# Why is USMB a hub for bad views?



## gnarlylove

Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives. 

I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.

I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation? Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?

Any thoughts?

I thought perhaps the answer might be the fact the URL contains "US" (message boards) and therefore anyone who wants critical discussion automatically knows US=uncritical thought. Yes? No?

Again, this is a only trend I'm denoting in America. If usmessageboads is a genuine representation of American thought then whoa! America is not what I thought it was! But my opinion is this site is not a genuine representation.


----------



## Mr. H.

Aren't you the jackass that started this thread?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/337712-keystone-xl-pipeline.html

Talk about poorly reasoned argument...


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.
> 
> I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.
> 
> I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation? Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> I thought perhaps the answer might be the fact the URL contains "US" (message boards) and therefore anyone who wants critical discussion automatically knows US=uncritical thought. Yes? No?
> 
> Again, this is a only trend I'm denoting in America. If usmessageboads is a genuine representation of American thought then whoa! America is not what I thought it was! But my opinion is this site is not a genuine representation.



I'm afraid I'm not following your logic here. Could you restate it more clearly?


----------



## gnarlylove

You're not included in my analysis dblack. I think you are fairly intelligent. I'm just asking if there is a reason this site is fraught with bad reasoning? Does it genuinely represent the US populous?


----------



## dblack

gnarlylove said:


> You're not included in my analysis dblack. I think you are fairly intelligent. I'm just asking if there is a reason this site is fraught with bad reasoning? Does it genuinely represent the US populous?



There's plenty of smart folks here. They just don't types fast as some of the other posters.


----------



## gnarlylove

Mr. H. said:


> Aren't you the jackass that started this thread?
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/energy/337712-keystone-xl-pipeline.html
> 
> Talk about poorly reasoned argument...



Prime example of the bad posts I'm talking about. Completely devoid of cogency.


----------



## Unkotare

Just what we needed, another troll thread...


----------



## Gracie

Actually...I have come to the unhappy conclusion that USMB, although I love it here and will continue to call it my home board, is full of children instead of grownups. 

If you thank a post..you automatically are in "with them".
If you co exist and post alongside someone that someone else does not like, you are automatically in "with them".
If you agree with someone about something, you are automatically in "with them".
If you post Blah Blah...you are a liberal.
If you post Yadda Yadda...you are a conservative.
If you do either, you are automatically in with "them".
If you disagree with what someone says, you are a lib.
If you disagree with what someone says, you are a conservative.
If you breathe just so....you are in a gangbanging hag squad and are in with "them".

There is no being unique and a separate individual. Here, you are in with "someone" and that is usually a bad thing to some that are in with the OTHER "someones".

And if you ask a question, you are a troll.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

gnarlylove said:


> Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.
> 
> I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.
> 
> I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation? Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> I thought perhaps the answer might be the fact the URL contains "US" (message boards) and therefore anyone who wants critical discussion automatically knows US=uncritical thought. Yes? No?
> 
> Again, this is a only trend I'm denoting in America. If usmessageboads is a genuine representation of American thought then whoa! America is not what I thought it was! But my opinion is this site is not a genuine representation.



I'd actually make the point that anyone who spends a great amount of time discussing topic subjects in an online discussion site is LESS intelligent than the average citizen. Nothing ever changes here, Congress isn't watching and writing or changing legislation because of what we say here. It's intellectual masturbation, that's all.


----------



## midcan5

Interesting.  Watch CPAC this weekend - I would guess cspan is covering it. A few links below. Then consider the quote below. 

"In the bowels of the National Harbor convention center in suburban Maryland on Thursday, a nonprofit called Empact America schooled attendees about the threat of a terrorist attack by way of an electromagnetic pulse. Former Reagan Defense Department official Frank Gaffney articulated his view that anti-tax activist and American Conservative Union board member Grover Norquist is an undercover agent for the Muslim Brotherhood. Ginni Thomas, a Daily Caller contributor and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, alleged that President Barack Obama may be guilty of providing material support for terrorism. At least one panelist suggested that Speaker of the House John Boehner was a part of the Benghazi cover-up. (Who can say?)"  Has the Conservative Political Action Conference Purged the Kooks? | Mother Jones

Then listen to Limbaugh or any of the other conservative talking heads. Watch Fox sometime. Now ask yourself where is the reality, the factual information, even just an attempt at honest reporting? These are the sources of information for the right wingers on usmb, do you really expect reasoned debate? Did anyone see the theater which is a Darrell Issa investigation? (Full disclosure, I too sometimes engage in hyperbole.) 

Cspan

Conservative Political Action Conference | Video | C-SPAN.org
CPAC 2014 Day 2 | Video | C-SPAN.org


----------



## gnarlylove

Delta4Embassy said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.
> 
> I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.
> 
> I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation? Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> I thought perhaps the answer might be the fact the URL contains "US" (message boards) and therefore anyone who wants critical discussion automatically knows US=uncritical thought. Yes? No?
> 
> Again, this is a only trend I'm denoting in America. If usmessageboads is a genuine representation of American thought then whoa! America is not what I thought it was! But my opinion is this site is not a genuine representation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd actually make the point that anyone who spends a great amount of time discussing topic subjects in an online discussion site is LESS intelligent than the average citizen. Nothing ever changes here, Congress isn't watching and writing or changing legislation because of what we say here. It's intellectual masturbation, that's all.
Click to expand...


I've tried to honestly evaluate why I come here. At times intellectual masturbation is a part but its not the full picture. The more I've learned which users are a waste of time I've been able to achieve better discussion. In fact, I think coming to this site has really helped me evaluate my beliefs more and re-enter the realm of challenging my ideas like I did 5 years ago....although I admit that doesn't happen enough here. My aim is to come here and find out what compromises or shared ideas exist that can help propel us from the stalemate we've had and will continue to indefinitely have.

Does anyone think this is a genuine representation of the American spectrum of thought? Just terrible critical thinking skills?


----------



## Unkotare

gnarlylove said:


> Does anyone think this is a genuine representation of the American spectrum of thought? Just terrible critical thinking skills?





I have seen no evidence that you are qualified to judge critical thinking skills. I think you are just a troll who thinks far too highly of himself.


----------



## gnarlylove

midcan5 said:


> Interesting.  Watch CPAC this weekend - I would guess cspan is covering it. A few links below. Then consider the quote below.
> 
> "In the bowels of the National Harbor convention center in suburban Maryland on Thursday, a nonprofit called Empact America schooled attendees about the threat of a terrorist attack by way of an electromagnetic pulse. Former Reagan Defense Department official Frank Gaffney articulated his view that anti-tax activist and American Conservative Union board member Grover Norquist is an undercover agent for the Muslim Brotherhood. Ginni Thomas, a Daily Caller contributor and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, alleged that President Barack Obama may be guilty of providing material support for terrorism. At least one panelist suggested that Speaker of the House John Boehner was a part of the Benghazi cover-up. (Who can say?)"  Has the Conservative Political Action Conference Purged the Kooks? | Mother Jones
> 
> Then listen to Limbaugh or any of the other conservative talking heads. Watch Fox sometime. Now ask yourself where is the reality, the factual information, even just an attempt at honest reporting? These are the sources of information for the right wingers on usmb, do you really expect reasoned debate? Did anyone see the theater which is a Darrell Issa investigation? (Full disclosure, I too sometimes engage in hyperbole.)
> 
> Cspan
> 
> Conservative Political Action Conference | Video | C-SPAN.org
> CPAC 2014 Day 2 | Video | C-SPAN.org



The Ted Cruz is scary. That is, he instills fear into people effectively and uses sophistry, using the same language of an intelligent being without the intelligence. And that is scary! People are so eaten alive and deeply believe in division and fear and can't see that is coming from their own beliefs, and it doesn't have to be that way.


----------



## Unkotare

gnarlylove said:


> The Ted Cruz is scary. That is, he instills fear into people effectively and uses sophistry, using the same language of an intelligent being without the intelligence. And that is scary!





Your attitude is "scary." It seems very likely that he is far more intelligent than you, troll.


----------



## Jughead

Delta4Embassy said:


> *I'd actually make the point that anyone who spends a great amount of time discussing topic subjects in an online discussion site is LESS intelligent than the average citizen.* Nothing ever changes here, Congress isn't watching and writing or changing legislation because of what we say here. It's intellectual masturbation, that's all.


I tend to disagree. Most of the posters here (conservatives and liberals alike) are quite familiar with current events, whether it's politics or world events. The average citizen may not post here as they lack the knowledge to engage in discussion on these events.


----------



## Chuckt

gnarlylove said:


> You're not included in my analysis dblack. I think you are fairly intelligent. I'm just asking if there is a reason this site is fraught with bad reasoning? Does it genuinely represent the US populous?



I've been to college.  Does that count?

I would like to think that most intelligent people are out earning money.  There are some exceptions here.

There is no discrimination when people sign up.  I think that the board has its share of trolls.

They also taught us in college that people might be dumb but they aren't stupid.

I think if you expect people to put five hours into a post like a college paper then you are mistaken.


----------



## westwall

gnarlylove said:


> Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.
> 
> I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.
> 
> I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation? Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> I thought perhaps the answer might be the fact the URL contains "US" (message boards) and therefore anyone who wants critical discussion automatically knows US=uncritical thought. Yes? No?
> 
> Again, this is a only trend I'm denoting in America. If usmessageboads is a genuine representation of American thought then whoa! America is not what I thought it was! But my opinion is this site is not a genuine representation.








My guess is it's because you and your ilk are extremely poorly educated, lack the intellectual capacity to carry on a conversation in your own words (though I must give you kudos, you are one of the few libtards who is not merely a cut and paste drone) or are so politically motivated that you abandoned intellectual honesty in the pursuit of your progressive goals.

But that's just a guess.


----------



## Flopper

gnarlylove said:


> Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.
> 
> I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.
> 
> I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation? Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> I thought perhaps the answer might be the fact the URL contains "US" (message boards) and therefore anyone who wants critical discussion automatically knows US=uncritical thought. Yes? No?
> 
> Again, this is a only trend I'm denoting in America. If usmessageboads is a genuine representation of American thought then whoa! America is not what I thought it was! But my opinion is this site is not a genuine representation.


There are lots of reasons for these type of posts.  Some are trolling threads where the author is just trying to upset people, not engage in any meaningful debate or discussion.  However, most of the threads are abstracts from highly biased sensational articles which the author has no intention of offering any logical defense, just trite comments that have been repeated a million times.  As you've  probable notice, originality is not a hallmark of this board.


----------



## Unkotare

Flopper said:


> Some are trolling threads where the author is just trying to upset people, not engage in any meaningful debate or discussion.




Like this one.


----------



## gnarlylove

westwall said:


> My guess is it's because you and your ilk are extremely poorly educated



You focus so much energy into disavowing anyone who disagrees with you, its hysterical the lengths you go. Thanks for your invaluable critique but I don't need you evaluating my education as if you knew the first thing about me or that your "guess" makes any sense to begin with. You only reveal how little sense you make when your vitriol bubbles up and says "_extremely_ poorly educated." I guess that sums it up in that it sums up your poor language skills and hints at your massive superiority complex to overcome your lack of education despite obtaining 2 PhDs.


----------



## gnarlylove

Flopper said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.
> 
> I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.
> 
> I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation? Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> I thought perhaps the answer might be the fact the URL contains "US" (message boards) and therefore anyone who wants critical discussion automatically knows US=uncritical thought. Yes? No?
> 
> Again, this is a only trend I'm denoting in America. If usmessageboads is a genuine representation of American thought then whoa! America is not what I thought it was! But my opinion is this site is not a genuine representation.
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of reasons for these type of posts.  Some are trolling threads where the author is just trying to upset people, not engage in any meaningful debate or discussion.  However, most of the threads are abstracts from highly biased sensational articles which the author has no intention of offering any logical defense, just trite comments that have been repeated a million times.  As you've  probable notice, originality is not a hallmark of this board.
Click to expand...


Well, you are eloquent in saying little. Maybe you could address whether you think this board represents the thought of the genuine population...or if you fancy to continue your rhetoric, go ahead, no one is stopping you.


----------



## Unkotare

gnarlylove said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is it's because you and your ilk are extremely poorly educated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You focus so much energy into disavowing anyone who disagrees with you, its hysterical the lengths you go. Thanks for your invaluable critique but I don't need you evaluating my education as if you knew the first thing about me or that your "guess" makes any sense to begin with. You only reveal how little sense you make when your vitriol bubbles up and says "_extremely_ poorly educated." I guess that sums it up in that it sums up your poor language skills and hints at your massive superiority complex to overcome your lack of education despite obtaining 2 PhDs.
Click to expand...



Weak rebuttal. Why don't you go ahead and tell us of your educational attainments and why you feel qualified to evaluate critical thinking here?


----------



## norwegen

If this is your not-so-subtle way of telling me I should leave, I don't like it.  I don't like it one bit.


----------



## Flopper

gnarlylove said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.
> 
> I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.
> 
> I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation? Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> I thought perhaps the answer might be the fact the URL contains "US" (message boards) and therefore anyone who wants critical discussion automatically knows US=uncritical thought. Yes? No?
> 
> Again, this is a only trend I'm denoting in America. If usmessageboads is a genuine representation of American thought then whoa! America is not what I thought it was! But my opinion is this site is not a genuine representation.
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of reasons for these type of posts.  Some are trolling threads where the author is just trying to upset people, not engage in any meaningful debate or discussion.  However, most of the threads are abstracts from highly biased sensational articles which the author has no intention of offering any logical defense, just trite comments that have been repeated a million times.  As you've  probable notice, originality is not a hallmark of this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you are eloquent in saying little. Maybe you could address whether you think this board represents the thought of the genuine population...or if you fancy to continue your rhetoric, go ahead, no one is stopping you.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by genuine population?


----------



## IlarMeilyr

gnarlylove said:


> Why is USMB a hub for bad views?



Because despite the obvious trollish imbecility of you and your views, this is one very tolerant Board.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.
> 
> I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.
> 
> I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation? Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> I thought perhaps the answer might be the fact the URL contains "US" (message boards) and therefore anyone who wants critical discussion automatically knows US=uncritical thought. Yes? No?
> 
> Again, this is a only trend I'm denoting in America. If usmessageboads is a genuine representation of American thought then whoa! America is not what I thought it was! But my opinion is this site is not a genuine representation.



Sturgeon's Law.


----------



## gnarlylove

Opps, I meant general, not genuine.


----------



## mamooth

gnarlylove said:


> I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation?



The kook right is vastly overrepresented here. Just look at any poll taken here. It will be about 80% conservative, with a big chunk of those conservatives just reciting their endless litanies of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories. You should have been here for the elections, when the whole lot of 'em was screaming that the polls were fraudulent, Romney was headed for a landslide win, and those libtards had to be delusional to think otherwise.

Such kooks have always been with us. There was always the guy at the bar or diner grumbling about something crazy. But before the internet, those people were isolated and kept moored to reality by the normal people around them. Now, they self-segregate themselves into groups on the internet, reinforce each other's dementia, and amp each other up to ever higher levels of stupid. There's just no one around to tell them they're acting like crazy people. Well, except me and some others. The interventions we stage here for unhinged conservatives are a sort of public service.

USMB isn't even especially bad in that regard. Other places are a lot worse, in the sense of being overrun by right-wing-fringe conspiracy theorists who sputter out "libtards!" in a tourettes-like fashion. At least you won't get autobanned for PWL offenses here (Posting While Liberal), as will happen at any openly conservative board.



> Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?



It's a difficult line to walk, giving people freedom to talk without letting the loonies take complete control. I look at it as giving the conservatives a sporting chance. If they can rely gang tactics, spamming, deliberately using data they know has been debunked and other bad behavior, then they're not completely helpless against the facts, reason and honesty of the liberals. Consider it a challenge, practice for real world politics where just being correct doesn't guarantee a win.


----------



## Boss

gnarlylove said:


> Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.
> 
> I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.
> 
> I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation? Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> I thought perhaps the answer might be the fact the URL contains "US" (message boards) and therefore anyone who wants critical discussion automatically knows US=uncritical thought. Yes? No?
> 
> Again, this is a only trend I'm denoting in America. If usmessageboads is a genuine representation of American thought then whoa! America is not what I thought it was! But my opinion is this site is not a genuine representation.



The first thing you need to realize is the demographics of the Internet is not an accurate representation of mainstream thought. Just by it's very nature, the Internet leans decidedly left. Most people who have the Internet are politically left-leaning. Conservatives always tend to be the last ones to adapt to new technology. Therefore, the 'general' Internet population is more left than the 'general population'. Believe it or not, there are hoards of conservatives who wouldn't even know how to turn a computer on, and aren't interested in learning. 

From there, you have to realize message boards, blogs and forums are vehicles for people to express their views on issues. The most passionate expressers are generally liberals. This is because of the nature of liberalism. It's what liberals do. It's their reason for being liberal. Granted, everybody is different, and this is not to say that libertarians and conservatives, even anarchists, are not represented on a typical board. Generally speaking, the most vocal and active participants are left-leaning individuals because this is their gig. 

So you are never going to find a general public forum on the Internet that isn't skewed noticeably to the left. Each year, that demographic changes slightly because more and more conservatives are becoming 'tuned in' to the modern communications era. There are also numerous activist groups who have libertarian views, helping to 'even the field' for the right. But traditional 'tea party type' conservatives are still pulling up the rear. 

You made a rather interesting observation. You say that you find the poorly reasoned arguments are mostly from conservatives. I am a conservative and I find most of the poorly reasoned arguments are from liberals. Isn't that peculiar? Of course, I have read thousands of arguments from conservatives and liberals and I can't say that I've ever heard one state: "Let me give you my unfounded and uninformed opinion on this..." I've never heard anyone left or right admit: "This is my poorly reasoned argument for... whatever."  I mean, generally speaking, I think most people post what they believe is a reasonable well-founded argument. So I believe your observations may be a result of your particular political leaning. Just saying. 

Now, the way you go about dealing with a poorly-reasoned argument is to do as I do and dismantle the sucker. Point out the poor reasoning by showing where it is poorly reasoned. This will require more than your opinion, you'll have to actually find sources to support your counter-arguments and stuff, and this isn't always as easy to do as you would think. Mostly because the Internet is full of every kind of opinion imaginable, and some are very poorly-reasoned arguments or outright fruit cake nuttiness. And whoever you are debating with is likely going to criticize your sources as being biased, whether there is merit or not. 

In short, my recommendation to you is to basically... get over yourself. Stop thinking that your opinion or viewpoint is some divine piece of wisdom the world cannot live without. That your reasoning skills are the greatest thing to ever come down the pike, and those who don't share your opinion are somehow lacking in reason. It could be that your perspective is just different, and you haven't tried to see things from another point of view. It could be the other person's reasoning is based on a different set of circumstances or life experience.


----------



## gnarlylove

You took my comments incorrectly. Just because most arguments on this board come from conservatives who have a hard time constructing an argument doesn't mean I think the actual ideas of conservatism are poorly reasoned. Only that the people expressing them are bad at using reason. Put differently, this site consists of a base of untrained uncritical thinkers making the principles of conservatism look bad. A difference between the user and the ideal.

Anything could be true and you are right to be skeptical. But your general statement about the internet having a left leaning bias is inappropriate blanket statement/ It goes to show that you take your perspective as absolute and correct, impregnable doctrine. Thus anything deviating from that (towards the "wrong" end of the spectrum) you cry "liberal! Liberal!" and think your pronouncements are valid. You have a ways to go in maturing your critical thinking faculties. You are certainly intelligent and I give you a lot of credit for replying to my post with a genuine answer, I really appreciate that and this is the variety of discussion which is often lacking here.


----------



## Unkotare




----------



## flacaltenn

Good thing this thread is primary philosophy material.. Because Gnarly can wax poetic about consensus truth. The kind of consensus truth you get in a 5 to 4 Sup.Ct. verdict. TECHNICALLY, that doesn't even qualify as a "truth". It is a vote on consensus that is temporally decided by the makeup of a changing court which may or may not statistically represent knowledgeable consensus opinion. But philosophically, we accept judgement of an inferior sample of knowledge for the general good.

OUTSIDE of his protected little world of opinions - he can play no role in the real world of science and reason. Which is why we're here in this thread. To be scolded about OUR silly reasoned opinions by a dork who can't defend his views on SPECIFIC topics -- because he's too appalled at our ineptitude in debate.. 

There is nothing wrong or strange about the makeup of the USMB community.. MOST here can't be pigeon-holed and I'm certain the USMB community is a representative sample of the TOP QUINTILE of informed Americans. Yes -- even RDean and Gnarly and my leftist buds. Imagine how much disdain Gnarly must carry for the bottom 80% of Americans who are watching Honey Boo Boo or playing video games instead of joining a wonderful place like USMB... 

Really a lot of resentment on the left for the vox populi.. And it shows..


----------



## westwall

gnarlylove said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is it's because you and your ilk are extremely poorly educated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You focus so much energy into disavowing anyone who disagrees with you, its hysterical the lengths you go. Thanks for your invaluable critique but I don't need you evaluating my education as if you knew the first thing about me or that your "guess" makes any sense to begin with. You only reveal how little sense you make when your vitriol bubbles up and says "_extremely_ poorly educated." I guess that sums it up in that it sums up your poor language skills and hints at your massive superiority complex to overcome your lack of education despite obtaining 2 PhDs.
Click to expand...







