that doesn't happen soon (not a threat but a promise ) I'll close this one down and start a brand new one. That's fine. Just so you understand that the staff played no role in getting the thread off course.
|
|
|
Post by True Patriot on Dec 4, 2016 23:16:19 GMT -5
You seem unfamiliar with my posts and my integrity. I don't usually post links to opinion articles like many do. Perhaps you should attempt to discredit me by declaring which specific facts I've presented are flawed. Are you capable of doing that? Arrogant and insulting. Another reason I'm not interested in your posts. How dare I expect people to provide evidence to back up their insinuations. The horror. If you're not interested in my posts then quit arrogantly replying to them with insults.
|
|
|
Post by Sysop3 on Dec 5, 2016 0:36:06 GMT -5
Arrogant and insulting. Another reason I'm not interested in your posts. How dare I expect people to provide evidence to back up their insinuations. The horror. If you're not interested in my posts then quit arrogantly replying to them with insults. The point is, you want other people to give you "evidence", then when they offer a good source that is still not good enough to you. But you make claims of "fact" with no source at all and get huffy if other posters don't accept that. Somehow that does not go over well.
|
|
|
Post by Sysop3 on Dec 5, 2016 0:44:36 GMT -5
Beth I’m sure that you won’t be surprised when I say that I understand him quite easily. Being bias is simply a reflection of supporting one’s beliefs. Subjectivity may be no more than trying not to offend. Whatever the case, I will offer my opinion that in the future, those who look back will have a hard time picking the worse President between President Carter and President Obama. During President Obama’s terms, we have seen the world position of the United States decrease in nearly all areas. For example, we now must rebuild our military in nearly all of its functions. We have wasted huge amounts of money by having the national government get involved with the private sector for no purpose. The economic recovery has been one of the slowest in our history. Of course, the Affordable Care Act is a growing disaster. Our national debt is nearly beyond belief. Internal race relations are as bad as I have ever seen them. While the focus has been on jobs, the labor force participation rate is getting worse. The potential for terrorist acts within our borders is increasing. You're wasting your breathe...Facts do not matter anymore. You must get in touch with your feelings. "Ignorance is Strength!" "Orthodoxy means not thinking...not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."~1984 Orwell Who was the Trump surrogate who said, "There is no such thing as facts." ? Oh yeah www.esquire.com/news-politics/videos/a51152/trump-surrogate-no-such-thing-as-facts/
|
|
|
Post by Sysop3 on Dec 5, 2016 0:58:36 GMT -5
Beth I’m sure that you won’t be surprised when I say that I understand him quite easily. Being bias is simply a reflection of supporting one’s beliefs. Subjectivity may be no more than trying not to offend. Whatever the case, I will offer my opinion that in the future, those who look back will have a hard time picking the worse President between President Carter and President Obama. You're trying to rewrite Bias as a positive thing? Trying to suggest Objectivity is negative? lololololo I've had a thought that tells me the bar is lowering right now.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Dec 5, 2016 1:56:59 GMT -5
Beth I’m sure that you won’t be surprised when I say that I understand him quite easily. Being bias is simply a reflection of supporting one’s beliefs. Subjectivity may be no more than trying not to offend. Whatever the case, I will offer my opinion that in the future, those who look back will have a hard time picking the worse President between President Carter and President Obama. You're trying to rewrite Bias as a positive thing? Trying to suggest Objectivity is negative? lololololo I've had a thought that tells me the bar is lowering right now. Don’t you believe that it is contextual and within intent? Let’s say that I was a person who believed in doing things for other people, those with need. Whenever I spoke to anyone about it, say soliciting donations, all of my talk was ‘bias’ in favor of the goal. It is my beliefs to the exclusion of other things, is that not positive. On the other hand, being objective is certainly a positive trait, but maybe not always. Suppose two people apply for a job I have available. One has a spotless record and the other is a felon. It is quite likely with that amount of information I’d pick the one with a spotless record simply because the other one is a felon. That is, I would be bias against the felon and with poor information that could be a bad decision. Is that making the decision from an objective perspective a positive thing or not? Without more information, probably not. The point is that both words have value only in the context of the details surrounding the use. When bias is used with limited information I agree, it is likely to result in an incorrect decision. The same is true when deciding from an objective perspective. The less information available, the more likely an incorrect decision. We learn from experience and education and from that we will be bias about many things, that doesn’t make being bias wrong. The bar should move toward knowledge, not the dictionary.
|
|
|
Post by Sysop3 on Dec 5, 2016 2:30:59 GMT -5
Men, I know that people who can be objective are a lot brighter than people who can't. People who try to see through the bias have a real gift and they are generally kind.