I could care less if people disagree with me so long as they are intellectually honest.  You and yours are not.  You twist, obfuscate, obliterate, and outright falsify data to suit your needs.

Were you willing to engage in a reasonable discussion I would be happy to engage you.  However, as you're as Chomskeyite, your opinions and values are so twisted that you are incapable of an intellectually honest conversation.


----------



## westwall

IlarMeilyr said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is USMB a hub for bad views?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because despite the obvious trollish imbecility of you and your views, this is one very tolerant Board.
Click to expand...







Yup, we allow all sorts of people to make fools of themselves.


----------



## westwall

flacaltenn said:


> Good thing this thread is primary philosophy material.. Because Gnarly can wax poetic about consensus truth. The kind of consensus truth you get in a 5 to 4 Sup.Ct. verdict. TECHNICALLY, that doesn't even qualify as a "truth". It is a vote on consensus that is temporally decided by the makeup of a changing court which may or may not statistically represent knowledgeable consensus opinion. But philosophically, we accept judgement of an inferior sample of knowledge for the general good.
> 
> OUTSIDE of his protected little world of opinions - he can play no role in the real world of science and reason. Which is why we're here in this thread. To be scolded about OUR silly reasoned opinions by a dork who can't defend his views on SPECIFIC topics -- because he's too appalled at our ineptitude in debate..
> 
> There is nothing wrong or strange about the makeup of the USMB community.. MOST here can't be pigeon-holed and I'm certain the USMB community is a representative sample of the TOP QUINTILE of informed Americans. Yes -- even RDean and Gnarly and my leftist buds. Imagine how much disdain Gnarly must carry for the bottom 80% of Americans who are watching Honey Boo Boo or playing video games instead of joining a wonderful place like USMB...
> 
> Really a lot of resentment on the left for the vox populi.. And it shows..









Libtards despise the general populace.  It veritably oozes from their very pores how much they despise the poor and the weak.  gnarly is just another in a long line of pompous, arrogant, ignoramuses who think they are far brighter than everyone because they are better at Pictionary than their buddies.


----------



## BDBoop

westwall said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.
> 
> I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.
> 
> I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation? Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> I thought perhaps the answer might be the fact the URL contains "US" (message boards) and therefore anyone who wants critical discussion automatically knows US=uncritical thought. Yes? No?
> 
> Again, this is a only trend I'm denoting in America. If usmessageboads is a genuine representation of American thought then whoa! America is not what I thought it was! But my opinion is this site is not a genuine representation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is it's because you and your ilk are extremely poorly educated, lack the intellectual capacity to carry on a conversation in your own words (though I must give you kudos, you are one of the few libtards who is not merely a cut and paste drone) or are so politically motivated that you abandoned intellectual honesty in the pursuit of your progressive goals.
> 
> But that's just a guess.
Click to expand...


Libtards - and thanked by another mod, no less.

Way to make his case for him.


----------



## BDBoop

westwall said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing this thread is primary philosophy material.. Because Gnarly can wax poetic about consensus truth. The kind of consensus truth you get in a 5 to 4 Sup.Ct. verdict. TECHNICALLY, that doesn't even qualify as a "truth". It is a vote on consensus that is temporally decided by the makeup of a changing court which may or may not statistically represent knowledgeable consensus opinion. But philosophically, we accept judgement of an inferior sample of knowledge for the general good.
> 
> OUTSIDE of his protected little world of opinions - he can play no role in the real world of science and reason. Which is why we're here in this thread. To be scolded about OUR silly reasoned opinions by a dork who can't defend his views on SPECIFIC topics -- because he's too appalled at our ineptitude in debate..
> 
> There is nothing wrong or strange about the makeup of the USMB community.. MOST here can't be pigeon-holed and I'm certain the USMB community is a representative sample of the TOP QUINTILE of informed Americans. Yes -- even RDean and Gnarly and my leftist buds. Imagine how much disdain Gnarly must carry for the bottom 80% of Americans who are watching Honey Boo Boo or playing video games instead of joining a wonderful place like USMB...
> 
> Really a lot of resentment on the left for the vox populi.. And it shows..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libtards despise the general populace.  It veritably oozes from their very pores how much they despise the poor and the weak.  gnarly is just another in a long line of pompous, arrogant, ignoramuses who think they are far brighter than everyone because they are better at Pictionary than their buddies.
Click to expand...


As always, thank you for your honesty.


----------



## westwall

BDBoop said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.
> 
> I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.
> 
> I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation? Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> I thought perhaps the answer might be the fact the URL contains "US" (message boards) and therefore anyone who wants critical discussion automatically knows US=uncritical thought. Yes? No?
> 
> Again, this is a only trend I'm denoting in America. If usmessageboads is a genuine representation of American thought then whoa! America is not what I thought it was! But my opinion is this site is not a genuine representation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is it's because you and your ilk are extremely poorly educated, lack the intellectual capacity to carry on a conversation in your own words (though I must give you kudos, you are one of the few libtards who is not merely a cut and paste drone) or are so politically motivated that you abandoned intellectual honesty in the pursuit of your progressive goals.
> 
> But that's just a guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libtards - and thanked by another mod, no less.
> 
> Way to make his case for him.
Click to expand...







I'm a liberal Boop.  I think for myself and I truly care about what happens to people.  Go back and look at my posts and you will see that I consistently stick up for the little guy...as do you and jillian and the others I respect.  Libtards are political animals first and foremost.  They only care about the politics and wrap themselves in the mantle of caring for the little guy but in the long run they don't give a rats ass about the little guy save as a tool for their advancement.

gnarly is an example of that.  We point out to him how policies he favors will help rich people and hurt small fry and he doesn't care because the political advancement is more important to him.


----------



## flacaltenn

IF i was a Conservative BDBoop -- there would be a list of Conservatives that I despise.
IF I was a Democrat --- the same. I'm neither.. I'm a solid 3rd party advocate. Have worked for that for 
20 years now. So Westwall is correct. There are wings of BOTH parties that care ONLY about winning and power. And they are not very honest about their methods or how they try to sell their views. 

That is why the term LEFTIST was coined. Partly to differentiate and gain back the priviliege of calling one's self Liberal -- which I most certainly am.. It's the LEFTISTS who follow Chomsky and Alinsky.. And I'm not wrong to say that Gnarly has expressed a passion for those views..

I mean c'mon Betty --- Look at the title of the thread !!!!!!!


----------



## westwall

flacaltenn said:


> IF i was a Conservative BDBoop -- there would be a list of Conservatives that I despise.
> IF I was a Democrat --- the same. I'm neither.. I'm a solid 3rd party advocate. Have worked for that for
> 20 years now. So Westwall is correct. There are wings of BOTH parties that care ONLY about winning and power. And they are not very honest about their methods or how they try to sell their views.
> 
> That is why the term LEFTIST was coined. To differentiate and gain back the priviliege of calling one's self Liberal -- which I most certainly am.. It's the LEFTISTS who follow Chomsky and Alinsky.. And I'm not wrong to say that Gnarly has expressed a passion for those views..








I will modify your post in one way, LEFTIST should be banished as a term.  They are progressives and progressives are on record as supporting all the great fascists and murderers of history, Mao, Hitler, Stalin etc.


----------



## flacaltenn

I've always considered their philosophy to be progressive and their political identity as leftist, but sure.

The extremists on the right are not the Tea Party -- which is fairly oblivious to the normal GOP social baggage and have the Liberal sense of fear about government power -- The extremists would be the Karl Roves and McCains who are similiarly oblivious to a consistent Conservative philosophy and care mostly about winning. They have dangerous ideas about the attainment of power and the use of that power domestically and Globally..


----------



## westwall

flacaltenn said:


> I've always considered their philosophy to be progressive and their political identity as leftist, but sure.
> 
> The extremists on the right are not the Tea Party -- which is fairly oblivious to the normal GOP social baggage and have the Liberal sense of fear about government power -- The extremists would be the Karl Roves and McCains who are similiarly oblivious to a consistent Conservative philosophy and care mostly about winning. They have dangerous ideas about the attainment of power and the use of that power domestically and Globally..







Absolutely.  I think McCain is merely a bit player, but Rove is a menace....an absolute menace to the people of this country.


----------



## Unkotare

Thank goodness you're not given to hyperbole...


----------



## Boss

gnarlylove said:


> You took my comments incorrectly. Just because most arguments on this board come from conservatives who have a hard time constructing an argument doesn't mean I think the actual ideas of conservatism are poorly reasoned. Only that the people expressing them are bad at using reason. Put differently, this site consists of a base of untrained uncritical thinkers making the principles of conservatism look bad. A difference between the user and the ideal.



Again, I think this is because of your perspective. I hear this "critical thinker" thing a lot. Sometimes it is called "free thinker" or "open minded thinker" but it denotes a person who views their personal thinking to be somewhat above the fray and beyond reproach. I find all too often, the "critical thinker" is actually a closed-minded thinker who isn't willing to think outside of their own mental constructs. 



> Anything could be true and you are right to be skeptical. But your general statement about the internet having a left leaning bias is inappropriate blanket statement/ It goes to show that you take your perspective as absolute and correct, impregnable doctrine. Thus anything deviating from that (towards the "wrong" end of the spectrum) you cry "liberal! Liberal!" and think your pronouncements are valid.



Well of course I do, doesn't everyone? Haven't heard many say, "Hey, wanna listen to my invalid pronouncements?" or "Hey, wanna hear my perspective that I don't believe is correct or absolute?" Anything that is liberal, I will say it's liberal. What should I do? Say it's not liberal when I know better? Ignore that it's liberal and pretend it's objective? 

Now I am careful not to make generalized statements. You will notice that I say things like "most posters are liberal" instead of "all posters are liberal." or "tends to lean liberal" instead of "is always liberal leaning." I was careful to point out how the dynamics are changing and there are indeed conservatives and libertarians here and elsewhere on the Internet. I simply pointed out a fact regarding our culture, that liberals tend to access the Internet more than conservatives, and they also tend to post on message boards and forums more than conservatives. It's because conservatives are more reserved and aren't as tech savvy as liberals, nor do they have the emotive passion to speak out for their cause like liberals do. That's not a blanket statement and has nothing to do with my personal political views, it's just a fact of life. 



> You have a ways to go in maturing your critical thinking faculties. You are certainly intelligent and I give you a lot of credit for replying to my post with a genuine answer, I really appreciate that and this is the variety of discussion which is often lacking here.



Well thank you for the critique, but it's not needed. My critical thinking faculties are just fine. This seems to be a bit of a backhanded compliment. You are seeming to take a 'high-brow' tone with me about my maturity of critical thinking, then thank me for being genuine. As I stated before, I find that people who use terms like "critical thinker" are often not very critical in their thinking at all. It's almost as if they have to convince themselves they are critical thinkers by making such proclamations. Most of the time they tend to be very rigid in their thinking, closed to any outside thinking at all, and resigned to defend their thinking at all costs.


----------



## Unkotare

In other words, he's a snot-nosed little troll who thinks far too highly of himself. I agree.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

mamooth said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The kook right is vastly overrepresented here. Just look at any poll taken here. It will be about 80% conservative, with a big chunk of those conservatives just reciting their endless litanies of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories. You should have been here for the elections, when the whole lot of 'em was screaming that the polls were fraudulent, Romney was headed for a landslide win, and those libtards had to be delusional to think otherwise.
> 
> Such kooks have always been with us. There was always the guy at the bar or diner grumbling about something crazy. But before the internet, those people were isolated and kept moored to reality by the normal people around them. Now, they self-segregate themselves into groups on the internet, reinforce each other's dementia, and amp each other up to ever higher levels of stupid. There's just no one around to tell them they're acting like crazy people. Well, except me and some others. The interventions we stage here for unhinged conservatives are a sort of public service.
> 
> USMB isn't even especially bad in that regard. Other places are a lot worse, in the sense of being overrun by right-wing-fringe conspiracy theorists who sputter out "libtards!" in a tourettes-like fashion. At least you won't get autobanned for PWL offenses here (Posting While Liberal), as will happen at any openly conservative board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a difficult line to walk, giving people freedom to talk without letting the loonies take complete control. I look at it as giving the conservatives a sporting chance. If they can rely gang tactics, spamming, deliberately using data they know has been debunked and other bad behavior, then they're not completely helpless against the facts, reason and honesty of the liberals. Consider it a challenge, practice for real world politics where just being correct doesn't guarantee a win.
Click to expand...


The kook left is also over represented, as well as the kook center. I haven't seen you complaining about them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> You took my comments incorrectly. Just because most arguments on this board come from conservatives who have a hard time constructing an argument doesn't mean I think the actual ideas of conservatism are poorly reasoned. Only that the people expressing them are bad at using reason. Put differently, this site consists of a base of untrained uncritical thinkers making the principles of conservatism look bad. A difference between the user and the ideal.
> 
> Anything could be true and you are right to be skeptical. But your general statement about the internet having a left leaning bias is inappropriate blanket statement/ It goes to show that you take your perspective as absolute and correct, impregnable doctrine. Thus anything deviating from that (towards the "wrong" end of the spectrum) you cry "liberal! Liberal!" and think your pronouncements are valid. You have a ways to go in maturing your critical thinking faculties. You are certainly intelligent and I give you a lot of credit for replying to my post with a genuine answer, I really appreciate that and this is the variety of discussion which is often lacking here.



Have you read rdean's or Luddly's posts?


----------



## dblack

Quantum Windbag said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> You took my comments incorrectly. Just because most arguments on this board come from conservatives who have a hard time constructing an argument doesn't mean I think the actual ideas of conservatism are poorly reasoned. Only that the people expressing them are bad at using reason. Put differently, this site consists of a base of untrained uncritical thinkers making the principles of conservatism look bad. A difference between the user and the ideal.
> 
> Anything could be true and you are right to be skeptical. But your general statement about the internet having a left leaning bias is inappropriate blanket statement/ It goes to show that you take your perspective as absolute and correct, impregnable doctrine. Thus anything deviating from that (towards the "wrong" end of the spectrum) you cry "liberal! Liberal!" and think your pronouncements are valid. You have a ways to go in maturing your critical thinking faculties. You are certainly intelligent and I give you a lot of credit for replying to my post with a genuine answer, I really appreciate that and this is the variety of discussion which is often lacking here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read rdean's or Luddly's posts?
Click to expand...


gnarly is referring to posts that are poorly reasoned, not those where reasoning isn't employed.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> You took my comments incorrectly. Just because most arguments on this board come from conservatives who have a hard time constructing an argument doesn't mean I think the actual ideas of conservatism are poorly reasoned. Only that the people expressing them are bad at using reason. Put differently, this site consists of a base of untrained uncritical thinkers making the principles of conservatism look bad. A difference between the user and the ideal.
> 
> Anything could be true and you are right to be skeptical. But your general statement about the internet having a left leaning bias is inappropriate blanket statement/ It goes to show that you take your perspective as absolute and correct, impregnable doctrine. Thus anything deviating from that (towards the "wrong" end of the spectrum) you cry "liberal! Liberal!" and think your pronouncements are valid. You have a ways to go in maturing your critical thinking faculties. You are certainly intelligent and I give you a lot of credit for replying to my post with a genuine answer, I really appreciate that and this is the variety of discussion which is often lacking here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read rdean's or Luddly's posts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> gnarly is referring to posts that are poorly reasoned, not those where reasoning isn't employed.
Click to expand...


Good point.


----------



## midcan5

Happy Sunday morning all.  Whenever I come back to USMB I feel like, didn't we go over this before? It is fascinating how America has changed in its core values, from say the seventies till today. Politics now emulates sport in which one is on one side or the other. But where do these ideas for each side originate and why do some ideas just seem so useless even dumb to one and not the other. What experience creates a belief that 'trickle down,' for instance, works and must be argued for in spite of evidence? Is reasoning rational, didn't we debate this a few years ago? See links below.

Take this test when you have a few minutes, it is a challenge in a number of ways.  https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_e2TZsAuNDO5Mq8d

"Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation." Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory by Hugo Mercier, Dan Sperber :: SSRN

Old post and reply

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/166739-reason-is-not-rational.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/166739-reason-is-not-rational.html#post3628043


Food for thought? http://www.usmessageboard.com/writing/103530-fact-paradox-and-random-musings-2.html#post7656862


----------



## gnarlylove

Critical thinker does not mean what you equated it to. Critical thinking is a subject that is danced around mostly because it calls out bad thinking, but this world is full of bad thinking.

Critical thinking requires one to study logic, syllogisms, fallacies, ya know, the rules of thought? Reasoning is another word. Critical refers to the attitude taken towards all assertions and conclusions, there is no respector of persons when it comes to the rules of thought, Ockham's Razor, sufficient evidence, allegation versus fact etc.

I know what critical thinking is from studying on my own as well as formal academic education, even taking a class called Critical Thinking 110 (Logic 340 is in there too).

The important part of critical thinking implies constant modification of one's beliefs, including core beliefs with which one identifies as central. I've changed my own core views and values many more times then I thought I would but always being honest with myself is crucial to this process. As I came to know more about the world I was forced by reason, critical thinking, the foundation of rationality to modify my beliefs. I wonder if anyone else does that or do they stick to their guns no matter what they learn.


midican, I wonder how we can reconcile rationality and critical thinking..you seem to imply that our faculty of rationalization leads to trouble since it's mean to justify _our _beliefs instead of justify_* true *_beliefs. But if critical thinking could be taught, at least what logical fallacies are (some 20-200) of them, then we'd be better equipped to seek out justification that correspond to what humans know instead of what humans want to believe.


----------



## Unkotare

gnarlylove said:


> I know what critical thinking is from studying on my own as well as formal academic education, even taking a class called Critical Thinking 110 (Logic 340 is in there too).
> 
> .







You took one intro course (and maybe one course in Logic) and you're here lecturing people? Get over yourself, Junior.


----------



## Boss

gnarlylove said:


> Critical thinker does not mean what you equated it to. Critical thinking is a subject that is danced around mostly because it calls out bad thinking, but this world is full of bad thinking.
> 
> Critical thinking requires one to study logic, syllogisms, fallacies, ya know, the rules of thought? Reasoning is another word. Critical refers to the attitude taken towards all assertions and conclusions, there is no respector of persons when it comes to the rules of thought, Ockham's Razor, sufficient evidence, allegation versus fact etc.
> 
> I know what critical thinking is from studying on my own as well as formal academic education, even taking a class called Critical Thinking 110 (Logic 340 is in there too).
> 
> The important part of critical thinking implies constant modification of one's beliefs, including core beliefs with which one identifies as central. I've changed my own core views and values many more times then I thought I would but always being honest with myself is crucial to this process. As I came to know more about the world I was forced by reason, critical thinking, the foundation of rationality to modify my beliefs. I wonder if anyone else does that or do they stick to their guns no matter what they learn.
> 
> midican, I wonder how we can reconcile rationality and critical thinking..you seem to imply that our faculty of rationalization leads to trouble since it's mean to justify _our _beliefs instead of justify_* true *_beliefs. But if critical thinking could be taught, at least what logical fallacies are (some 20-200) of them, then we'd be better equipped to seek out justification that correspond to what humans know instead of what humans want to believe.



As a conservative, my thinking and rationalizations are made on the basis of collective experience. What works is what has worked for mankind, and this is the basis for what I think will work in the future. Ideas that emerge from the political left are often very idealistic and frivolous. Based on some 'theory' that has yet to ever be proven in practicality. Hopeful and wishful thinking, not critical or reasoned thinking at all. "Hope and Change" is a prime example. Simply changing for change sake and hoping things will turn out for the better, is not a well-reasoned or well-thought-out plan, as it turns out. Conservatives could have saved you the time in trying this experiment. 

I am a psychologist, and I guess I have always been interested in the way people think and rationalize things. I was probably in about the 5th grade when I realized I wanted to be a psychologist. In my case, the profession picked me, I didn't pick the profession. When it's your 'calling' to study the way people think and rationalize, you certainly have to master your own thinking and rationalization. You very seldom see psychologists going to a psychiatrist. Therefore, I tend to be very comfortable with what I think and believe, and it takes a tremendous amount of hard core information to change what I think. I don't change my mind based on the opinions of others, and in fact, I am very skeptical when someone is attempting to change my mind. 

Logical fallacies, or "formal" and "informal" fallacies, are errors in logic. These should never be a problem to isolate and point out to the individual employing them. It's simply a matter of articulation. If you cannot articulate why something is a "logical fallacy" it probably isn't one.


----------



## flacaltenn

You just went thru a defense of your position by stating all of your qualifications to be a "reasoned debater" --- However ---- what folks SAW in the TITLE of this thread 
" *Why is USMB a hub for bad views*?" is a huge rookie leap to conclusions not in evidence. Define "bad views".. Quantify the extent of the problem. Compare with alternatives.. Like for instance, how the DEPTH AND BREADTH of discussions on USMB compares to other social media like Twitter and Facebook.  THAT'S what I would have expected from a seasoned reasoned thinker.. But instead --- all we got was................................



gnarlylove said:


> Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.
> 
> I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.
> 
> I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation? Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?
> 
> *Any thoughts?*
> 
> I thought perhaps the answer might be the fact the URL contains "US" (message boards) and therefore anyone who wants critical discussion automatically knows US=uncritical thought. Yes? No?
> 
> Again, this is a only trend I'm denoting in America. If usmessageboads is a genuine representation of American thought then whoa! America is not what I thought it was! But my opinion is this site is not a genuine representation.



Yeah.. Many thoughts.. 

1) What is the relevance of taking the cheap shot at the US in USMB and America in general? Are you just soapboxing your recent illuminations in reading Chomsky here -- or do you have broad personal experience with discussions in other languages and locales?

2) What IS a genuine representation of American thought? Even a coarse definition will do.

3) What part of your reasoned academically blessed,  debate preparation allows crap like ......  


> I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.



4) What role have YOU PLAYED in promoting better FOCUSED discussions in those forums like "environment and politics" ? And can you quote examples of the fine level of discourse you are missing from the rest of us?

My interactions with you on those forums indicate to me that you are as focused on the topic as a squirrel. And that glowing generalities and appeals to consensus are the only tools of debate that you have.. Show us your stuff man..


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> Happy Sunday morning all.  Whenever I come back to USMB I feel like, didn't we go over this before? It is fascinating how America has changed in its core values, from say the seventies till today. Politics now emulates sport in which one is on one side or the other. But where do these ideas for each side originate and why do some ideas just seem so useless even dumb to one and not the other. What experience creates a belief that 'trickle down,' for instance, works and must be argued for in spite of evidence? Is reasoning rational, didn't we debate this a few years ago? See links below.
> 
> Take this test when you have a few minutes, it is a challenge in a number of ways.  https://cuboulder.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_e2TZsAuNDO5Mq8d
> 
> "Reasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better decisions. However, much evidence shows that reasoning often leads to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This suggests that the function of reasoning should be rethought. Our hypothesis is that the function of reasoning is argumentative. It is to devise and evaluate arguments intended to persuade. Reasoning so conceived is adaptive given the exceptional dependence of humans on communication and their vulnerability to misinformation." Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory by Hugo Mercier, Dan Sperber :: SSRN
> 
> Old post and reply
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/166739-reason-is-not-rational.html
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/science-and-technology/166739-reason-is-not-rational.html#post3628043
> 
> 
> Food for thought? http://www.usmessageboard.com/writing/103530-fact-paradox-and-random-musings-2.html#post7656862



The expert on nothing has, once again, proven he doesn't understand anything. I actually answered the OP precisely earlier, yet only one person even bothered to thank me for it. I guess that Googling for obscure cultural references is too much for the psuedo-intellectuals of the board. Do yourself a favor, read the two words below and Google them if it doesn't click.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Sturgeon's Law.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Critical thinker does not mean what you equated it to. Critical thinking is a subject that is danced around mostly because it calls out bad thinking, but this world is full of bad thinking.
> 
> Critical thinking requires one to study logic, syllogisms, fallacies, ya know, the rules of thought? Reasoning is another word. Critical refers to the attitude taken towards all assertions and conclusions, there is no respector of persons when it comes to the rules of thought, Ockham's Razor, sufficient evidence, allegation versus fact etc.
> 
> I know what critical thinking is from studying on my own as well as formal academic education, even taking a class called Critical Thinking 110 (Logic 340 is in there too).
> 
> The important part of critical thinking implies constant modification of one's beliefs, including core beliefs with which one identifies as central. I've changed my own core views and values many more times then I thought I would but always being honest with myself is crucial to this process. As I came to know more about the world I was forced by reason, critical thinking, the foundation of rationality to modify my beliefs. I wonder if anyone else does that or do they stick to their guns no matter what they learn.
> 
> 
> midican, I wonder how we can reconcile rationality and critical thinking..you seem to imply that our faculty of rationalization leads to trouble since it's mean to justify _our _beliefs instead of justify_* true *_beliefs. But if critical thinking could be taught, at least what logical fallacies are (some 20-200) of them, then we'd be better equipped to seek out justification that correspond to what humans know instead of what humans want to believe.



Damn, I knew you were stupid, I didn't know you were pretentious. I should turn you and Midcan loose on each other and watch you guys spout nonsense at each for eternity.

For the record, critical thinking is not a method of calling out bad thinking, whatever the fuck you think that is. It isn't even the study of logic. It is the process of assessing the reliability of information by actually comparing it to everything else you know. If you see a ghost walk through your wall logic would dictate that the experience was valid, critical thinking would require you to asses your perceptions against everything else in the universe, including the fact that matter cannot pass through matter, and conclude that you were the victim of an elaborate hoax.

https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

In critical thinking you examine every iota of information for bias, even if it comes from yourself. You learn to acccept your own bias, and counter it as much as possible when assessing new information. You adjust your theories to the actual data, and never ignore something just because it doesn't fit your world view.

In other words, the reason you never see critical thinking from others is that you don't know what the fuck it is.


----------



## gnarlylove

Boss said:


> As a conservative, my thinking and rationalizations are made on the basis of collective experience. What works is what has worked for mankind, and this is the basis for what I think will work in the future. Ideas that emerge from the political left are often very idealistic and frivolous. Based on some 'theory' that has yet to ever be proven in practicality. Hopeful and wishful thinking, not critical or reasoned thinking at all. "Hope and Change" is a prime example. Simply changing for change sake and hoping things will turn out for the better, is not a well-reasoned or well-thought-out plan, as it turns out. Conservatives could have saved you the time in trying this experiment.
> 
> I am a psychologist, and I guess I have always been interested in the way people think and rationalize things. I was probably in about the 5th grade when I realized I wanted to be a psychologist. In my case, the profession picked me, I didn't pick the profession. When it's your 'calling' to study the way people think and rationalize, you certainly have to master your own thinking and rationalization. You very seldom see psychologists going to a psychiatrist. Therefore, I tend to be very comfortable with what I think and believe, and it takes a tremendous amount of hard core information to change what I think. I don't change my mind based on the opinions of others, and in fact, I am very skeptical when someone is attempting to change my mind.
> 
> Logical fallacies, or "formal" and "informal" fallacies, are errors in logic. These should never be a problem to isolate and point out to the individual employing them. It's simply a matter of articulation. If you cannot articulate why something is a "logical fallacy" it probably isn't one.



You are clearly intelligent and I appreciate your posts. But to think a field of study takes on human intention by choosing you is not very rational. I respect this belief however, and am aware when I am on the "right track" in life and when I'm not. Your premise seems more narrative based then in objective reality. I'm not saying we have total access to objectivity in the world and can understand it fully, but if we can't differentiate between what our values /opinions are and mistake them for fact, we are making rational discussion and compromise more difficult. There is more brush to clear then. If we both could come to common ground, work from a common premise from which to discuss, then I think we can have fruitful discussion. So let's see what you wrote,

Take you uncritical blanket statements about liberals and idealizing. What is a principle, such as many conservatives talk about, if not an ideal? An ideal for which to strive? Maybe you don't listen to you conservative representatives much. Neither do I but enough to know they use idealistic language. In fact, ideology, which has caused the gridlock in congress is in fact NOT WORKING. I take practicality seriously too and the ideological gridlock in congress is a result of neither side compromising, neither side modifying principle in order to make the system work so that our current system doesn't work, except for the super rich 1%. They have much access to our politicians and fund their campaigns.

But actually that's what congress was designed to do: represent the interests of those who own the nation (1%/corporations) but this is a different topic and I won't say anymore.

I wanted to address your Hope and Change objection. You speak as if either concept is idealist. If we take hope at face value, hope is essential to wake up in the morning. Without a motivation that you haven't yet achieved though are striving for, then you don't get out of bed, even if it's just a vague estimate. So Hope sounds very essential to human thinking and life in general, a belief that things can get better.

Take change. Well, taken at face value again, change simply means a different and new situation. Well, I doubt many people think there should be no change from this moment on. Change is happening each day and without adaptation, humans could not survive. Thus, we  were born into a constantly changing world and we must keep up if we want to play the game. So yeah, change also seems critical for our lives. Plus I doubt many people think the government and politics are how they should remain...so yeah, change _is_ and can be good, depending on what the change is. Such vague terms are really malleable for use as political strategy.

Even McCain's 2008 campaign sought "Hope and Change" for their campaign slogan but didn't pull it off as well--I'm simply talking in marketing/advertising terms, I don't care about who won or who is better. Why did both candidates choose this slogan? Look at the polls around the time. What was the country wanting? Hope. Change. That's what a billion dollar campaign can get you, brilliant strategists who read public polls. In fact, CPAC speech by Ted Cruz yesterday or recently also invoked Hope and Change as something Cons need but obviously not of the liberal variety.

So your attack on Hope and Change and idealism of liberals seems far less based in rational discussion then some personal antipathy towards liberals. I am sorry that liberals in the past have rubbed you raw so that you don't genuinely respect liberals from the get-go (I don't think your accusing me of this, I'm merely making what appears to be a factual observation about how you treat a liberal). Given that fact I am skeptical to the quality of discussion we can have. So I want to be clear I am opposed to both parties so you don't box me in as lib or con. like those are the only two possible positions. Perhaps working from the common ground of critical thinking and discussion instead of personal feeling and invocations of intuition, we can reach some common ground. That would feel like a warm cup of delicious tea if we could accomplish this. The ball is in your court. Tear this apart, ask me a question, anything, just please let's try to remain as close to rationality and reason as we can.


----------



## Toro

Any argument that disagrees with mine is a terribly reasoned post.


----------



## mamooth

Quantum Windbag said:


> The kook left is also over represented, as well as the kook center. I haven't seen you complaining about them.



But you _are_ the kook center, and I've called you out before. Especially kooky the way you strive to turn every thread away from intelligent discussion into meaningless wordplay that nobody gives a shit about, while "funny" would be the way you think it makes you look intelligent instead like a weasel.



> I actually answered the OP precisely earlier,



With a stupid evasion you thought was clever. Saying "90% of everything is crap" was just more of your trademark handwaving. Impresses the stupid people, but others just roll their eyes at it.



> In critical thinking you examine every iota of information for bias, even if it comes from yourself.



Something you need to work on, clearly.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> But actually that's what congress was designed to do: represent the interests of those who own the nation (1%/corporations) but this is a different topic and I won't say anymore.



This is from the guy that insists that other people can't think.


----------



## flacaltenn

mamooth said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The kook left is also over represented, as well as the kook center. I haven't seen you complaining about them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you _are_ the kook center, and I've called you out before. Especially kooky the way you strive to turn every thread away from intelligent discussion into meaningless wordplay that nobody gives a shit about, while "funny" would be the way you think it makes you look intelligent instead like a weasel.
Click to expand...


Clearly this is the problem..  This is what QW gets for his honest efforts.  And I get called spiteful and negged for DIRECTLY ADDRESSING Gnarlys OP.  We DO desparately need better quality discourse from the left....


----------



## HelenaHandbag

westwall said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF i was a Conservative BDBoop -- there would be a list of Conservatives that I despise.
> IF I was a Democrat --- the same. I'm neither.. I'm a solid 3rd party advocate. Have worked for that for
> 20 years now. So Westwall is correct. There are wings of BOTH parties that care ONLY about winning and power. And they are not very honest about their methods or how they try to sell their views.
> 
> That is why the term LEFTIST was coined. To differentiate and gain back the priviliege of calling one's self Liberal -- which I most certainly am.. It's the LEFTISTS who follow Chomsky and Alinsky.. And I'm not wrong to say that Gnarly has expressed a passion for those views..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will modify your post in one way, LEFTIST should be banished as a term.  They are progressives and progressives are on record as supporting all the great fascists and murderers of history, *Mao, Hitler, Stalin etc*.
Click to expand...

You forgot Wilson, FDR, Truman, LBJ, who also have the blood of literally tens of millions on their collective hands.

Not all warmongering, murdering fascists come from outside American borders.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

mamooth said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The kook left is also over represented, as well as the kook center. I haven't seen you complaining about them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you _are_ the kook center, and I've called you out before. Especially kooky the way you strive to turn every thread away from intelligent discussion into meaningless wordplay that nobody gives a shit about, while "funny" would be the way you think it makes you look intelligent instead like a weasel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually answered the OP precisely earlier,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With a stupid evasion you thought was clever. Saying "90% of everything is crap" was just more of your trademark handwaving. Impresses the stupid people, but others just roll their eyes at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In critical thinking you examine every iota of information for bias, even if it comes from yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Something you need to work on, clearly.
Click to expand...


When did I go from right wing to center?

The OP asked why this site is full of idiots, how is pointing out that idiots dominate the world an example of trademark hand waving? Is the problem here that you surround yourself with idiots in order to feel smart, and I don't let you get away with it? If you weren't one of the reasons why the College Board is dumbing down the SAT wordplay wouldn't be so meaningless to you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

flacaltenn said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The kook left is also over represented, as well as the kook center. I haven't seen you complaining about them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you _are_ the kook center, and I've called you out before. Especially kooky the way you strive to turn every thread away from intelligent discussion into meaningless wordplay that nobody gives a shit about, while "funny" would be the way you think it makes you look intelligent instead like a weasel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly this is the problem..  This is what QW gets for his honest efforts.  And I get called spiteful and negged for DIRECTLY ADDRESSING Gnarlys OP.  We DO desparately need better quality discourse from the left....
Click to expand...


Give him a break, mamooth is almost as smart as he thinks I am.


----------



## Moonglow

gnarlylove said:


> Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.
> 
> I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.
> 
> I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation? Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> I thought perhaps the answer might be the fact the URL contains "US" (message boards) and therefore anyone who wants critical discussion automatically knows US=uncritical thought. Yes? No?
> 
> Again, this is a only trend I'm denoting in America. If usmessageboads is a genuine representation of American thought then whoa! America is not what I thought it was! But my opinion is this site is not a genuine representation.



Some areas are for no nonsense tomfoolery and other parts of the site has the stern look of a victorian era grandmother..


----------



## mamooth

westwall said:


> I'm a liberal Boop.



No. You haven't got the brains or the honesty for that. In the environment folder, you're just a sort of bitter sulking machine now, sputtering out "libtards!" in tourettes-like fashion at anyone who points out what a joke your pseudoscience is. But don't fret about that too much. Your limitations won't hold you back from getting accolades from your fellow cultists. Just keep raving about the GreatGlobalSocialistConspiracy.

That's what passes for deep thinking among the conservatives these days. And it's the point of this thread, that so many conservatives are parroting tinfoil-hat conspiracy nonsense. Despite QM's equivocation tapdance, you don't see that behavior from the left at anywhere close to the same levels. Most of the right is literally raging about the whole planet being engaged in a conspiracy against them, while such crazy rants from the left are rare.


----------



## mamooth

Quantum Windbag said:


> The OP asked



Did I not mention that no one cares about your attempts to deflect with wordplay? Let me know what part of that you're having trouble with.

After that, try explaining why you're so emotionally invested in your "but both sides do it!" fantasy. I have some theories, but I figure I should give you a chance to explain first.


----------



## westwall

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a liberal Boop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. You haven't got the brains or the honesty for that. In the environment folder, you're just a sort of bitter sulking machine now, sputtering out "libtards!" in tourettes-like fashion at anyone who points out what a joke your pseudoscience is. But don't fret about that too much. Your limitations won't hold you back from getting accolades from your fellow cultists. Just keep raving about the GreatGlobalSocialistConspiracy.
> 
> That's what passes for deep thinking among the conservatives these days. And it's the point of this thread, that so many conservatives are parroting tinfoil-hat conspiracy nonsense. Despite QM's equivocation tapdance, you don't see that behavior from the left at anywhere close to the same levels. Most of the right is literally raging about the whole planet being engaged in a conspiracy against them, while such crazy rants from the left are rare.
Click to expand...







No, you're simply wrong.  Ask any of the hard righties and they'll tell you I'm a lefty.  I'm not, I am a liberal, gays should be allowed to marry, drugs should be decriminalized, abortion till the third trimester should be legal etc. etc. etc.  I have never once hidden my beliefs.  

However, I am not a progressive like you and your ilk.  Progressivism is evil, pure and simple.  More people have been murdered in the name of progressivism than any other cause.

You have never stated anything other than your lies about being a "nuclear watch officer", a position which doesn't exist in the US Navy.  So you are both a liar and a moron.


----------



## gnarlylove

Quantum Windbag said:


> The OP asked why this site is full of idiots,



It's evident you forfeit intelligent debate for hyperbole and aggressive language.

The OP specifically said *I was not talking about people or their principles* (SO I DID NOT ASK YOUR IDIOTIC RE-FORMULATION) but rather why most posts, like the one's you exemplify, are devoid of intelligence, critical thinking and logic (logic is not some word to be thrown around, it has meaning and it doesn't support you or me. It is independent of us and we must use it to find common ground from which we can discourse intelligently and intelligibly. Instead your posts center on virulent and tactical phrases meant to do anything but be authentic, using reason in such a hackneyed fashion. But why would I expect you to be able to read my question and understand it? Your whole mission is to misconstrue and misinterpret opponents so they seem pea brained to you. Incidently, that's how you know your talking with a pea-brain, they must make everything and others to look like pea brains except themselves.

Critical thinking is how to approach every discussion. Without it, the ground rules of thought, we have no possibility of compromise or rational dialogue. Instead, your own biases eat you alive so much so that you turn off the mechanisms that tell you to question your own beliefs. You can quote critical thinking websites, but you haven't studied either informally or formally. So you don't know two shits about it otherwise you and I would be able to have a respectable, sensible dialogue. Instead, human dialogue with is more impossible than a camel passing through the eye of a needle. I would be better off communicating with a chimp or talking parrot. At least they can respect one another.


----------



## gnarlylove

westwall said:


> No, you're simply wrong.    So you are both a liar and a moron.



Does a westwall post say anything but this tripe?

Get a grip and stop being so anti-thetical and hostile towards every single opponent. We get it! You are right and everyone else is wrong! You are in fantasia where you somehow managed to take a human brain and devolve it into a chron-magnum brain, with human deception capacities but chronmagnum stupidity. You deceive yourself into thinking your brain has all the answers, at least when it comes to responding to a post on USMB.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP asked why this site is full of idiots,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's evident you forfeit intelligent debate for hyperbole and aggressive language.
> 
> The OP specifically said *I was not talking about people or their principles* (SO I DID NOT ASK YOUR IDIOTIC RE-FORMULATION) but rather why most posts, like the one's you exemplify, are devoid of intelligence, critical thinking and logic (logic is not some word to be thrown around, it has meaning and it doesn't support you or me. It is independent of us and we must use it to find common ground from which we can discourse intelligently and intelligibly. Instead your posts center on virulent and tactical phrases meant to do anything but be authentic, using reason in such a hackneyed fashion. But why would I expect you to be able to read my question and understand it? Your whole mission is to misconstrue and misinterpret opponents so they seem pea brained to you. Incidently, that's how you know your talking with a pea-brain, they must make everything and others to look like pea brains except themselves.
> 
> Critical thinking is how to approach every discussion. Without it, the ground rules of thought, we have no possibility of compromise or rational dialogue. Instead, your own biases eat you alive so much so that you turn off the mechanisms that tell you to question your own beliefs. You can quote critical thinking websites, but you haven't studied either informally or formally. So you don't know two shits about it otherwise you and I would be able to have a respectable, sensible dialogue. Instead, human dialogue with is more impossible than a camel passing through the eye of a needle. I would be better off communicating with a chimp or talking parrot. At least they can respect one another.
Click to expand...


The answer is still the same, Stugeon's Law. The self evident proof of this is that you are an example of the 90% in that you can't even define critical thinking correctly. As such, I apply the Golden Rule, and treat you as I would like to be treated. Since I don't want to be treated like a fucking pussy who is controlled other people, I treat you with the exact same level of respect I demand form you. The fact that your panties get in a wad because you actually happen to be a fucking pussy who is controlled by other people in no way obligates me to disrespect you as an adult. 

Critical thinking is how I process information, not how I deal with problems. If you had half the education you claim you have you would know that. Even when I point to the official definition to show you you are wrong, you still pretend that you are right to insist that it is a way of dealing with assholes. The way to deal with assholes is to treat them like assholes.

In other words, if you have a problem with the real world, grow up.


----------



## Mojo2

midcan5 said:


> Interesting.  Watch CPAC this weekend - I would guess cspan is covering it. A few links below. Then consider the quote below.
> 
> "In the bowels of the National Harbor convention center in suburban Maryland on Thursday, a nonprofit called Empact America schooled attendees about the threat of a terrorist attack by way of an electromagnetic pulse. Former Reagan Defense Department official Frank Gaffney articulated his view that anti-tax activist and American Conservative Union board member Grover Norquist is an undercover agent for the Muslim Brotherhood. Ginni Thomas, a Daily Caller contributor and wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, alleged that President Barack Obama may be guilty of providing material support for terrorism. At least one panelist suggested that Speaker of the House John Boehner was a part of the Benghazi cover-up. (Who can say?)"  Has the Conservative Political Action Conference Purged the Kooks? | Mother Jones
> 
> Then listen to Limbaugh or any of the other conservative talking heads. Watch Fox sometime. Now ask yourself where is the reality, the factual information, even just an attempt at honest reporting? These are the sources of information for the right wingers on usmb, do you really expect reasoned debate? Did anyone see the theater which is a Darrell Issa investigation? (Full disclosure, I too sometimes engage in hyperbole.)
> 
> Cspan
> 
> Conservative Political Action Conference | Video | C-SPAN.org
> CPAC 2014 Day 2 | Video | C-SPAN.org



You are like one of those who have faithfully observed the sun and the moon and the stars and have definitively concluded the Heavens revolve around the Earth.