You can use a wordy post to spin and you often do that. It doesn't change anything.
|
|
|
Post by Sysop3 on Dec 5, 2016 2:34:34 GMT -5
Okay, this messed up thread is fixed. Go on with the conversations and Beth can put up the new Health Care board when she gets ready.
You're welcome.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Dec 5, 2016 13:54:37 GMT -5
lol Thank you Syis3. This is just fine. Now the random back and forth can continue and I'll set in another Health Care (on Top only) thread in due time.
Carry on
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2016 13:58:12 GMT -5
lol Thank you Syis3. This is just fine. Now the random back and forth can continue and I'll set in another Health Care (on Top only) thread in due time. Carry on Wake up.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Dec 5, 2016 14:24:26 GMT -5
lol Thank you Syis3. This is just fine. Now the random back and forth can continue and I'll set in another Health Care (on Top only) thread in due time. Carry on Wake up. Ariel, everyone has a right to express opinion, whether or not you disagree with them. I was very sad this thread got mangled .. at first ... but it will all work out for the best. There's something to be said for being a bit flexible. Ya can't manage an interesting discussion site when it comes down to preaching to the choir. Take it as it comes. You don't have to agree .. scroll on by and find a more compatible conversation. later
|
|
|
Post by True Patriot on Dec 5, 2016 21:51:39 GMT -5
How dare I expect people to provide evidence to back up their insinuations. The horror. If you're not interested in my posts then quit arrogantly replying to them with insults. The point is, you want other people to give you "evidence", then when they offer a good source that is still not good enough to you. But you make claims of "fact" with no source at all and get huffy if other posters don't accept that. Somehow that does not go over well. Yes it is true...I believe if you are going to accuse others of making unprovoked attacks in nearly every post and if you are going to insinuate that others are posting false facts then you should demonstrate what evidence you have to support your assertions. It is also true that sadly such a sensible requirement does not seem to go over well with many members or the staff. Oh wait!...I see...You extended my remarks for me. How gracious of you. Fine enough... You give no examples of anything that I have said that you dispute the validity of. You can't be bothered to look up a few of my claims or you haven't found the false ones yet? Instead you want people to question the facts I present simply because I oppose your views unless I can cite some ' authoritative' source. As if posting on a forum is some sort of rigorous academic exercise. Like it really has mattered anyway...Please. You won't even accept the prima facie evidence that I presented showing that Hillary Clinton committed criminal acts. I have provided more primary source evidence then any other members to include yourself since my joining this forum and yet you give the impression that the opposite is the case. It seems rather obvious to me that it is not the absence of sources that is the issue, but rather the nature of the facts presented. I'm fairly certain that if I posted claims of facts that buttressed your positions that there would be no challenge from you. What are the sources that you cite as evidence?...Snopes...The Atlantic...Esquire...PleaseCutTheCrap.com?..LOL Those are opinion sites. PleaseCutTheCrap.com is a 'good' source?...The name speaks to its credibility. I don't dispute that Snopes and some other fact check sites can be 'good' sources but they are no better than any other opinion site. If I or others can show where they have not met their self-described mission to provide accurate, objective and unbiased analysis then they should be called on it. Those who claim to support the truth should agree. You act as if you occupy the high ground but I don't see how that could be viewed to be the case if you were not a member of the staff. This is just an attempt to tell the casual observer to turn away so they won't question the approved narrative. Nothing to see here folks...Just some wacko that refuses to see the Emperor's new clothes...Move along. Despite Sysop being perceived as inherently superior due to his staff position, the intellectually honest members of this forum should take the time to compare the true nature of our posts and the evidence that we each present to support our positions to determine which of us is more credible.
Just look at the efforts being made to prejudice, bury, misrepresent and impugn those who take the time to actually provide primary source evidence to support alternative views as opposed to opinions dressed up as fact that fit the mold.