And for you everything is always going to be interpreted bass acwards.

Well, try this.



> The third great crisis, which continues today, is the challenge of Progressivism, a movement founded by Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and others. The Progressives rejected the Founders&#8217; principles, including their notions of a fixed human nature and inalienable natural rights.
> 
> Instead, they believed in a human nature that evolved and changed, which in turn justified their efforts to break down separation of powers in order to expand the size and scope of government far beyond the Founders&#8217; intent.



Constitution 101 - Part 1 - Lecture - Hillsdale College Online Courses


----------



## gnarlylove

Hillsdale is the most conservative college in the midwest. I got accepted and thank god I didn't go. Of course they will produce such language. It helps them grow and collect more students and funds. Think about it.

 Ted Cruz talks about wanting to uplift this struggling nation and then his next immediate phrase was to gab about the excessive debt and we need to cut entitlements, as if we can't pay for programs but we can pay for trillions in corporate subsidies and tax reliefs for the very rich. See the pattern?. I don't know how you can be so duplicitous and so popular but that's what happens when


----------



## HelenaHandbag

gnarlylove said:


> Hillsdale is the most conservative college in the midwest. I got accepted and thank god I didn't go. Of course they will produce such language. It helps them grow and collect more students and funds. Think about it.
> 
> Ted Cruz talks about wanting to uplift this struggling nation and then his next immediate phrase was to gab about the excessive debt and we need to cut entitlements, as if we can't pay for programs but we can pay for trillions in corporate subsidies and tax reliefs for the very rich. *See the pattern?. I don't know how you can be so duplicitous and so popular but that's what happens when*


Yes, I see the pattern. False dichotomy and straw man argument.

Progressives excel at that pattern.


----------



## Mojo2

gnarlylove said:


> Hillsdale is the most conservative college in the midwest. I got accepted and thank god I didn't go. Of course they will produce such language. It helps them grow and collect more students and funds. Think about it.
> 
> Ted Cruz talks about wanting to uplift this struggling nation and then his next immediate phrase was to gab about the excessive debt and we need to cut entitlements, as if we can't pay for programs but we can pay for trillions in corporate subsidies and tax reliefs for the very rich. See the pattern?. I don't know how you can be so duplicitous and so popular but that's what happens when



You would have benefited from Hillsdale IMHO.

I never went there but I can see you are still searching for answers and after finding Hillsdale's Constitution 101 course myself, i am soaking up the wisdom and find it fulfilling.

Maybe somewhere in their curriculum you'd have found a lesson best synopsized by comedian, Louis C.K. on his TV show, Louie.

"The only time you look in your neighbor's bowl is to make sure they have enough."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3-LE8DPMm8]Louie teaches Jane that life isn't always fair. - YouTube[/ame]

I mention this in response to your complaint about some people paying too little or too much in taxes or whatever.

By the way, see Prager University's 5 min. course on the Laffer Curve, called, "Lower Taxes, Higher Revenue."

In fact, I'll present it here for you.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqLjyA0hL1s]Lower Taxes, Higher Revenue - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## gnarlylove

HelenaHandbag said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillsdale is the most conservative college in the midwest. I got accepted and thank god I didn't go. Of course they will produce such language. It helps them grow and collect more students and funds. Think about it.
> 
> Ted Cruz talks about wanting to uplift this struggling nation and then his next immediate phrase was to gab about the excessive debt and we need to cut entitlements, as if we can't pay for programs but we can pay for trillions in corporate subsidies and tax reliefs for the very rich. *See the pattern?. I don't know how you can be so duplicitous and so popular but that's what happens when*
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I see the pattern. False dichotomy and straw man argument.
> 
> Progressives excel at that pattern.
Click to expand...


Can you explain?


----------



## HelenaHandbag

gnarlylove said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillsdale is the most conservative college in the midwest. I got accepted and thank god I didn't go. Of course they will produce such language. It helps them grow and collect more students and funds. Think about it.
> 
> Ted Cruz talks about wanting to uplift this struggling nation and then his next immediate phrase was to gab about the excessive debt and we need to cut entitlements, as if we can't pay for programs but we can pay for trillions in corporate subsidies and tax reliefs for the very rich. *See the pattern?. I don't know how you can be so duplicitous and so popular but that's what happens when*
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I see the pattern. False dichotomy and straw man argument.
> 
> Progressives excel at that pattern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you explain?
Click to expand...

For the kicker, you have a bad case of confirmation bias, sport.

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## gnarlylove

Mojo2 said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillsdale is the most conservative college in the midwest. I got accepted and thank god I didn't go. Of course they will produce such language. It helps them grow and collect more students and funds. Think about it.
> 
> Ted Cruz talks about wanting to uplift this struggling nation and then his next immediate phrase was to gab about the excessive debt and we need to cut entitlements, as if we can't pay for programs but we can pay for trillions in corporate subsidies and tax reliefs for the very rich. See the pattern?. I don't know how you can be so duplicitous and so popular but that's what happens when
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would have benefited from Hillsdale IMHO.
> 
> I never went there but I can see you are still searching for answers and after finding Hillsdale's Constitution 101 course myself, i am soaking up the wisdom and find it fulfilling.
> 
> Maybe somewhere in their curriculum you'd have found a lesson best synopsized by comedian, Louis C.K. on his TV show, Louie.
> 
> "The only time you look in your neighbor's bowl is to make sure they have enough."
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3-LE8DPMm8]Louie teaches Jane that life isn't always fair. - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> I mention this in response to your complaint about some people paying too little or too much in taxes or whatever.
> 
> By the way, see Prager University's 5 min. course on the Laffer Curve, called, "Lower Taxes, Higher Revenue."
> 
> In fact, I'll present it here for you.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqLjyA0hL1s]Lower Taxes, Higher Revenue - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


I don't doubt I would have benefited. That's human nature, turn a situation into good one (sometimes worse). You're trying to sell me ideas, not argue them. There's a big difference. My only plea is to challenge your own thought. You seem sincere and a genuine person, don't turn a blind eye to challenges to your beliefs. This website is not a good place for that. Check out Noam Chomsky along with your Hillsdale pals.


----------



## HelenaHandbag

gnarlylove said:


> I don't doubt I would have benefited. That's human nature, turn a situation into good one (sometimes worse). You're trying to sell me ideas, not argue them. There's a big difference. *My only plea is to challenge your own thought. You seem sincere and a genuine person, don't turn a blind eye to challenges to your beliefs.* This website is not a good place for that. Check out Noam Chomsky along with your Hillsdale pals.


Who said irony?


----------



## gnarlylove

HelenaHandbag said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I see the pattern. False dichotomy and straw man argument.
> 
> Progressives excel at that pattern.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the kicker, you have a bad case of confirmation bias, sport.
> 
> Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


The only way we can hope to have productive debate is for us to assess each claim as they come. Pilling more assertions on top of yet unclear assertions make our dialogue futile. But that's your aim, isn't it? You make no attempt to justify what your saying or explain it.


----------



## gnarlylove

What happened to your incredible wit? Get tired of putting on a front?


----------



## westwall

gnarlylove said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're simply wrong.    So you are both a liar and a moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does a westwall post say anything but this tripe?
> 
> Get a grip and stop being so anti-thetical and hostile towards every single opponent. We get it! You are right and everyone else is wrong! You are in fantasia where you somehow managed to take a human brain and devolve it into a chron-magnum brain, with human deception capacities but chronmagnum stupidity. You deceive yourself into thinking your brain has all the answers, at least when it comes to responding to a post on USMB.
Click to expand...








My gosh but you whine a lot.  I have never claimed to be infallible and when shown to be in error have readily admitted so.  Unlike you and your ilk.  You strike me as a first year grad student full of piss and vinegar who just thinks he's the bee's knee's.  

Here's a clue.  You're average at best.  Nothing you have stated has been particularly interesting and none of it is original.  You guys don't do original thinking.  But, as I said before, you are far better than the usual cut and paste drone....but drone you still are.


----------



## gnarlylove

westwall said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you're simply wrong.    So you are both a liar and a moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does a westwall post say anything but this tripe?
> 
> Get a grip and stop being so anti-thetical and hostile towards every single opponent. We get it! You are right and everyone else is wrong! You are in fantasia where you somehow managed to take a human brain and devolve it into a chron-magnum brain, with human deception capacities but chronmagnum stupidity. You deceive yourself into thinking your brain has all the answers, at least when it comes to responding to a post on USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My gosh but you whine a lot.  I have never claimed to be infallible and when shown to be in error have readily admitted so.  Unlike you and your ilk.  You strike me as a first year grad student full of piss and vinegar who just thinks he's the bee's knee's.
> 
> Here's a clue.  You're average at best.  Nothing you have stated has been particularly interesting and none of it is original.  You guys don't do original thinking.  But, as I said before, you are far better than the usual cut and paste drone....but drone you still are.
Click to expand...



How is your reply any different from all your other posts? I could care less for your duplicitous accolades, like are you attempting to respect someone or continue your high status? Just stick with the latter because you obviously do not know how to respect someone who disagrees with you. 

Your negation forumla goes something like:

"No (the initial disavowal statement)...blah blah blah...unlike you and your pals...yadda yadda. I'm right as usual" (but make it seem like there was a time when you were ever wrong to give it a spice of credibility). I cannot believe you genuinely believe yourself when you say you've been wrong. If anything you said was admitted to yourself as wrong, that means at least 20 different people had to repeat it to you that over and over for 3 months before it would sink in. I can't imagine that's happened very much.

If you could drop the persona and challenge your own beliefs instead of shielding yourself from all criticism, you might become sensible instead of an upset Jesuit on a mission.


----------



## HelenaHandbag

flacaltenn said:


> I've always considered their philosophy to be progressive and their political identity as leftist, but sure.
> 
> The extremists on the right are not the Tea Party -- which is fairly oblivious to the normal GOP social baggage and have the Liberal sense of fear about government power --* The extremists would be the Karl Roves and McCains who are similiarly oblivious to a consistent Conservative philosophy and care mostly about winning. They have dangerous ideas about the attainment of power and the use of that power domestically and Globally.*.


They are also progressives.

They are not oblivious. They are liars.


----------



## HelenaHandbag

gnarlylove said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain?
> 
> 
> 
> For the kicker, you have a bad case of confirmation bias, sport.
> 
> Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way we can hope to have productive debate is for us to assess each claim as they come. Pilling more assertions on top of yet unclear assertions make our dialogue futile. But that's your aim, isn't it? You make no attempt to justify what your saying or explain it.
Click to expand...

The irony is strong in this one.


----------



## flacaltenn

gnarlylove said:


> What happened to your incredible wit? Get tired of putting on a front?



*What the hell happened to your thread premise??* Did you get bored with yourself?
I asked you to discuss your issues about the quality of debate on USMB with specific questions.. 
The pattern here is for you to dance and bob and weave and do any little spin moves that gets you out of commitments to the solid work of defining and supporting an argument in debate.

Any time you're ready sparky.. Let's figure out what's REALLY bugging you eh???


----------



## gnarlylove

FLC I gave up hope on this thread when you added your hostile element and then a bunch of cackling proceeded. Now you care that we aren't discussing the topic? Sounds familiar. Like, you always like to bring the fact up no one is discussing the topic of the OP while you continue to not discuss it yourself. I see you play games with yourself and try to get others to play along. What fetishes.


----------



## flacaltenn

gnarlylove said:


> FLC I gave up hope on this thread when you added your hostile element and then a bunch of cackling proceeded. Now you care that we aren't discussing the topic? Sounds familiar. Like, you always like to bring the fact up no one is discussing the topic of the OP while you continue to not discuss it yourself. I see you play games with yourself and try to get others to play along. What fetishes.



Please Mr Gnarly, tell me why I shouldn't be hostile given the title and premise of this thread. 
I'm invested in the concept of a DIVERSE USMB community with ALL levels of debate tolerated and welcome. BECAUSE --- it's far superior to any other form of social interaction on difficult and complex topics.  YOU OTH -- want to whine about getting your ass kicked anytime a thread dangerously approach a truth or a fact.. 

And point SPECIFICALLY to the statements you are AVOIDING that deeply wounded you. 
The pattern here seems to be that you DO RESPOND to the juvenile and avoid the hard stuff.

Prove me wrong..


----------



## BDBoop

flacaltenn said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> FLC I gave up hope on this thread when you added your hostile element and then a bunch of cackling proceeded. Now you care that we aren't discussing the topic? Sounds familiar. Like, you always like to bring the fact up no one is discussing the topic of the OP while you continue to not discuss it yourself. I see you play games with yourself and try to get others to play along. What fetishes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please Mr Gnarly, tell me why I shouldn't be hostile given the title and premise of this thread.
> I'm invested in the concept of a DIVERSE USMB community with ALL levels of debate tolerated and welcome. BECAUSE --- it's far superior to any other form of social interaction on difficult and complex topics.  YOU OTH -- want to whine about getting your ass kicked anytime a thread dangerously approach a truth or a fact..
> 
> And point SPECIFICALLY to the statements you are AVOIDING that deeply wounded you.
> The pattern here seems to be that you DO RESPOND to the juvenile and avoid the hard stuff.
> 
> Prove me wrong..
Click to expand...


You probably shouldn't be hostile, period. This is debate, nobody has done you grievous harm.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hillsdale is the most conservative college in the midwest. I got accepted and thank god I didn't go. Of course they will produce such language. It helps them grow and collect more students and funds. Think about it.
> 
> Ted Cruz talks about wanting to uplift this struggling nation and then his next immediate phrase was to gab about the excessive debt and we need to cut entitlements, as if we can't pay for programs but we can pay for trillions in corporate subsidies and tax reliefs for the very rich. See the pattern?. I don't know how you can be so duplicitous and so popular but that's what happens when
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would have benefited from Hillsdale IMHO.
> 
> I never went there but I can see you are still searching for answers and after finding Hillsdale's Constitution 101 course myself, i am soaking up the wisdom and find it fulfilling.
> 
> Maybe somewhere in their curriculum you'd have found a lesson best synopsized by comedian, Louis C.K. on his TV show, Louie.
> 
> "The only time you look in your neighbor's bowl is to make sure they have enough."
> 
> [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3-LE8DPMm8"]Louie teaches Jane that life isn't always fair. - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> I mention this in response to your complaint about some people paying too little or too much in taxes or whatever.
> 
> By the way, see Prager University's 5 min. course on the Laffer Curve, called, "Lower Taxes, Higher Revenue."
> 
> In fact, I'll present it here for you.
> 
> [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqLjyA0hL1s"]Lower Taxes, Higher Revenue - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't doubt I would have benefited. That's human nature, turn a situation into good one (sometimes worse). You're trying to sell me ideas, not argue them. There's a big difference. My only plea is to challenge your own thought. You seem sincere and a genuine person, don't turn a blind eye to challenges to your beliefs. This website is not a good place for that. Check out Noam Chomsky along with your Hillsdale pals.
Click to expand...


There are, on the generous side, approximately 20 progressives on this board who can actually articulate an argument. Less than half of that number can actually defend their viewpoints because, quite frankly, they have never actually been challenged. You aren't even in the group that can actually articulate an argument, much less actually defend it.

Tell you what, oh font of all wisdom in the universe, start a thread in the CDZ and invite me to discuss with you how the world actually works. Let us both find out if we are as good at defending our ideas as we think we are. Keep in mind that I, as a classical liberal/libertarian/social conservative who actually went to school, I had to learn from the ground up how to defend my ideas from people that thought I was crazy. All you ever had to do was learn how to talk about yours with other people who were spoon fed the same bullshit you were.

Alternatively, you can continue to posture for the idiots, and receive nothing but scorn from the people who can actually think.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> HelenaHandbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain?
> 
> 
> 
> For the kicker, you have a bad case of confirmation bias, sport.
> 
> Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only way we can hope to have productive debate is for us to assess each claim as they come. Pilling more assertions on top of yet unclear assertions make our dialogue futile. But that's your aim, isn't it? You make no attempt to justify what your saying or explain it.
Click to expand...


Which claim have you assessed?


----------



## flacaltenn

BDBoop said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> FLC I gave up hope on this thread when you added your hostile element and then a bunch of cackling proceeded. Now you care that we aren't discussing the topic? Sounds familiar. Like, you always like to bring the fact up no one is discussing the topic of the OP while you continue to not discuss it yourself. I see you play games with yourself and try to get others to play along. What fetishes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please Mr Gnarly, tell me why I shouldn't be hostile given the title and premise of this thread.
> I'm invested in the concept of a DIVERSE USMB community with ALL levels of debate tolerated and welcome. BECAUSE --- it's far superior to any other form of social interaction on difficult and complex topics.  YOU OTH -- want to whine about getting your ass kicked anytime a thread dangerously approach a truth or a fact..
> 
> And point SPECIFICALLY to the statements you are AVOIDING that deeply wounded you.
> The pattern here seems to be that you DO RESPOND to the juvenile and avoid the hard stuff.
> 
> Prove me wrong..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You probably shouldn't be hostile, period. This is debate, nobody has done you grievous harm.
Click to expand...


Do you know why he took a cheap shot at the USMB community with the title of this thread? 
Or why he chose to embed a detailed slam at the US and Americans in the OP? Or why he chose to neg me rather than RESPOND to the actual thread discussion questions I posed to him? 

Is "hostile" daring to question his observations in the OP Betty?


----------



## BDBoop

flacaltenn said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please Mr Gnarly, tell me why I shouldn't be hostile given the title and premise of this thread.
> I'm invested in the concept of a DIVERSE USMB community with ALL levels of debate tolerated and welcome. BECAUSE --- it's far superior to any other form of social interaction on difficult and complex topics.  YOU OTH -- want to whine about getting your ass kicked anytime a thread dangerously approach a truth or a fact..
> 
> And point SPECIFICALLY to the statements you are AVOIDING that deeply wounded you.
> The pattern here seems to be that you DO RESPOND to the juvenile and avoid the hard stuff.
> 
> Prove me wrong..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You probably shouldn't be hostile, period. This is debate, nobody has done you grievous harm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know why he took a cheap shot at the USMB community with the title of this thread?
> Or why he chose to embed a detailed slam at the US and Americans in the OP? Or why he chose to neg me rather than RESPOND to the actual thread discussion questions I posed to him?
> 
> Is "hostile" daring to question his observations in the OP Betty?
Click to expand...


It's possible he was baiting. And why you chose to take the bait in "hook/line/sinker" mode is beyond me. I should think you would know better than to feed a troll, if that's how you perceive him.


----------



## flacaltenn

BDBoop said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You probably shouldn't be hostile, period. This is debate, nobody has done you grievous harm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why he took a cheap shot at the USMB community with the title of this thread?
> Or why he chose to embed a detailed slam at the US and Americans in the OP? Or why he chose to neg me rather than RESPOND to the actual thread discussion questions I posed to him?
> 
> Is "hostile" daring to question his observations in the OP Betty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's possible he was baiting. And why you chose to take the bait in "hook/line/sinker" mode is beyond me. I should think you would know better than to feed a troll, if that's how you perceive him.
Click to expand...


And what if Betty --- I actually was trying to RESPECT him, by honoring his desires to stay on topic and debate at a reasonable level.. (even if it WAS a baiting opening)? My purpose was to find out why he has such a low opinion of a diverse and broadly engaged community like this one...


----------



## BDBoop

flacaltenn said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why he took a cheap shot at the USMB community with the title of this thread?
> Or why he chose to embed a detailed slam at the US and Americans in the OP? Or why he chose to neg me rather than RESPOND to the actual thread discussion questions I posed to him?
> 
> Is "hostile" daring to question his observations in the OP Betty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible he was baiting. And why you chose to take the bait in "hook/line/sinker" mode is beyond me. I should think you would know better than to feed a troll, if that's how you perceive him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what if Betty --- I actually was trying to RESPECT him, by honoring his desires to stay on topic and debate at a reasonable level.. (even if it WAS a baiting opening)? My purpose was to find out why he has such a low opinion of a diverse and broadly engaged community like this one...
Click to expand...


My name isn't Betty.

And you just dodged my point on your feeding the alleged troll.


----------



## flacaltenn

Quick Review here.. In terms of "normal" USMB dialogue -- Was the following post "spiteful" or hostile? -- in terms of your "average" USMB discussions? 



flacaltenn said:


> You just went thru a defense of your position by stating all of your qualifications to be a "reasoned debater" --- However ---- what folks SAW in the TITLE of this thread
> " *Why is USMB a hub for bad views*?" is a huge rookie leap to conclusions not in evidence. Define "bad views".. Quantify the extent of the problem. Compare with alternatives.. Like for instance, how the DEPTH AND BREADTH of discussions on USMB compares to other social media like Twitter and Facebook.  THAT'S what I would have expected from a seasoned reasoned thinker.. But instead --- all we got was................................
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.
> 
> I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.
> 
> I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation? Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?
> 
> *Any thoughts?*
> 
> I thought perhaps the answer might be the fact the URL contains "US" (message boards) and therefore anyone who wants critical discussion automatically knows US=uncritical thought. Yes? No?
> 
> Again, this is a only trend I'm denoting in America. If usmessageboads is a genuine representation of American thought then whoa! America is not what I thought it was! But my opinion is this site is not a genuine representation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.. Many thoughts..
> 
> 1) What is the relevance of taking the cheap shot at the US in USMB and America in general? Are you just soapboxing your recent illuminations in reading Chomsky here -- or do you have broad personal experience with discussions in other languages and locales?
> 
> 2) What IS a genuine representation of American thought? Even a coarse definition will do.
> 
> 3) What part of your reasoned academically blessed,  debate preparation allows crap like ......
> 
> 
> 
> I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 4) What role have YOU PLAYED in promoting better FOCUSED discussions in those forums like "environment and politics" ? And can you quote examples of the fine level of discourse you are missing from the rest of us?
> 
> My interactions with you on those forums indicate to me that you are as focused on the topic as a squirrel. And that glowing generalities and appeals to consensus are the only tools of debate that you have.. Show us your stuff man..
Click to expand...


Was it the "focused as a squirrel" part? Because certainly, Gnarly seems to enjoy trading at that level of abuse..


----------



## flacaltenn

BDBoop said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's possible he was baiting. And why you chose to take the bait in "hook/line/sinker" mode is beyond me. I should think you would know better than to feed a troll, if that's how you perceive him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what if Betty --- I actually was trying to RESPECT him, by honoring his desires to stay on topic and debate at a reasonable level.. (even if it WAS a baiting opening)? My purpose was to find out why he has such a low opinion of a diverse and broadly engaged community like this one...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My name isn't Betty.
> 
> And you just dodged my point on your feeding the alleged troll.
Click to expand...


Sorry M'am.. I was under the impression you were channeling Betty Boop. If you're with some other Boop klan -- I deeply regret the inference.. 

I don't consider Gnarly a troll.. I've been conversing with him for several months and ACTUALLY -- he's one of few in the Enviro section that actually gives a damn about the topic.


----------



## BDBoop

flacaltenn said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what if Betty --- I actually was trying to RESPECT him, by honoring his desires to stay on topic and debate at a reasonable level.. (even if it WAS a baiting opening)? My purpose was to find out why he has such a low opinion of a diverse and broadly engaged community like this one...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My name isn't Betty.
> 
> And you just dodged my point on your feeding the alleged troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry M'am.. I was under the impression you were channeling Betty Boop. If you're with some other Boop klan -- I deeply regret the inference..
> 
> I don't consider Gnarly a troll.. I've been conversing with him for several months and ACTUALLY -- he's one of few in the Enviro section that actually gives a damn about the topic.
Click to expand...


So, most of your interactions with him have been positive? So then why wouldn't you give him the benefit of the doubt here.

This board doesn't need defending, really. I think our success speaks for itself.


----------



## flacaltenn

BDBoop said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> My name isn't Betty.
> 
> And you just dodged my point on your feeding the alleged troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry M'am.. I was under the impression you were channeling Betty Boop. If you're with some other Boop klan -- I deeply regret the inference..
> 
> I don't consider Gnarly a troll.. I've been conversing with him for several months and ACTUALLY -- he's one of few in the Enviro section that actually gives a damn about the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, most of your interactions with him have been positive? So then why wouldn't you give him the benefit of the doubt here.
Click to expand...


Well now -- "positive" is a strong word.. Let's say "interesting"... 



> This board doesn't need defending, really. I think our success speaks for itself.



Damn right. Just try pulling up a chair at your local Starbucks and chatting up strangers about religion, politics or atmospheric physics.. THAT could be risky...


----------



## Boss

gnarlylove said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a conservative, my thinking and rationalizations are made on the basis of collective experience. What works is what has worked for mankind, and this is the basis for what I think will work in the future. Ideas that emerge from the political left are often very idealistic and frivolous. Based on some 'theory' that has yet to ever be proven in practicality. Hopeful and wishful thinking, not critical or reasoned thinking at all. "Hope and Change" is a prime example. Simply changing for change sake and hoping things will turn out for the better, is not a well-reasoned or well-thought-out plan, as it turns out. Conservatives could have saved you the time in trying this experiment.
> 
> I am a psychologist, and I guess I have always been interested in the way people think and rationalize things. I was probably in about the 5th grade when I realized I wanted to be a psychologist. In my case, the profession picked me, I didn't pick the profession. When it's your 'calling' to study the way people think and rationalize, you certainly have to master your own thinking and rationalization. You very seldom see psychologists going to a psychiatrist. Therefore, I tend to be very comfortable with what I think and believe, and it takes a tremendous amount of hard core information to change what I think. I don't change my mind based on the opinions of others, and in fact, I am very skeptical when someone is attempting to change my mind.
> 
> Logical fallacies, or "formal" and "informal" fallacies, are errors in logic. These should never be a problem to isolate and point out to the individual employing them. It's simply a matter of articulation. If you cannot articulate why something is a "logical fallacy" it probably isn't one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are clearly intelligent and I appreciate your posts. But to think a field of study takes on human intention by choosing you is not very rational. I respect this belief however, and am aware when I am on the "right track" in life and when I'm not. Your premise seems more narrative based then in objective reality. I'm not saying we have total access to objectivity in the world and can understand it fully, but if we can't differentiate between what our values /opinions are and mistake them for fact, we are making rational discussion and compromise more difficult. There is more brush to clear then. If we both could come to common ground, work from a common premise from which to discuss, then I think we can have fruitful discussion. So let's see what you wrote,
> 
> Take you uncritical blanket statements about liberals and idealizing. What is a principle, such as many conservatives talk about, if not an ideal? An ideal for which to strive? Maybe you don't listen to you conservative representatives much. Neither do I but enough to know they use idealistic language. In fact, ideology, which has caused the gridlock in congress is in fact NOT WORKING. I take practicality seriously too and the ideological gridlock in congress is a result of neither side compromising, neither side modifying principle in order to make the system work so that our current system doesn't work, except for the super rich 1%. They have much access to our politicians and fund their campaigns.
> 
> But actually that's what congress was designed to do: represent the interests of those who own the nation (1%/corporations) but this is a different topic and I won't say anymore.
> 
> I wanted to address your Hope and Change objection. You speak as if either concept is idealist. If we take hope at face value, hope is essential to wake up in the morning. Without a motivation that you haven't yet achieved though are striving for, then you don't get out of bed, even if it's just a vague estimate. So Hope sounds very essential to human thinking and life in general, a belief that things can get better.
> 
> Take change. Well, taken at face value again, change simply means a different and new situation. Well, I doubt many people think there should be no change from this moment on. Change is happening each day and without adaptation, humans could not survive. Thus, we  were born into a constantly changing world and we must keep up if we want to play the game. So yeah, change also seems critical for our lives. Plus I doubt many people think the government and politics are how they should remain...so yeah, change _is_ and can be good, depending on what the change is. Such vague terms are really malleable for use as political strategy.
> 
> Even McCain's 2008 campaign sought "Hope and Change" for their campaign slogan but didn't pull it off as well--I'm simply talking in marketing/advertising terms, I don't care about who won or who is better. Why did both candidates choose this slogan? Look at the polls around the time. What was the country wanting? Hope. Change. That's what a billion dollar campaign can get you, brilliant strategists who read public polls. In fact, CPAC speech by Ted Cruz yesterday or recently also invoked Hope and Change as something Cons need but obviously not of the liberal variety.
> 
> So your attack on Hope and Change and idealism of liberals seems far less based in rational discussion then some personal antipathy towards liberals. I am sorry that liberals in the past have rubbed you raw so that you don't genuinely respect liberals from the get-go (I don't think your accusing me of this, I'm merely making what appears to be a factual observation about how you treat a liberal). Given that fact I am skeptical to the quality of discussion we can have. So I want to be clear I am opposed to both parties so you don't box me in as lib or con. like those are the only two possible positions. Perhaps working from the common ground of critical thinking and discussion instead of personal feeling and invocations of intuition, we can reach some common ground. That would feel like a warm cup of delicious tea if we could accomplish this. The ball is in your court. Tear this apart, ask me a question, anything, just please let's try to remain as close to rationality and reason as we can.
Click to expand...


We can never be close to rationality because you are not rational. You have a liberal worldview and are prepared to argue and advocate it no matter what I say. You seem to think you can do this by appealing to my ability to reason and by claiming you are neither liberal or conservative, which is a lie. 

Every statement made by liberal politicians over the past 20 years has been a platitude. Emotively appealing to the lowest common denominator. Conservatives have done nothing BUT compromise. Not only with liberals, but with our own political party. McCain WAS a conservative compromise, Romney as well. 

I presented "Hope and Change" as an example of how liberals are idealistic. You responded by defending the mantra and attempting to connect republicans to the phrase as well. But I was not attacking hope and change, merely giving an example of liberal idealism. Then you want to parse "idealism" and claim conservatives are ideologues as well, but I know better. Conservatism isn't an ideology like liberalism. This is why conservatives often have a difficult time coalescing behind a platform suitable to all. But the point is, you aren't wanting to genuinely listen to what I am saying, you want to defend liberalism and argue over semantics. Yet, you want ME to be reasonable, rational, and willing to compromise. 

When you start muttering nonsense about the 1%, you give yourself away as a liberal. Conservatives recognize the "occupy movement" rhetoric for what it is, which is actually repackaged Maoist philosophy. If you go back and study Mao's rise to power, you will find the exact same arguments being made. The 1% vs. The 99%.... sparked the People's Revolution. Now I don't have time to argue with you over the merits of Maoist philosophy, if you want to believe in it, that's up to you. 

Conservative philosophy is based on what is tried and true, what works for humanity, which is freedom and liberty. Not class warfare rhetoric and emotive pleas to idealism.


----------



## midcan5

gnarlylove said:


> midican, I wonder how we can reconcile rationality and critical thinking..you seem to imply that our faculty of rationalization leads to trouble since it's mean to justify _our _beliefs instead of justify_* true *_beliefs. But if critical thinking could be taught, at least what logical fallacies are (some 20-200) of them, then we'd be better equipped to seek out justification that correspond to what humans know instead of what humans want to believe.



For anyone who would like to be challenged that reason, rationality, or even critical thinking work wonders or lead to a safe place, I'd suggest the book quoted below. 

"...In the United States large sections of the population were happily abandoned to illiteracy from the very beginning. Now new sections are added to this lumpen proletariat with each passing year. Everywhere one hears the elites saying to each other, in private: "Well, of course, they are not educable." There are endless statistics to confirm the already educated in their pessimism. Seventy-two million Americans are illiterate, the majority of them white. This doesn't include the functionally illiterate. One-quarter of American children live below the poverty level. Forty percent of children in public schools are from racial minorities. The whites who can afford to are slipping away into the private school system. Twice as many children are born to American teenagers as to those of any other democracy. But if you begin to add such facts as that forty million Americans do not have access to medical care, you are also obliged to wonder if the problem lies not with the population but with the elites, their expectations and their own education." p131 'Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West' John Ralston Saul  


"Within the ethos of reason there was also the idea of encouraging generalized education. Education instilled knowledge. Knowledge dispelled superstition, thus making it possible to reason. A man capable of reasoning was fit to be a citizen. But this idea of creating citizens was vague. What did the elites want them for? The eighteenth-century philosophers believed, after all, in permanently established but benevolent authority. Educating the masses was intended only to improve the relationship between the top and the bottom of society. Not to change the nature of the relationship. [..] Like any elite holding great power, the technocrats are not particularly interested in the creation of subsidiary elites. Thus, while a fortune continues to be spent on state schools and universities, the entire system continues to decline. The intellectual muscle needed to give it direction is concentrated instead upon the continued refining of the education of the technocratic elite. Indeed, whatever may be quoted about the need for general education, there has always been an underlying contradiction in what the nation-state wished to teach the citizen. The masses, it was believed, could not be given more than a basic education: basic skills and - nowhere in elite education does this appear - a moral framework. In other words, they were to receive the nuts and bolts of a humanist formation." p130 'Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West' John Ralston Saul


----------



## gnarlylove

BDBoop said:


> You probably shouldn't be hostile, period. This is debate, nobody has done you grievous harm.



Somebody gets how debate works.

Why can't we discuss ideas instead of constantly bringing up how the other person is posturing or other nonsense that has little substance. I don't know why anyone thinks they have the first clue as to the accuracy of their judgments; but accuracy and substance doesn't matter: what matters is yelling typed words and being aggressive.

Might does not make right. But why would I expect any of you hostile folks to get that? That's your WHOLE existence!

Maybe a new question ought to be what is debate?


----------



## BDBoop

gnarlylove said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You probably shouldn't be hostile, period. This is debate, nobody has done you grievous harm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody gets how debate works.
> 
> Why can't we discuss ideas instead of constantly bringing up how the other person is posturing or other nonsense that has little substance. I don't know why anyone thinks they have the first clue as to the accuracy of their judgments; but accuracy and substance doesn't matter: what matters is yelling typed words and being aggressive.
> 
> Might does not make right. But why would I expect any of you hostile folks to get that? That's your WHOLE existence!
> 
> Maybe a new question ought to be what is debate?
Click to expand...


My nephew was debate co-captain with his then high school sweetheart, and they coached debate as husband and wife for ten years after they graduated.


----------



## gnarlylove

Boss said:


> We can never be close to rationality because you are not rational. You have a liberal worldview and are prepared to argue and advocate it no matter what I say. You seem to think you can do this by appealing to my ability to reason and by claiming you are neither liberal or conservative, which is a lie.
> 
> Every statement made by liberal politicians over the past 20 years has been a platitude. Emotively appealing to the lowest common denominator. Conservatives have done nothing BUT compromise. Not only with liberals, but with our own political party. McCain WAS a conservative compromise, Romney as well.
> 
> I presented "Hope and Change" as an example of how liberals are idealistic. You responded by defending the mantra and attempting to connect republicans to the phrase as well. But I was not attacking hope and change, merely giving an example of liberal idealism. Then you want to parse "idealism" and claim conservatives are ideologues as well, but I know better. Conservatism isn't an ideology like liberalism. This is why conservatives often have a difficult time coalescing behind a platform suitable to all. But the point is, you aren't wanting to genuinely listen to what I am saying, you want to defend liberalism and argue over semantics. Yet, you want ME to be reasonable, rational, and willing to compromise.
> 
> When you start muttering nonsense about the 1%, you give yourself away as a liberal. Conservatives recognize the "occupy movement" rhetoric for what it is, which is actually repackaged Maoist philosophy. If you go back and study Mao's rise to power, you will find the exact same arguments being made. The 1% vs. The 99%.... sparked the People's Revolution. Now I don't have time to argue with you over the merits of Maoist philosophy, if you want to believe in it, that's up to you.
> 
> Conservative philosophy is based on what is tried and true, what works for humanity, which is freedom and liberty. Not class warfare rhetoric and emotive pleas to idealism.



I appreciate the personal attack that I am not rational. Wait...youre a psychologist? Aren't you suppose to gather some information about me (one post over the internet is insufficient) before committing with full belief to such a sweeping generalization?

I tried to consider you as a rational peer so we could have rational dialogue but you don't know the first thing about me and you've already dismissed us as never being able to have rational dialogue because of me.

That judgment on your part excludes rational dialogue to be sure. You don't even give us the chance. Why? Because I simply challenged your beliefs on objective grounds. I was respectful and you still could care less.

Good day. Please don't waste your time responding since you think I'm inept at discussion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Somebody gets how debate works.



That somebody is not you.



gnarlylove said:


> Why can't we discuss ideas instead of constantly bringing up how the other person is posturing or other nonsense that has little substance. I don't know why anyone thinks they have the first clue as to the accuracy of their judgments; but accuracy and substance doesn't matter: what matters is yelling typed words and being aggressive



Because that is part of the process of debating. Debate is the process of challenging another person's position, and that includes pointing out all of the factors in that position.

Your position is that people have bad views. You don't talk about what the fuck gives you the unilateral right to decree a view to be good or bad, you just presume that everyone else will go along with your moronic position because you are so much better educated than they are. 

We are supposed to believe this even after you totally misrepresent what critical thinking is, confusing it with actual debate, and then you pretend that the only way people can actually fucking debate abothe person is if they don't fucking care about who is right.

Why the fuck should we debate if we don't care about the answer? We talk about things that directly impact our lives, and you think we should all pretend we are talking about the difference between British and American English.

Guess what, really people who talk about that get passionate too. There is a reason for that, only pretentious assholes talk about things they don't care about. If you want to limit your discourse to the circle of pretentious assholes I suggest you keep playing in your study group. In the real world, people care.



gnarlylove said:


> Might does not make right. But why would I expect any of you hostile folks to get that? That's your WHOLE existence!



Who the fuck is being hostile? The fact that people get passionate, that they actually care about something, does not mean they are hostile.

Your fucking problem is you haven't actually lived yet. You actually believe the claptrap you get in school from those professors that spent their entire pathetic lives in an ivory tower, isolated from the consequences of  playing god with the lives of real people. This shit we talk about here matters, it isn't idle intellectual speculation, and passion is not hostility.



gnarlylove said:


> Maybe a new question ought to be what is debate?



Debate is not pretending that people have bad views, and declaring yourself the winner. If my views are bad, prove it by tearing them apart. If you are afraid to do that, then expect to get treated like a douche bag when you insist that everyone who is not you is wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can never be close to rationality because you are not rational. You have a liberal worldview and are prepared to argue and advocate it no matter what I say. You seem to think you can do this by appealing to my ability to reason and by claiming you are neither liberal or conservative, which is a lie.
> 
> Every statement made by liberal politicians over the past 20 years has been a platitude. Emotively appealing to the lowest common denominator. Conservatives have done nothing BUT compromise. Not only with liberals, but with our own political party. McCain WAS a conservative compromise, Romney as well.
> 
> I presented "Hope and Change" as an example of how liberals are idealistic. You responded by defending the mantra and attempting to connect republicans to the phrase as well. But I was not attacking hope and change, merely giving an example of liberal idealism. Then you want to parse "idealism" and claim conservatives are ideologues as well, but I know better. Conservatism isn't an ideology like liberalism. This is why conservatives often have a difficult time coalescing behind a platform suitable to all. But the point is, you aren't wanting to genuinely listen to what I am saying, you want to defend liberalism and argue over semantics. Yet, you want ME to be reasonable, rational, and willing to compromise.
> 
> When you start muttering nonsense about the 1%, you give yourself away as a liberal. Conservatives recognize the "occupy movement" rhetoric for what it is, which is actually repackaged Maoist philosophy. If you go back and study Mao's rise to power, you will find the exact same arguments being made. The 1% vs. The 99%.... sparked the People's Revolution. Now I don't have time to argue with you over the merits of Maoist philosophy, if you want to believe in it, that's up to you.
> 
> Conservative philosophy is based on what is tried and true, what works for humanity, which is freedom and liberty. Not class warfare rhetoric and emotive pleas to idealism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate the personal attack that I am not rational. Wait...youre a psychologist? Aren't you suppose to gather some information about me (one post over the internet is insufficient) before committing with full belief to such a sweeping generalization?
> 
> I tried to consider you as a rational peer so we could have rational dialogue but you don't know the first thing about me and you've already dismissed us as never being able to have rational dialogue because of me.
> 
> That judgment on your part excludes rational dialogue to be sure. You don't even give us the chance. Why? Because I simply challenged your beliefs on objective grounds. I was respectful and you still could care less.
> 
> Good day. Please don't waste your time responding since you think I'm inept at discussion.
Click to expand...


Someone pointing out that you are not rational is a personal attack.

You decalring that everyone who who lives in the United States is an idiot is reasoned debate.

See the problem here, asshole?


----------



## gnarlylove

"Who the fuck is being hostile?" ^^

LOL


----------



## R.D.

gnarlylove said:


> Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.....
> 
> 
> Any thoughts?



Yes.  You sound like a whiny ass self absorbed underachieving  liberal tool.


----------



## Unkotare

R.D. said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.....
> 
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  You sound like a whiny ass self absorbed underachieving  liberal tool.
Click to expand...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMRo5XCKddQ]Best Joke from "The Naked Gun" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Quantum Windbag

gnarlylove said:


> "Who the fuck is being hostile?" ^^
> 
> LOL



Yes, because actually fucking caring is proof of hostility.

I actually started a thread about this one, fuckwad. I pointed out that only idiots take things on a message board personally. If you need help, and I can give it, I will. I have actually done that, which actually impressed somebody on this board that thought I hated them because I argued with almost everything they said. I am not hostile toward you, if I was I wouldn't talk to you. Grow up, then come back here and get some real adult conversation.