|
|
|
Post by True Patriot on Dec 5, 2016 21:56:52 GMT -5
You are perpetuating a misrepresentation by the author of what this person was intending to say. Scottie Nell Hughes was not saying that facts were not important to the Trump campaign, or more accurately Trump supporters. She was saying that facts were not important to those whose only aim was to demonize Donald Trump. I don't know who she is, but I agree with her. You will obviously say the opposite no matter what the facts are just as the author did. So, for those more reasoned I have included the quote from cited in the article... "Well, I think it's also an idea of an opinion. And that's—on one hand, I hear half the media saying that these are lies. But on the other half, there are many people that go, 'No, it's true.' And so one thing that has been interesting this entire campaign season to watch, is that people that say facts are facts—they're not really facts. Everybody has a way—it's kind of like looking at ratings, or looking at a glass of half-full water. Everybody has a way of interpreting them to be the truth, or not truth. There's no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts." |
Why would a person who you and the author represent as claiming that there should be no such things as facts use the word ' unfortunately'? Clearly the author purposefully misrepresented what this woman intended to say and instead of analyzing the accuracy of the author's opinion you ran with it as if it were fact. In other words, you demonstrate with this post and the author demonstrated with the article exactly what her point actually was. It is people like yourselves that prefer perceptions over facts. And you have no issue creating those false perceptions. If it did not influence so many people the difference in the precision and nuance that Leftists demand of decent people compared to the absence of standards for accuracy that they hold themselves to would be rather amusing. Again, you illustrate this with your demand that I cite a source for every claim of fact that I make even as you do not hold yourself or others to the same standard, provide links to opinion sites and have given any example of my having posted anything erroneous. In addition, you claim that I do not cite or present sources to backup my claims when it is quite obvious that I do.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Dec 5, 2016 21:59:09 GMT -5
The point is, you want other people to give you "evidence", then when they offer a good source that is still not good enough to you. But you make claims of "fact" with no source at all and get huffy if other posters don't accept that. Somehow that does not go over well. Yes it is true...I believe if you are going to accuse others of making unprovoked attacks in nearly every post and if you are going to insinuate that others are posting false facts then you should demonstrate what evidence you have to support your assertions. It is also true that sadly such a sensible requirement does not seem to go over well with many members or the staff. Oh wait!...I see...You extended my remarks for me. How gracious of you. Fine enough... You give no examples of anything that I have said that you dispute the validity of. You can't be bothered to look up a few of my claims or you haven't found the false ones yet? Instead you want people to question the facts I present simply because I oppose your views unless I can cite some ' authoritative' source. As if posting on a forum is some sort of rigorous academic exercise. Like it really has mattered anyway...Please. You won't even accept the prima facie evidence that I presented showing that Hillary Clinton committed criminal acts. I have provided more primary source evidence then any other members to include yourself since my joining this forum and yet you give the impression that the opposite is the case. It seems rather obvious to me that it is not the absence of sources that is the issue, but rather the nature of the facts presented. I'm fairly certain that if I posted claims of facts that buttressed your positions that there would be no challenge from you. What are the sources that you cite as evidence?...Snopes...The Atlantic...Esquire...PleaseCutTheCrap.com?..LOL Those are opinion sites. PleaseCutTheCrap.com is a 'good' source?...The name speaks to its credibility. I don't dispute that Snopes and some other fact check sites can be 'good' sources but they are no better than any other opinion site. If I or others can show where they have not met their self-described mission to provide accurate, objective and unbiased analysis then they should be called on it. Those who claim to support the truth should agree. You act as if you occupy the high ground but I don't see how that could be viewed to be the case if you were not a member of the staff. This is just an attempt to tell the casual observer to turn away so they won't question the approved narrative. Nothing to see here folks...Just some wacko that refuses to see the Emperor's new clothes...Move along. Despite Sysop being perceived as inherently superior due to his staff position, the intellectually honest members of this forum should take the time to compare the true nature of our posts and the evidence that we each present to support our positions to determine which of us is more credible.
Just look at the efforts being made to prejudice, bury, misrepresent and impugn those who take the time to actually provide primary source evidence to support alternative views as opposed to opinions dressed up as fact that fit the mold.As far as I can tell from Sysop3's brief post, the only thing he "accused" you of was failing to supply sources, True. Your reply is paranoid. Please try to pull yourself together. (a request)
|
|
|
Post by True Patriot on Dec 5, 2016 22:03:14 GMT -5
You seem unfamiliar with my posts and my integrity. I don't usually post links to opinion articles like many do. Perhaps you should attempt to discredit me by declaring which specific facts I've presented are flawed. Are you capable of doing that? Not all articles are "opinion articles", TP. We try to get those into the Op-ed section at the bottom of the Politics board. If you don't source back to media, where DO you get your information. Some people here depend on a source to back-up material you expect to be accepted as fact. If you actually read my posts you would have an idea where I get my information. Go ahead and trust the media a base your opinions on what they tell you. I've learned over time what a mistake that is if one wants to be informed rather than simply formed.
|
|