----------



## Boss

gnarlylove said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can never be close to rationality because you are not rational. You have a liberal worldview and are prepared to argue and advocate it no matter what I say. You seem to think you can do this by appealing to my ability to reason and by claiming you are neither liberal or conservative, which is a lie.
> 
> Every statement made by liberal politicians over the past 20 years has been a platitude. Emotively appealing to the lowest common denominator. Conservatives have done nothing BUT compromise. Not only with liberals, but with our own political party. McCain WAS a conservative compromise, Romney as well.
> 
> I presented "Hope and Change" as an example of how liberals are idealistic. You responded by defending the mantra and attempting to connect republicans to the phrase as well. But I was not attacking hope and change, merely giving an example of liberal idealism. Then you want to parse "idealism" and claim conservatives are ideologues as well, but I know better. Conservatism isn't an ideology like liberalism. This is why conservatives often have a difficult time coalescing behind a platform suitable to all. But the point is, you aren't wanting to genuinely listen to what I am saying, you want to defend liberalism and argue over semantics. Yet, you want ME to be reasonable, rational, and willing to compromise.
> 
> When you start muttering nonsense about the 1%, you give yourself away as a liberal. Conservatives recognize the "occupy movement" rhetoric for what it is, which is actually repackaged Maoist philosophy. If you go back and study Mao's rise to power, you will find the exact same arguments being made. The 1% vs. The 99%.... sparked the People's Revolution. Now I don't have time to argue with you over the merits of Maoist philosophy, if you want to believe in it, that's up to you.
> 
> Conservative philosophy is based on what is tried and true, what works for humanity, which is freedom and liberty. Not class warfare rhetoric and emotive pleas to idealism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate the personal attack that I am not rational. Wait...youre a psychologist? Aren't you suppose to gather some information about me (one post over the internet is insufficient) before committing with full belief to such a sweeping generalization?
> 
> I tried to consider you as a rational peer so we could have rational dialogue but you don't know the first thing about me and you've already dismissed us as never being able to have rational dialogue because of me.
> 
> That judgment on your part excludes rational dialogue to be sure. You don't even give us the chance. Why? Because I simply challenged your beliefs on objective grounds. I was respectful and you still could care less.
> 
> Good day. Please don't waste your time responding since you think I'm inept at discussion.
Click to expand...


Again, why do you view things as "attacks" when they aren't? I didn't attack "hope and change" and I haven't attacked you as irrational. I said we can't be rational because you're not rational. That's an observational statement, not an attack. I never said that it's not possible for you to ever be rational. You're right, I know nothing about you. I can only go by what you've posted here, which is all I have to base my observations on. I never said you were inept at discussions or anything else. Another example of you interjecting things into what is said. People who are being rational, don't do this.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

westwall said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is USMB a hub for bad views?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because despite the obvious trollish imbecility of you and your views, this is one very tolerant Board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, we allow all sorts of people to make fools of themselves.
Click to expand...


And folks like gnarlylump and the AGW Faithers take full advantage of it.


----------



## westwall

gnarlylove said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You probably shouldn't be hostile, period. This is debate, nobody has done you grievous harm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody gets how debate works.
> 
> Why can't we discuss ideas instead of constantly bringing up how the other person is posturing or other nonsense that has little substance. I don't know why anyone thinks they have the first clue as to the accuracy of their judgments; but accuracy and substance doesn't matter: what matters is yelling typed words and being aggressive.
> 
> Might does not make right. But why would I expect any of you hostile folks to get that? That's your WHOLE existence!
> 
> Maybe a new question ought to be what is debate?
Click to expand...







Sounds like a great idea!  You start.  No longer calling sceptics "deniers" (a pejorative after all) would be an excellent start in the right direction.  I'll make a deal with you....address the science and I will too.


----------



## gnarlylove

Boss said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can never be close to rationality because *you are not rational*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, why do you view things as "attacks" when they aren't? I didn't attack "hope and change" and I haven't attacked you as irrational. I said we can't be rational because *you're not rational.* That's an *observational statement*, not an attack. I never said that it's not possible for you to ever be rational. You're right, I know nothing about you. I can only go by what you've posted here, which is all I have to base my observations on. I never said you were inept at discussions or anything else. Another example of you interjecting things into what is said. People who are being rational, don't do this.
Click to expand...


I didn't categorize your assertions as "attack," but what does it even matter? It plainly doesn't.

You claim it as fact, as observation. This is the foundation of our discussion--virtually prior to engaging you had already concluded, and then came to "observe" I am not rational. Since I am not rational, as evinced in 500 words or less, you must be rational. Why? Because before the discussion began you were carrying on about how Liberals=X and X is just bad, or whatever term you want to correct me, it doesn't matter.

I pleaded for you to not box me in as liberal because I have expressed almost no political beliefs. But because I challenged your deficient reasoning regarding liberals and conservatives (as if they are two very different ways of looking at the world but _de facto_ they are *one business party with two factions*) you took it to mean I am irrational because it's not what you believe. Remember? What you believe is rational, by definition.


The terms of discussion are pre-set, and you've already defined and generalized yourself as rational. Thus it is crucial for you to define your opponent as not rational because it frees you up make any claim you want--whether it makes sense or not--because rationality is, again, on_ your_ side. How so? By definition. So naturally anything said that opposes your viewpoint is not rational, and so what's the point?

I was taught in my informal and formal education that rationality was not on anyone's side but was a tool used to facilitate human conversation and interaction. But assuming your opponents as observationally irrational after two posts is pretty ignoble of a psychologist, so again what's the point of discussion between you and I? There is none. So please save us some time. We know you know you're right. So just stop wasting your time trying to convert us lost souls, please, it's useless.


----------



## flacaltenn

gnarlylove said:


> I didn't categorize your assertions as "attack," but what does it even matter? It plainly doesn't.
> 
> You claim it as fact, as observation. This is the foundation of our discussion--virtually prior to engaging you had already concluded, and then came to "observe" I am not rational. Since I am not rational, as evinced in 500 words or less, you must be rational. Why? Because before the discussion began you were carrying on about how Liberals=X and X is just bad, or whatever term you want to correct me, it doesn't matter.
> 
> I pleaded for you to not box me in as liberal because I have expressed almost no political beliefs.



Sure Sparky.. That's why this appears in the OP... 



> I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again,* each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives. *



Hey -- Jerk walks into a bar, sees a parrot on a lady's shoulder and says "Screw your stupid parrot".. And the parrot says   ------- Enjoy your Brawl Gnarly... 

P.S. Would still like a definition of those "bad ideas" in the Title....


----------



## Unkotare

gnarlylove said:


> I was taught in my informal and formal education .





Yeah, your one intro course. Everyone is real impressed, kid...


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Boss said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can never be close to rationality because you are not rational. You have a liberal worldview and are prepared to argue and advocate it no matter what I say. You seem to think you can do this by appealing to my ability to reason and by claiming you are neither liberal or conservative, which is a lie.
> 
> Every statement made by liberal politicians over the past 20 years has been a platitude. Emotively appealing to the lowest common denominator. Conservatives have done nothing BUT compromise. Not only with liberals, but with our own political party. McCain WAS a conservative compromise, Romney as well.
> 
> I presented "Hope and Change" as an example of how liberals are idealistic. You responded by defending the mantra and attempting to connect republicans to the phrase as well. But I was not attacking hope and change, merely giving an example of liberal idealism. Then you want to parse "idealism" and claim conservatives are ideologues as well, but I know better. Conservatism isn't an ideology like liberalism. This is why conservatives often have a difficult time coalescing behind a platform suitable to all. But the point is, you aren't wanting to genuinely listen to what I am saying, you want to defend liberalism and argue over semantics. Yet, you want ME to be reasonable, rational, and willing to compromise.
> 
> When you start muttering nonsense about the 1%, you give yourself away as a liberal. Conservatives recognize the "occupy movement" rhetoric for what it is, which is actually repackaged Maoist philosophy. If you go back and study Mao's rise to power, you will find the exact same arguments being made. The 1% vs. The 99%.... sparked the People's Revolution. Now I don't have time to argue with you over the merits of Maoist philosophy, if you want to believe in it, that's up to you.
> 
> Conservative philosophy is based on what is tried and true, what works for humanity, which is freedom and liberty. Not class warfare rhetoric and emotive pleas to idealism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate the personal attack that I am not rational. Wait...youre a psychologist? Aren't you suppose to gather some information about me (one post over the internet is insufficient) before committing with full belief to such a sweeping generalization?
> 
> I tried to consider you as a rational peer so we could have rational dialogue but you don't know the first thing about me and you've already dismissed us as never being able to have rational dialogue because of me.
> 
> That judgment on your part excludes rational dialogue to be sure. You don't even give us the chance. Why? Because I simply challenged your beliefs on objective grounds. I was respectful and you still could care less.
> 
> Good day. Please don't waste your time responding since you think I'm inept at discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, why do you view things as "attacks" when they aren't? I didn't attack "hope and change" and I haven't attacked you as irrational. I said we can't be rational because you're not rational. That's an observational statement, not an attack. I never said that it's not possible for you to ever be rational. You're right, I know nothing about you. I can only go by what you've posted here, which is all I have to base my observations on. I never said you were inept at discussions or anything else. Another example of you interjecting things into what is said. People who are being rational, don't do this.
Click to expand...


Neither do people who actually believe in adult discourse, yet gnarly, the guy that is complaining about how other people talk to him, is dumping insults on everyone who dares to disagree with him.


----------



## Boss

gnarlylove said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can never be close to rationality because *you are not rational*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, why do you view things as "attacks" when they aren't? I didn't attack "hope and change" and I haven't attacked you as irrational. I said we can't be rational because *you're not rational.* That's an *observational statement*, not an attack. I never said that it's not possible for you to ever be rational. You're right, I know nothing about you. I can only go by what you've posted here, which is all I have to base my observations on. I never said you were inept at discussions or anything else. Another example of you interjecting things into what is said. People who are being rational, don't do this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't categorize your assertions as "attack," but what does it even matter? It plainly doesn't.
Click to expand...


Well, you've twice used the word "attack" to describe my responses to things you've said. First, you claimed I had "attacked" the Hope and Change mantra. Then, you claimed I had personally "attacked" you as not being rational. It matters because if you view objective honest evaluation as "attacks" you can't be rational and I can't have a rational discussion with you because you're not being rational. 



> You claim it as fact, as observation.



Observations are indeed "facts" as they have been observed. 



> This is the foundation of our discussion--virtually prior to engaging you had already concluded, and then came to "observe" I am not rational.



I had not "already concluded" anything before I read your post. After reading your post and your initial response to me, I made the observation that you are not rational. 



> Since I am not rational, as evinced in 500 words or less, you must be rational. Why? Because before the discussion began you were carrying on about how Liberals=X and X is just bad, or whatever term you want to correct me, it doesn't matter.



I never claimed that because you are not rational, I must be rational. That would be a "logical fallacy" and I try to avoid them. I merely stated we cannot have a rational discussion because you are not rational. I didn't "carry on" about Liberals=X and X is just bad. I stated that liberal policies tend to be idealistic and frivolous, then gave an explicit example. Here again, you are demonstrating how you are not rational. 



> I pleaded for you to not box me in as liberal because I have expressed almost no political beliefs.



But you did. You immediately viewed my critique as an "attack" and began defending the "hope and change" mantra. You have continually lobbed passive insults at conservatism, while pleading for reasonable discourse. 



> But because I challenged your deficient reasoning regarding liberals and conservatives (as if they are two very different ways of looking at the world but _de facto_ they are *one business party with two factions*) you took it to mean I am irrational because it's not what you believe. Remember? What you believe is rational, by definition.



Here again you passively insult me by suggesting my reasoning is deficient. I say you are not being rational because you are not being rational, no other reason. People are rational who don't agree with me all the time. 

As for libreals and conservatives, I tried to explain it earlier... Liberals are ideologically driven, they are ideologues who believe in idealistic theories that are often frivolous and do not work in practice. Conservatives are not ideologues. Their worldview is based on reasoning and past human experience. On ideological issues, they can be all over the board. I know conservatives who favor gay marriage, pot legalization and abortion. The country is currently run by two parties, the Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are largely liberal ideologues, Republicans are often supported by conservatives because conservatives are not liberal ideologues. 



> The terms of discussion are pre-set, and you've already defined and generalized yourself as rational.



No, I defined and generalized myself as conservative and you as liberal and not rational. 



> Thus it is crucial for you to define your opponent as not rational because it frees you up make any claim you want--whether it makes sense or not--because rationality is, again, on_ your_ side. How so? By definition. So naturally anything said that opposes your viewpoint is not rational, and so what's the point?



I've never claimed any of this. I simply pointed out that we cannot have a rational discussion because you are not rational. 



> I was taught in my informal and formal education that rationality was not on anyone's side but was a tool used to facilitate human conversation and interaction. But assuming your opponents as observationally irrational after two posts is pretty ignoble of a psychologist, so again what's the point of discussion between you and I? There is none. So please save us some time. We know you know you're right. So just stop wasting your time trying to convert us lost souls, please, it's useless.



I never claimed rationality was on my side. I only pointed out that it's not possible to have a rational conversation with someone who is not being rational. I did not say that you are irrational, just that you are not rational. 

As for my psychology background, while it does help me figure people out here sometimes, I don't always use my training in discourse with others as I would a patient or client. I reveal much more of my personal opinion and views than I ever would in a professional setting. 

Now, I am not here to "convert lost souls" whatever that's supposed to mean. And perhaps it is a useless waste of time to attempt conversing with you, but I have genuinely been trying to help you realize that you're not being rational. This seems to have offended you. I would recommend stepping back and examining your own commentary to see how others may view it as non-rational. Realize and understand that we all believe our views to be rational, unless we are admittedly insane.


----------



## mamooth

westwall said:


> You have never stated anything other than your lies about being a "nuclear watch officer", a position which doesn't exist in the US Navy.  So you are both a liar and a moron.



For those who haven't ever seen Westwall's true face showing through the mask, he would be guy who will belittle someone's military service if he gets angry at them.


----------



## gnarlylove

You are making me dizzy watch you spin circles trying to justify why you regard someone you know almost nothing about so plainly not rational. Namely, me, whom you have NO consequential information about, yet _repeatedly_ affirm I am not rational.

How is that respectful dialogue? From a psychologist? I've come to expect higher standards from people who study interpersonal relationships. I guess youre an exception. Or do you want to try again, this time, returning my respect for mutual benefit? We can but that choice is up to you, I can't make it for you.

You harp on the word attack like it makes the some meaningful demarcation between rational and not. An "attack" in the context I used it is quite appropriate. It means a challenge or "attack" on a position, an objection; it is simply an argument against something or viewpoint. What do you take "attack" to mean? How does my use of "attack" become the defining characteristic of my lack of rationality?


----------



## Indeependent

Boss said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.
> 
> I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.
> 
> I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation? Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> I thought perhaps the answer might be the fact the URL contains "US" (message boards) and therefore anyone who wants critical discussion automatically knows US=uncritical thought. Yes? No?
> 
> Again, this is a only trend I'm denoting in America. If usmessageboads is a genuine representation of American thought then whoa! America is not what I thought it was! But my opinion is this site is not a genuine representation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first thing you need to realize is the demographics of the Internet is not an accurate representation of mainstream thought. Just by it's very nature, the Internet leans decidedly left. Most people who have the Internet are politically left-leaning. Conservatives always tend to be the last ones to adapt to new technology. Therefore, the 'general' Internet population is more left than the 'general population'. Believe it or not, there are hoards of conservatives who wouldn't even know how to turn a computer on, and aren't interested in learning.
> 
> From there, you have to realize message boards, blogs and forums are vehicles for people to express their views on issues. The most passionate expressers are generally liberals. This is because of the nature of liberalism. It's what liberals do. It's their reason for being liberal. Granted, everybody is different, and this is not to say that libertarians and conservatives, even anarchists, are not represented on a typical board. Generally speaking, the most vocal and active participants are left-leaning individuals because this is their gig.
> 
> So you are never going to find a general public forum on the Internet that isn't skewed noticeably to the left. Each year, that demographic changes slightly because more and more conservatives are becoming 'tuned in' to the modern communications era. There are also numerous activist groups who have libertarian views, helping to 'even the field' for the right. But traditional 'tea party type' conservatives are still pulling up the rear.
> 
> You made a rather interesting observation. You say that you find the poorly reasoned arguments are mostly from conservatives. I am a conservative and I find most of the poorly reasoned arguments are from liberals. Isn't that peculiar? Of course, I have read thousands of arguments from conservatives and liberals and I can't say that I've ever heard one state: "Let me give you my unfounded and uninformed opinion on this..." I've never heard anyone left or right admit: "This is my poorly reasoned argument for... whatever."  I mean, generally speaking, I think most people post what they believe is a reasonable well-founded argument. So I believe your observations may be a result of your particular political leaning. Just saying.
> 
> Now, the way you go about dealing with a poorly-reasoned argument is to do as I do and dismantle the sucker. Point out the poor reasoning by showing where it is poorly reasoned. This will require more than your opinion, you'll have to actually find sources to support your counter-arguments and stuff, and this isn't always as easy to do as you would think. Mostly because the Internet is full of every kind of opinion imaginable, and some are very poorly-reasoned arguments or outright fruit cake nuttiness. And whoever you are debating with is likely going to criticize your sources as being biased, whether there is merit or not.
> 
> In short, my recommendation to you is to basically... get over yourself. Stop thinking that your opinion or viewpoint is some divine piece of wisdom the world cannot live without. That your reasoning skills are the greatest thing to ever come down the pike, and those who don't share your opinion are somehow lacking in reason. It could be that your perspective is just different, and you haven't tried to see things from another point of view. It could be the other person's reasoning is based on a different set of circumstances or life experience.
Click to expand...


Ann Coulter?  It MUST you!
Who else could type so many words simply to states that, "All Liberals are idiots.".
This is so cool; I can now tell all my fellow congregants that I am conversing with Ann Coulter.


----------



## gnarlylove

Boss, has it occurred to you that "although two positions may be in conflict with each other, neither one may harbor a single truth..."? I'm talking about your liberal/conservative false dichotomy. That's because any doctrine so rigid and accusatory as yours only serves to destroy the very thing it sets out to produce: in your case, namely, "liberty and freedom." This is the case with all dogmas that do not adapt to change or accept people for who they are without labeling or mis-judging.

You define a liberal more like a church goer of the past millennia defined non-believers: heretics, not rational. People with whom you cannot hope to get along so just dismiss them from entering the dialogue altogether. You said "you are liberal and not rational." By excluding and defining me as being "not rational" you therefore have no need to erect a sound, cogent defense of your beliefs. That is incidently what critical thinking and rationality is, as I've tried to exhibit through critiquing your poor sweeping generalization of libs and cons, but it was read as some "not rational" approach for some reason.


----------



## HelenaHandbag

gnarlylove = Black Knight 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4]Monty Python-The Black Knight - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Two Thumbs

ahh liberals, if you don't agree with them you're a stewpud 'merkin

libs bitch the the keystone pipe won't create a lot of jobs and it cost a lot, but defend obama spending vastly more and getting far far less

but us cons is ignant


----------



## Votto

gnarlylove said:


> Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.
> 
> I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.
> 
> I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation? Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> I thought perhaps the answer might be the fact the URL contains "US" (message boards) and therefore anyone who wants critical discussion automatically knows US=uncritical thought. Yes? No?
> 
> Again, this is a only trend I'm denoting in America. If usmessageboads is a genuine representation of American thought then whoa! America is not what I thought it was! But my opinion is this site is not a genuine representation.



Climate change is only common sense.  Those that deny it are doomed to destruction.

I mean, come on, the climate is changing and humans continue to produce large amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.  Therefore, humans are causing climate exchange.  

It is reasoned logic like this that right winged extremists continually deny that annoys the hell out of me.


----------



## westwall

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have never stated anything other than your lies about being a "nuclear watch officer", a position which doesn't exist in the US Navy.  So you are both a liar and a moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For those who haven't ever seen Westwall's true face showing through the mask, he would be guy who will belittle someone's military service if he gets angry at them.
Click to expand...







I never belittle anyone's military service.  I DO belittle those who CLAIM to have served, who either clearly didn't, or inflate what they did.  As did you.  You're a fraud.  The degree of fraud you are remains to be determined.....one thing I can very safely state is that you were not ever a "nuclear watch officer" as that MOS doesn't exist in the US Navy.


----------



## Boss

gnarlylove said:


> You are making me dizzy watch you spin circles trying to justify why you regard someone you know almost nothing about so plainly not rational. Namely, me, whom you have NO consequential information about, yet _repeatedly_ affirm I am not rational.
> 
> How is that respectful dialogue? From a psychologist? I've come to expect higher standards from people who study interpersonal relationships. I guess youre an exception. Or do you want to try again, this time, returning my respect for mutual benefit? We can but that choice is up to you, I can't make it for you.
> 
> You harp on the word attack like it makes the some meaningful demarcation between rational and not. An "attack" in the context I used it is quite appropriate. It means a challenge or "attack" on a position, an objection; it is simply an argument against something or viewpoint. What do you take "attack" to mean? How does my use of "attack" become the defining characteristic of my lack of rationality?



Well, because simple observation is not an attack or challenge. You view it as an attack because you aren't rational. Read my replies, I pointed out several things you said that indicate the thoughts of someone who is not rational. You're naturally defensive about this because everyone believes themselves to be rational, unless they are admittedly insane. 

In this latest reply, you wrote: _"You harp on the word attack like it makes the some meaningful demarcation between rational and not."_ The posts clearly show that I have not "harped" at all. I observed that you used the word "attack" to describe my observations regarding liberals and your rationality. You denied using the word, and I pointed out where you did use the word. Then you defended using the word and I responded to that. It is you who is "harping" on the word, yet here you are accusing me of it. That's not the behavior of a rational person. 

I am not opposed to having a mutually respectful dialogue with you, but so far, you have shown no indication of being respectful toward me. You view my observations as "attacks" and when I point this out, you resort to accusing me of "harping" after you repeatedly protest. You continue to display behavior of someone who is not rational, while appealing for civil rational discourse.


----------



## Boss

gnarlylove said:


> Boss, has it occurred to you that "although two positions may be in conflict with each other, neither one may harbor a single truth..."? I'm talking about your liberal/conservative false dichotomy. That's because any doctrine so rigid and accusatory as yours only serves to destroy the very thing it sets out to produce: in your case, namely, "liberty and freedom." This is the case with all dogmas that do not adapt to change or accept people for who they are without labeling or mis-judging.
> 
> You define a liberal more like a church goer of the past millennia defined non-believers: heretics, not rational. People with whom you cannot hope to get along so just dismiss them from entering the dialogue altogether. You said "you are liberal and not rational." By excluding and defining me as being "not rational" you therefore have no need to erect a sound, cogent defense of your beliefs. That is incidently what critical thinking and rationality is, as I've tried to exhibit through critiquing your poor sweeping generalization of libs and cons, but it was read as some "not rational" approach for some reason.



Oh, no doubt there can be two positions and neither of them true. Although, I didn't make a "false dichotomy" with liberalism/conservatism. You had initially asked whether the USMB represented mainstream thought, and indicated you found conservatives here to be lacking in critical thinking abilities. I responded by attempting to explain the demographics of who we find online. In doing so, I also explained the difference between liberals and conservatives. 

I did say "you are liberal and not rational" but I didn't intend those to be combined in relational connection the way you have taken it. You are liberal. You are also not rational. You are not lacking in rationality because you are a liberal. Many liberals are very rational. I've not made the observation of you not being rational in order to not have to erect a sound defense of my beliefs. I was merely pointing out that it's not possible to have a rational conversation with you because you are not rational.


----------



## gnarlylove

I said the critical thinking was lacking from most posts, including liberals, but correctly noted that conservatives tend to use aggressive language, more ad hominems and general cursing/yelling.

I am sorry for not being respectful. I would like for you to demonstrate where I was dis-respecting you so I can change that so I don't repeat that mistake. But the actual evidence for my disrespecting of your is less important because whether I genuinely disrespected you or not, you believe that I did. So I want to say I'm sorry and would like to put that in history.

Are you really a psychologist or are you lying? Maybe we could do a trust exercise by you telling the truth. I'll accept what you say so speak the truth.

But once we do that, what's the point? How can I become rational? What do I need to believe, if anything?


----------



## HelenaHandbag

gnarlylove said:


> I said the critical thinking was lacking from most, *but correctly noted that conservatives tend to use aggressive language, more ad hominems* and general cursing/yelling.


Yet, your whole diatribe against conservatives is aggressive ad hominems.

It is not the mirror's fault, sport.


----------



## gnarlylove

Quote the diatribe. What's your evidence? The OP? If so, my whole point was clearly stated not to be an observation about people but called attention to the poor reasoning. You might want to go back and closely read and re-read the OP


----------



## flacaltenn

gnarlylove said:


> I said the critical thinking was lacking from most posts, including liberals, but correctly noted that conservatives tend to use aggressive language, more ad hominems and general cursing/yelling.
> 
> I am sorry for not being respectful. I would like for you to demonstrate where I was dis-respecting you so I can change that so I don't repeat that mistake. But the actual evidence for my disrespecting of your is less important because whether I genuinely disrespected you or not, you believe that I did. So I want to say I'm sorry and would like to put that in history.
> 
> Are you really a psychologist or are you lying? Maybe we could do a trust exercise by you telling the truth. I'll accept what you say so speak the truth.
> 
> But once we do that, what's the point? How can I become rational? What do I need to believe, if anything?



I don't think it's about your beliefs. It's about CONTEXT and STRUCTURE of those beliefs.. I've said before that I like your concerns about the environment. Some of them (almost accidentally it appears) are backed by facts and statistics.  More often, they seem to be feelings or some flimsy generalization  that ANY "enviro" idea is a good idea.. And any proposal modifying or downgrading a "green" idea is bad. Which must be where you get this silly notion about "bad ideas".. It's not your rationality that's the issue, it's your awareness of how to judge and EVALUATE ideas.. Especially when taking inputs that are new or unknown and incorporating them into your "beliefs"..

Which is why IMO, you are bedeviled and bewildered about "bad ideas" at USMB. You may not have the framework to PROCESS and EVALUATE those "bad ideas".. The framework requires effort, a LOT of work in other disciplines, time and patience.. 

Discussions like this one are doomed.. Because they never had "GOOD" direction and structure. And beliefs should COME from that structure. Not the other way around.


----------



## Boss

gnarlylove said:


> I said the critical thinking was lacking from most posts, including liberals, but correctly noted that conservatives tend to use aggressive language, more ad hominems and general cursing/yelling.
> 
> I am sorry for not being respectful. I would like for you to demonstrate where I was dis-respecting you so I can change that so I don't repeat that mistake. But the actual evidence for my disrespecting of your is less important because whether I genuinely disrespected you or not, you believe that I did. So I want to say I'm sorry and would like to put that in history.
> 
> Are you really a psychologist or are you lying? Maybe we could do a trust exercise by you telling the truth. I'll accept what you say so speak the truth.
> 
> But once we do that, what's the point? How can I become rational? What do I need to believe, if anything?



Here is what you said:

_"...each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives." _

I pointed out that I observe the poorly reasoned arguments mostly coming from liberals. So why are our perceptions diametrically opposite? As I explained, it's because of our perspectives being different. You somehow took this as an offensive attack. In your first reply to me, you indicated I lacked maturity in my critical thinking. You've made all kinds of other accusations toward me, and I have defended in response. Now you want to know how you've disrespected me? 

Yes, I am really a psychologist. I can't imagine why I would need to be dishonest about that. My response to this thread was genuinely to help you answer your questions and do some personal introspection. 

As for how you can be rational, I think you should start by not reading things into posts that aren't there. Don't assume that an opinion or observation is an attack or challenge, and is generally presented by someone who believes it to be well-reasoned and thought out. They have a different perspective than you. Perhaps they even have different information? Finally, learn how to listen. Stop yourself from responding emotively without having some degree of empathy or understanding for what the other person has said.


----------



## Barb

Quantum Windbag said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Who the fuck is being hostile?" ^^
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because actually fucking caring is proof of hostility.
> 
> I actually started a thread about this one, fuckwad. I pointed out that only idiots take things on a message board personally. *If you need help, and I can give it, I will. I have actually done that, which actually impressed somebody* on this board that thought I hated them because I argued with almost everything they said. I am not hostile toward you, if I was I wouldn't talk to you. Grow up, then come back here and get some real adult conversation.
Click to expand...


*True story*

Meanwhile, maybe a better place for our new friend to start would be the clean debate zone? It features gentleman's rules, rather than the rough and tumble the rest of this place can be. 

In his defense, he seems like the scholarly type, despite the moniker (gnarlylove?), and there are strict academic lines drawn for an argument to be considered well reasoned. That said, it is not necessarily an attack, an insult, or even a jab to consider much of what we spill here as not reasonable. It simply doesn't fall between those lines, and I don't see why that point would be up for debate. The rest of the OP was a question of demographics - is this community of ours a representative cross section of American opinion, education, and logic?


----------



## gnarlylove

Boss said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said the critical thinking was lacking from most posts, including liberals, but correctly noted that conservatives tend to use aggressive language, more ad hominems and general cursing/yelling.
> 
> I am sorry for not being respectful. I would like for you to demonstrate where I was dis-respecting you so I can change that so I don't repeat that mistake. But the actual evidence for my disrespecting of your is less important because whether I genuinely disrespected you or not, you believe that I did. So I want to say I'm sorry and would like to put that in history.
> 
> Are you really a psychologist or are you lying? Maybe we could do a trust exercise by you telling the truth. I'll accept what you say so speak the truth.
> 
> But once we do that, what's the point? How can I become rational? What do I need to believe, if anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what you said:
> 
> _"...each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives." _
> 
> I pointed out that I observe the poorly reasoned arguments mostly coming from liberals. So why are our perceptions diametrically opposite? As I explained, it's because of our perspectives being different. You somehow took this as an offensive attack. In your first reply to me, you indicated I lacked maturity in my critical thinking. You've made all kinds of other accusations toward me, and I have defended in response. Now you want to know how you've disrespected me?
> 
> Yes, I am really a psychologist. I can't imagine why I would need to be dishonest about that. My response to this thread was genuinely to help you answer your questions and do some personal introspection.
> 
> As for how you can be rational, I think you should start by not reading things into posts that aren't there. Don't assume that an opinion or observation is an attack or challenge, and is generally presented by someone who believes it to be well-reasoned and thought out. They have a different perspective than you. Perhaps they even have different information? Finally, learn how to listen. Stop yourself from responding emotively without having some degree of empathy or understanding for what the other person has said.
Click to expand...


I am sorry that offended you or was taken as disrespect. I wish you would have kept reading my full post. I tried to be clear what my point was...that I am not speaking about people (cons or libs) but merely that arguments and posts I've read have lacked proper reasoning while correctly denoting hostility posts, aka poorly reasoned posts, tended to come from cons. I obviously did not make the claim that all conservatives and their viewpoints are invalid, so I hope you didn't take it that way. I was rather explicit:

"I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often [poorly] founded..."

I was explicit that my interest was not in who was giving the poorly reasoned posts but rather if this represented America? You responded to this and the rest of your post was not based in objective reality but a narrative that sounded pleasant to you, so I called you on it. But sensitive people like yourself become quickly reactionary and now that I'm aware that you judge people lightening fast, I will be extra careful not to disrespect you or criticize any of your views again.


----------



## Unkotare

Barb said:


> In his defense, he seems like the scholarly type...:






No he doesn't. He seems like the type who wants to seem like the scholarly type.


----------



## Boss

gnarlylove said:


> I am sorry that offended you or was taken as disrespect. *I wish you would have kept reading my full post.* I tried to be clear what my point was...that I am not speaking about people (cons or libs) but merely that arguments and posts I've read have lacked proper reasoning while correctly denoting hostility posts, aka poorly reasoned posts, tended to come from cons. I obviously did not make the claim that all conservatives and their viewpoints are invalid, so I hope you didn't take it that way. I was rather explicit:
> 
> "I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often [poorly] founded..."
> 
> I was explicit that my interest was not in who was giving the poorly reasoned posts but rather if this represented America? You responded to this and *the rest of your post was not based in objective reality but a narrative that sounded pleasant to you*, so I called you on it. But *sensitive people like yourself* become *quickly reactionary* and now that I'm aware that *you judge people lightening fast*, I will be extra careful not to disrespect you or criticize any of your views again.



I've taken the liberty to highlight some of the more disrespectful comments you've made about me here. You began by assuming I had not read your entire post. I assure you, I did read it all. Then you accused me of not basing my viewpoint in objective reality and simply giving a narrative of what sounded pleasant to me. Finally, you finish off with a flurry... I am over-sensitive, reactionary, and judge people lightning fast. This is all coming from my rather candid and frank observations, which apparently offended you. 

Previously, I stated that you are not rational, and this is an example of what I am talking about. You've automatically drawn assumptions that just aren't true. You throw those assumptions out there as if they are indisputable or obvious without specifics and without backing your assumptions up with anything other than emotion. Rational people do not behave this way. 

I appreciate you falling all over yourself to apologize to me, but it's not necessary, I have not complained. I am accustomed to people not being rational here. Posters offend me all the time, and it doesn't bother me in the least. I am simply responding to you in an attempt to help you find your way to reasonable and rational discourse. I think you honestly want to get there but you don't know how. Others are weighing in here and they don't want to give you that benefit of the doubt, but I haven't judged you based on their posts. I only judge you based on the words you choose and what you have to say. And when I say I judge you, I don't hold it against you. None of us are perfect, we all have our flaws.


----------



## Barb

Boss said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry that offended you or was taken as disrespect. *I wish you would have kept reading my full post.* I tried to be clear what my point was...that I am not speaking about people (cons or libs) but merely that arguments and posts I've read have lacked proper reasoning while correctly denoting hostility posts, aka poorly reasoned posts, tended to come from cons. I obviously did not make the claim that all conservatives and their viewpoints are invalid, so I hope you didn't take it that way. I was rather explicit:
> 
> "I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often [poorly] founded..."
> 
> I was explicit that my interest was not in who was giving the poorly reasoned posts but rather if this represented America? You responded to this and *the rest of your post was not based in objective reality but a narrative that sounded pleasant to you*, so I called you on it. But *sensitive people like yourself* become *quickly reactionary* and now that I'm aware that *you judge people lightening fast*, I will be extra careful not to disrespect you or criticize any of your views again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've taken the liberty to highlight some of the more disrespectful comments you've made about me here. You began by assuming I had not read your entire post. I assure you, I did read it all. Then you accused me of not basing my viewpoint in objective reality and simply giving a narrative of what sounded pleasant to me. Finally, you finish off with a flurry... I am over-sensitive, reactionary, and judge people lightning fast. This is all coming from my rather candid and frank observations, which apparently offended you.
> 
> Previously, I stated that you are not rational, and this is an example of what I am talking about. You've automatically drawn assumptions that just aren't true. You throw those assumptions out there as if they are indisputable or obvious without specifics and without backing your assumptions up with anything other than emotion. Rational people do not behave this way.
> 
> I appreciate you falling all over yourself to apologize to me, but it's not necessary, I have not complained. I am accustomed to people not being rational here. Posters offend me all the time, and it doesn't bother me in the least. I am simply responding to you in an attempt to help you find your way to reasonable and rational discourse. I think you honestly want to get there but you don't know how. Others are weighing in here and they don't want to give you that benefit of the doubt, but I haven't judged you based on their posts. I only judge you based on the words you choose and what you have to say. And when I say I judge you, I don't hold it against you. None of us are perfect, we all have our flaws.
Click to expand...


----------



## gnarlylove

Those phrases you highlighted are factual observations, and are exactly similar to what you observed about me, that I am not rational. How are my factual observations disrespect while yours are not (claiming "I am not rational")?

In fact, calling me not rational was based on 1 post, maybe 2, less than 500 words. That is quick to judge. Maybe you think you have special powers and that it's ok for you, but not me. This is duplicity.

Only after at least 6 posts did I make the observations that you do not like to be challenged, in other words are _sensitive_ to challenges, and that you consider challenges to your views to be a form of disrespect. That is quite unrealitistic since discussion must assume each participant can challenge each others view points without being considered disrespectful. I am not challenging you. The person Boss I respect, or am trying to. But I am challenging your poorly reasoned beliefs, which, in other words is to say I do not think some of the views you have expressed are based in objective reality (logic, rationality, etc.) but are based in a narrative that appeals to your emotions.

Like I said in my first reply, you are clearly intelligent but the more you talk, the more you seem to equate disagreement with disrespect. If those are your terms of debate, then no one is allowed to point out flaws in your reasoning without also being accused of a personal disrespect. So what's the point in talking with you unless I agree with all your points of view, whether they are sound or not? Is that how you define as rationality?


----------



## Indeependent

gnarlylove said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said the critical thinking was lacking from most posts, including liberals, but correctly noted that conservatives tend to use aggressive language, more ad hominems and general cursing/yelling.
> 
> I am sorry for not being respectful. I would like for you to demonstrate where I was dis-respecting you so I can change that so I don't repeat that mistake. But the actual evidence for my disrespecting of your is less important because whether I genuinely disrespected you or not, you believe that I did. So I want to say I'm sorry and would like to put that in history.
> 
> Are you really a psychologist or are you lying? Maybe we could do a trust exercise by you telling the truth. I'll accept what you say so speak the truth.
> 
> But once we do that, what's the point? How can I become rational? What do I need to believe, if anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what you said:
> 
> _"...each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives." _
> 
> I pointed out that I observe the poorly reasoned arguments mostly coming from liberals. So why are our perceptions diametrically opposite? As I explained, it's because of our perspectives being different. You somehow took this as an offensive attack. In your first reply to me, you indicated I lacked maturity in my critical thinking. You've made all kinds of other accusations toward me, and I have defended in response. Now you want to know how you've disrespected me?
> 
> Yes, I am really a psychologist. I can't imagine why I would need to be dishonest about that. My response to this thread was genuinely to help you answer your questions and do some personal introspection.
> 
> As for how you can be rational, I think you should start by not reading things into posts that aren't there. Don't assume that an opinion or observation is an attack or challenge, and is generally presented by someone who believes it to be well-reasoned and thought out. They have a different perspective than you. Perhaps they even have different information? Finally, learn how to listen. Stop yourself from responding emotively without having some degree of empathy or understanding for what the other person has said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry that offended you or was taken as disrespect. I wish you would have kept reading my full post. I tried to be clear what my point was...that I am not speaking about people (cons or libs) but merely that arguments and posts I've read have lacked proper reasoning while correctly denoting hostility posts, aka poorly reasoned posts, tended to come from cons. I obviously did not make the claim that all conservatives and their viewpoints are invalid, so I hope you didn't take it that way. I was rather explicit:
> 
> "I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often [poorly] founded..."
> 
> I was explicit that my interest was not in who was giving the poorly reasoned posts but rather if this represented America? You responded to this and the rest of your post was not based in objective reality but a narrative that sounded pleasant to you, so I called you on it. But sensitive people like yourself become quickly reactionary and now that I'm aware that you judge people lightening fast, I will be extra careful not to disrespect you or criticize any of your views again.
Click to expand...


You are apologizing to a poster who called you, in way too many words, a stupid 
Liberal without substantiating such.
I would hope that those posters who disagree with you would be more of the caliber of flac who usually makes measurable statements.


----------



## Indeependent

Boss said:


> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry that offended you or was taken as disrespect. *I wish you would have kept reading my full post.* I tried to be clear what my point was...that I am not speaking about people (cons or libs) but merely that arguments and posts I've read have lacked proper reasoning while correctly denoting hostility posts, aka poorly reasoned posts, tended to come from cons. I obviously did not make the claim that all conservatives and their viewpoints are invalid, so I hope you didn't take it that way. I was rather explicit:
> 
> "I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often [poorly] founded..."
> 
> I was explicit that my interest was not in who was giving the poorly reasoned posts but rather if this represented America? You responded to this and *the rest of your post was not based in objective reality but a narrative that sounded pleasant to you*, so I called you on it. But *sensitive people like yourself* become *quickly reactionary* and now that I'm aware that *you judge people lightening fast*, I will be extra careful not to disrespect you or criticize any of your views again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've taken the liberty to highlight some of the more disrespectful comments you've made about me here. You began by assuming I had not read your entire post. I assure you, I did read it all. Then you accused me of not basing my viewpoint in objective reality and simply giving a narrative of what sounded pleasant to me. Finally, you finish off with a flurry... I am over-sensitive, reactionary, and judge people lightning fast. This is all coming from my rather candid and frank observations, which apparently offended you.
> 
> Previously, I stated that you are not rational, and this is an example of what I am talking about. You've automatically drawn assumptions that just aren't true. You throw those assumptions out there as if they are indisputable or obvious without specifics and without backing your assumptions up with anything other than emotion. Rational people do not behave this way.
> 
> I appreciate you falling all over yourself to apologize to me, but it's not necessary, I have not complained. I am accustomed to people not being rational here. Posters offend me all the time, and it doesn't bother me in the least. I am simply responding to you in an attempt to help you find your way to reasonable and rational discourse. I think you honestly want to get there but you don't know how. Others are weighing in here and they don't want to give you that benefit of the doubt, but I haven't judged you based on their posts. I only judge you based on the words you choose and what you have to say. And when I say I judge you, I don't hold it against you. None of us are perfect, we all have our flaws.
Click to expand...


Are you being paid for word count?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Interestingly enough, this thread is in the Philosophy forum. You got through telling us how many bad ideas come from conservatives, and then turn right back around and say "well conservatism itself isn't bad." Just what are you trying to pull? And who exactly are you to judge?


----------



## Boss

gnarlylove said:


> Those phrases you highlighted are factual observations, and are exactly similar to what you observed about me, that I am not rational. How are my factual observations disrespect while yours are not (claiming "I am not rational")?



Because I showed you (use of the word "attack" etc.) how you were not being rational. Just as I am showing you how you are disrespectful.  Note that I have not made the claim that I am not disrespectful, I realize I can be very disrespectful to people who are disrespecting me. 



> In fact, calling me not rational was based on 1 post, maybe 2, less than 500 words. That is quick to judge. Maybe you think you have special powers and that it's ok for you, but not me. This is duplicity.



Wasn't a judgement, it was an observation. I don't claim to have 'special powers' you don't have. I do have a degree that you don't have, and it's a field of study which concentrates on human behavior. Since language is a direct reflection of behavior, it qualifies me a bit more than you to make such evaluations. Not to be duplicitous or to brag, that's just a fact. 



> Only after at least 6 posts did I make the observations that you do not like to be challenged, in other words are _sensitive_ to challenges, and that you consider challenges to your views to be a form of disrespect. That is quite unrealitistic since discussion must assume each participant can challenge each others view points without being considered disrespectful.



But you are totally wrong, I enjoy being challenged. It is intellectually stimulating to me. We've not really discussed our individual viewpoints much, other than to say that you are liberal and I am conservative. I addressed your OP and you thought I was "attacking" something, and this has been the contention of most of our conversation. Then you raised the issue of "respect" and I've been attempting to help you out by pointing out things you've said that come across as disrespectful. Now it seems you just want to draw me into a fight, but I have no reason to fight with you. 



> I am not challenging you. The person Boss I respect, or am trying to. But I am challenging your poorly reasoned beliefs, which, in other words is to say I do not think some of the views you have expressed are based in objective reality (logic, rationality, etc.) but are based in a narrative that appeals to your emotions.



Well then, what you need to do is articulate the specific things you believe I have been poorly reasoned or objectively misguided on in reality. You're just making a blanket statement that doesn't really address a specific. You cannot challenge my poorly reasoned beliefs without being specific, I won't allow that. Rational people don't do this. 



> Like I said in my first reply, you are clearly intelligent but the more you talk, the more you seem to equate disagreement with disrespect. If those are your terms of debate, then no one is allowed to point out flaws in your reasoning without also being accused of a personal disrespect. So what's the point in talking with you unless I agree with all your points of view, whether they are sound or not? Is that how you define as rationality?



But I've never equated disagreement with disrespect. You've not pointed out any specific flaw in my reasoning. I've only pointed out things you said that were disrespectful because you indicated you didn't think you were being disrepectful. I took you at your word and was trying to help. I don't mind you being disrespectful, or not being rational for that matter, it's all up to you how you want to behave here. Just like the others who are posting their opinions about me, and as you see, I am not emotively reacting to them. We're all entitled to behave any way we please here, I can't control that, don't want to. You expressed an interest in meaningful intelligent discourse where people are rational and used critical thinking, and I am just attempting to help you get there. If you want to reject what I have to say, that's up to you.


----------



## Unkotare

You're wasting your time on this kid, Boss.


----------



## gnarlylove

"Well then, what you need to do is articulate the specific things you believe I have been poorly reasoned or objectively misguided on in reality."

Let me quote one of my earlier replies that address specific reason deficient statements and conclusions made by you.

_Take your uncritical blanket statements about liberals and idealizing. What is a principle, such as many conservatives talk about, if not an ideal? An ideal for which to strive? Maybe you don't listen to you conservative representatives much. Neither do I but enough to know they use idealistic language._

_I wanted to address your Hope and Change objection. You speak as if either concept is idealist. If we take hope at face value, hope is essential to wake up in the morning. Without a motivation that you haven't yet achieved though are striving for, then you don't get out of bed, even if it's just a vague estimate. So Hope sounds very essential to human thinking and life in general, a belief that things can get better._

So I raised very specific objections to your reasoning which is as follows:

_Ideas that emerge from the political left are often very idealistic and frivolous. Based on some 'theory' that has yet to ever be proven in practicality. Hopeful and wishful thinking, not critical or reasoned thinking at all. "Hope and Change" is a prime example. Simply changing for change sake and hoping things will turn out for the better, is not a well-reasoned or well-thought-out plan, as it turns out. Conservatives could have saved you the time in trying this experiment. _

My whole post linked above offers a complete and quite specific objection, point by point analysis of why I think your post was reason deficient. Now you have forgotten that and moved on to lying or making stuff up that appeals to your emotional narrative that I haven't "articulated specific things."

But I also want to be clear, do you think I'm disrespecting you when I challenge your beliefs but that you do not equate disrespect with a challenge to your beliefs? Something seems fishy.


----------



## flacaltenn

Gnarly loves Hope and unspecified change. Even goes out of his way to defend it.



> I wanted to address your Hope and Change objection. You speak as if either concept is idealist. If we take hope at face value, hope is essential to wake up in the morning. Without a motivation that you haven't yet achieved though are striving for, then you don't get out of bed, even if it's just a vague estimate. So Hope sounds very essential to human thinking and life in general, a belief that things can get better.



However -- HOPE is not a strategy or a tool for a changing most anything complex and vital to survival.
Hope derives from "faith in a particular plan or direction of action". Economies, companies and countries don't operate on faith or hope.. And most folks who need fixing shouldn't either.. 

Hope is not even CALCULATED RISK -- which is a more rational method of decision making and action.

As it applies to anything concrete

 -- We don't exterminate our current means of energy production in the HOPE that something better is gonna result.. 

-- We don't stand down from our role as world-leading nation in the HOPE, it will inspire other countries to step up to crisis.

-- We don't spend $600 Million on a HealthCare Website and HOPE it turns out alright.

-- And I personally don't HOPE that Soc Sec and Medicare will be around when I'm eligible as my primary plan for retirement.. 

I make calculated risk decisions.. Based on EVIDENCE and RESEARCH.. And I use those words that leftists and dreamers absolutely hate --- like Return on Investment, and Acceptable Risk and Worst Case Design... 

Am I getting too specific for the convo???


----------



## gnarlylove

FLC, so what privilege does economics and ruthless business practices have to do with healthy principles or guides with which to live? If anything, "economics" and profit maximization are harmful to the health of individuals seeking a grounded understanding of how this world operates and how to live in it. Clearly you prefer to operate as a self-maximizing entity, you derive pleasure from insulting me post after post. Without insults your posts are 70% fluff, having no substance, only red herrings and insults. And you will not and cannot change this 70/30 split because the "jokes" are the only part you really care about, the 70%; your become happy when making a supposed witty remark or insult against an opponent and when you do this you equate it with "speaking truth" but your beliefs about how to live reflect a egotistical, "calculating risk" sort of human being. One who thinks socializing cost and externalizations are essential to life as opposed to hope.

"Getting too specific"? What does that have anything to do with the discussion? Oh, that's right, your typical rhetoric that detracts from the point, of which you barely had one. You didn't even read the link, which is my complete reply. But your typical way of responding to a post is distort the focus and isolate one word or phrase and forget the rest. So leaving out 80% of my post was to your advantage to squander and distort. The change and hope I mentioned were not campaign slogans but the very basic definitions that we use every day. You just didn't read my post.

You are skilled at making us direct our attention away from any legitimate discussion and calling attention to the fact of how amazing you are at de-constructing a post. But one is only good at deconstructing a post if they stick to the topic at hand, have a clear understanding of each other's terms *and leave personal affirmations aside.*

So if you took the time to read my critique, within the context of Boss's reply, you would know calculated risk has nothing to do with the topic at hand. But let's assume it did. Change must be accounted for in calculated risk. And so why do people take calculated risk? They hope for a pay off, and as best they can they calculate the possible changes (i.e. variables) and on that assessment, they either make the decision to go forth. But as every risk taker knows, very few risks are certain wins otherwise they aren't risks. Risks, at best, can be calculate down to the percentage, but one can never be certain. Thus hope enters the scene, a very basic notion that doing X, whether it carries minimal or a lot of risk, is likely to be worthwhile. One only comes to know if their hope was placed in the right basket after the risk had past.


----------



## flacaltenn

gnarlylove said:


> FLC, so what privilege does economics and ruthless business practices have to do with healthy principles or guides with which to live? If anything, "economics" and profit maximization are harmful to the health of individuals seeking a grounded understanding of how this world operates and how to live in it. Clearly you prefer to operate as a self-maximizing entity, you derive pleasure from insulting me post after post. What's sad is without insults your posts are 80% fluff, having no substance but red herrings and insults.
> 
> "Getting too specific"? What does that have anything to do with the discussion? Oh, that's right, your typical rhetoric that detracts from the point, of which you barely had one. You didn't even read the link, which is my complete reply. But your typical way of responding to a post is distort the focus and isolate one word or phrase and forget the rest. So leaving out 80% of my post was to your advantage to squander and distort.
> 
> You are skilled at making us direct our attention away from any legitimate discussion and call attention to the fact of how amazingly you are at de-constructing a post. But one is only good at deconstructing a post if they stick to the topics at hand and leave personal affirmations aside.
> 
> So if you took the time to read my critique, within the context of Boss's reply, you would know calculated risk has nothing to do with the topic at hand. But let's assume it does. Change must be accounted for in calculated risk. And so why do people take calculated risk? They hope for a pay off, and as best they can they calculate the possible changes (i.e. variables) and on that assessment, they either make the decision to go forth. But as every risk taker knows, very few risks are certain wins, that at best man can calculate the percentage, but one can never be certain. Thus hope enters the scene, a very basic notion that doing X, while carries minimal or a lot of risk is most likely worthwhile. One only comes to know if their hope was placed in the right basket after the risk had past.



I'll let all that undocumented hatred and misunderstanding of Real Life economics and survival speak for itself. I'm not even upset at how much time you invested in attacking my motives. *If you read those posts at #146 and #147 as a pair --- I think we have an answer as to why you BELIEVE that "bad ideas" are rampant at USMB.*. 
That satisfied any questions I had about the assertions in your OP... 


"If anything, "economics" and profit maximization are harmful to the health of individuals seeking a grounded understanding of how this world operates and how to live in it. "

".... very few risks actually win." 

When you've been at message boards as long as I have, that's pretty much a give-away.... 
Cheers...


----------



## American4Americ

Quantum Windbag said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gnarlylove said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The kook right is vastly overrepresented here. Just look at any poll taken here. It will be about 80% conservative, with a big chunk of those conservatives just reciting their endless litanies of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories. You should have been here for the elections, when the whole lot of 'em was screaming that the polls were fraudulent, Romney was headed for a landslide win, and those libtards had to be delusional to think otherwise.
> 
> Such kooks have always been with us. There was always the guy at the bar or diner grumbling about something crazy. But before the internet, those people were isolated and kept moored to reality by the normal people around them. Now, they self-segregate themselves into groups on the internet, reinforce each other's dementia, and amp each other up to ever higher levels of stupid. There's just no one around to tell them they're acting like crazy people. Well, except me and some others. The interventions we stage here for unhinged conservatives are a sort of public service.
> 
> USMB isn't even especially bad in that regard. Other places are a lot worse, in the sense of being overrun by right-wing-fringe conspiracy theorists who sputter out "libtards!" in a tourettes-like fashion. At least you won't get autobanned for PWL offenses here (Posting While Liberal), as will happen at any openly conservative board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a difficult line to walk, giving people freedom to talk without letting the loonies take complete control. I look at it as giving the conservatives a sporting chance. If they can rely gang tactics, spamming, deliberately using data they know has been debunked and other bad behavior, then they're not completely helpless against the facts, reason and honesty of the liberals. Consider it a challenge, practice for real world politics where just being correct doesn't guarantee a win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The kook left is also over represented, as well as the kook center. I haven't seen you complaining about them*.
Click to expand...


I think it is fair to say that the crazy right is over-represented... do you know why?

This website is 90% conservative, and this is easy to tell by looking at various polls taken. Let's say that every 1 out of 10 people is crazy... naturally that means if we take a sample of 100 people, 9 would be crazy conservatives, and 1 would be crazy other.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

4Americ.  What the fuck is an Americ?

And why are you such a whining puss?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

American4Americ said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> The kook right is vastly overrepresented here. Just look at any poll taken here. It will be about 80% conservative, with a big chunk of those conservatives just reciting their endless litanies of tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories. You should have been here for the elections, when the whole lot of 'em was screaming that the polls were  fraudulent, Romney was headed for a landslide win, and those libtards had to be delusional to think otherwise.
> 
> Such kooks have always been with us. There was always the guy at the bar or diner grumbling about something crazy. But before the internet, those people were isolated and kept moored to reality by the normal people around them. Now, they self-segregate themselves into groups on the internet, reinforce each other's dementia, and amp each other up to ever higher levels of stupid. There's just no one around to tell them they're acting like crazy people. Well, except me and some others. The interventions we stage here for unhinged conservatives are a sort of public service.
> 
> USMB isn't even especially bad in that regard. Other places are a lot worse, in the sense of being overrun by right-wing-fringe conspiracy theorists who sputter out "libtards!" in a tourettes-like fashion. At least you won't get autobanned for PWL offenses here (Posting While Liberal), as will happen at any openly conservative board.
> 
> It's a difficult line to walk, giving people freedom to talk without letting the loonies take complete control. I look at it as giving the conservatives a sporting chance. If they can rely gang tactics, spamming, deliberately using data they know has been debunked and other bad behavior, then they're not completely helpless against the facts, reason and honesty of the liberals. Consider it a challenge, practice for real world politics where just being correct doesn't guarantee a win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The kook left is also over represented, as well as the kook center. I haven't seen you complaining about them*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is fair to say that the crazy right is over-represented... do you know why?
> 
> This website is 90% conservative, and this is easy to tell by looking at various polls taken. Let's say that every 1 out of 10 people is crazy... naturally that means if we take a sample of 100 people, 9 would be crazy conservatives, and 1 would be crazy other.
Click to expand...


Polls prove it? Did everyone who posts here answer the polls? If not, all you can really say is that the people that respond to self selecting polls on this site tend to claim they are conservative.


----------



## Boss

gnarlylove said:


> "Well then, what you need to do is articulate the specific things you believe I have been poorly reasoned or objectively misguided on in reality."
> 
> Let me quote one of my earlier replies that address specific reason deficient statements and conclusions made by you.
> 
> _Take your uncritical blanket statements about liberals and idealizing. What is a principle, such as many conservatives talk about, if not an ideal? An ideal for which to strive? Maybe you don't listen to you conservative representatives much. Neither do I but enough to know they use idealistic language._
> 
> _I wanted to address your Hope and Change objection. You speak as if either concept is idealist. If we take hope at face value, hope is essential to wake up in the morning. Without a motivation that you haven't yet achieved though are striving for, then you don't get out of bed, even if it's just a vague estimate. So Hope sounds very essential to human thinking and life in general, a belief that things can get better._
> 
> So I raised very specific objections to your reasoning which is as follows:
> 
> _Ideas that emerge from the political left are often very idealistic and frivolous. Based on some 'theory' that has yet to ever be proven in practicality. Hopeful and wishful thinking, not critical or reasoned thinking at all. "Hope and Change" is a prime example. Simply changing for change sake and hoping things will turn out for the better, is not a well-reasoned or well-thought-out plan, as it turns out. Conservatives could have saved you the time in trying this experiment. _
> 
> My whole post linked above offers a complete and quite specific objection, point by point analysis of why I think your post was reason deficient. Now you have forgotten that and moved on to lying or making stuff up that appeals to your emotional narrative that I haven't "articulated specific things."
> 
> But I also want to be clear, do you think I'm disrespecting you when I challenge your beliefs but that you do not equate disrespect with a challenge to your beliefs? Something seems fishy.



First of all, you have not been rational. In several instances, you have taken things I said out of context and made false conclusions as to what you believe I am saying. I did not "object" to "Hope and Change" nor did I single them out as individual examples of idealism. I presented the mantra "Hope and Change" as an example of how liberals are idealistic as opposed to conservatives. Instead of comprehending my point in a rational way, you emotively reacted as if under attack, you even used the word "attack" in your reply. So you have created an argument from me that never existed and have proceeded to defend against that phantom argument. Rational people don't behave this way. 

You continue on to say that you think I am complaining that you are disrespecting me by challenging my beliefs, and I have specifically said that is not the case, but for the second post, you still seem to think that is the case. I explained to you, the only reason I pointed out your disrespect was because you indicated you didn't know how you had disrespected. Here again, instead of reading my words in context, you have chosen to take them out of context (or outright ignore me) and formulate an argument that doesn't exist. Rational people do not behave this way.


----------



## gnarlylove

"I presented the mantra "Hope and Change" as an example of how liberals are idealistic as opposed to conservatives."

Have you not read my reply? I said conservatives used that same exact mantra, and so, like I said, your point is not based in objective reality but is a narrative that is suppose to be right but is indeed factually false. Several Conservatives have used this mantra and so how does it represent a difference? It plainly doesn't.

You are not using attack in the context I used it. I said attack in the context of challenging each other's beliefs, which is perfectly normal in a discussion. You keep returning to the SINGLE example of how I am not rational is because I used the word challenge or attack. That is not "non-rational" behavior as you keep saying. I was describing how you had appropriately brought a challenge to a conclusion. You are exaggerating this to justify how rude and disrespectful your own interpersonal communication skills are.

I just cannot see how you fail to see how you set the terms of debate as "I am not rational" and you are justified in any disrespectful words you may say. You continue to mis-identify my factual observations as disrespectful because they are based in objective reality: you are quick to call someone X and label them not rational in 2 posts and that you are sensitive to challenges because you don't like being challenged. You say you do but your actions speak differently: you continually begin each post with how I am not rational. Even if it were true, you have no evidence. In order to determine someone not sane or not rational. one semantical example based on the the misinterpretation of the word "attack" would not hold up in the court of law. I have told you attack does not mean what you keep repeating but for some reason you cannot stop.


----------



## midcan5

Boss said:


> First of all, you have not been rational. In several instances, you have taken things I said out of context and made false conclusions as to what you believe I am saying. I did not "object" to "Hope and Change" nor did I single them out as individual examples of idealism. I presented the mantra "Hope and Change" as an example of how liberals are idealistic as opposed to conservatives. Instead of comprehending my point in a rational way, you emotively reacted as if under attack, you even used the word "attack" in your reply. So you have created an argument from me that never existed and have proceeded to defend against that phantom argument. Rational people don't behave this way.....



While 'hope and change' are idealistic, the conservative's mantra is all you need is 'liberty' or 'freedom,' pick your favorite empty idealistic conservative word. Either one works for conservatives and both are completely meaningless outside of context. People who live....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50727-who-should-rule-test.html
The Regressive Antidote - If Conservatism Is The Ideology of Freedom, I'm The Queen of England
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/88682-a-conservative-wakes-up.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/philosophy/265505-freedom.html

"Where freedom is real, equality is the passion of the masses. Where equality is real, freedom is the passion of a small minority." Eric Hoffer
.


----------



## shart_attack

gnarlylove said:


> Anyone with a minimal intellectual background will see this site consists mostly of terribly reasoned posts. I'm referring to mainly the popular topics like "Environment" section, "Politics" etc. but then again, each section is typically inundated with poorly reasoned arguments on either side of the issue, but mostly from conservatives.
> 
> I am generalizing which tends to exaggerate the matter a little bit. I want to be clear I'm not saying people are dumb or bad people, I'm just saying their premises and conclusions are often founded on water instead of solid ground.
> 
> I was wondering why this general trend is so? Is this the real spectrum of thought in America? A genuine representation? Or is there something about this site that attracts an overwhelming majority of inadequate rigor and woefully unfounded assertions?
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> I thought perhaps the answer might be the fact the URL contains "US" (message boards) and therefore anyone who wants critical discussion automatically knows US=uncritical thought. Yes? No?
> 
> Again, this is a only trend I'm denoting in America. If usmessageboads is a genuine representation of American thought then whoa! America is not what I thought it was! But my opinion is this site is not a genuine representation.



There certainly are a whole bunch of humorless pricks here, I've noticed.

 on this thread you got here.


----------



## Boss

gnarlylove said:


> "I presented the mantra "Hope and Change" as an example of how liberals are idealistic as opposed to conservatives."
> 
> Have you not read my reply? I said conservatives used that same exact mantra, and so, like I said, your point is not based in objective reality but is a narrative that is suppose to be right but is indeed factually false. Several Conservatives have used this mantra and so how does it represent a difference? It plainly doesn't.
> 
> You are not using attack in the context I used it. I said attack in the context of challenging each other's beliefs, which is perfectly normal in a discussion. You keep returning to the SINGLE example of how I am not rational is because I used the word challenge or attack. That is not "non-rational" behavior as you keep saying. I was describing how you had appropriately brought a challenge to a conclusion. You are exaggerating this to justify how rude and disrespectful your own interpersonal communication skills are.
> 
> I just cannot see how you fail to see how you set the terms of debate as "I am not rational" and you are justified in any disrespectful words you may say. You continue to mis-identify my factual observations as disrespectful because they are based in objective reality: you are quick to call someone X and label them not rational in 2 posts and that you are sensitive to challenges because you don't like being challenged. You say you do but your actions speak differently: you continually begin each post with how I am not rational. Even if it were true, you have no evidence. In order to determine someone not sane or not rational. one semantical example based on the the misinterpretation of the word "attack" would not hold up in the court of law. I have told you attack does not mean what you keep repeating but for some reason you cannot stop.



Again, you are trying (desperately) to create an argument where none exists. Do you think this is behavior of someone who is rational? I did not raise "Hope and Change" as an argument, I presented it as an example while making a point about the difference between liberal ideologues and conservative thinkers. That was presented in the course of trying to answer your questions about USMB and who you find here. I could have given other examples, that seemed to be the easiest to comprehend at the time. Most rational people recognize that as the DNC slogan for the 2008 Presidential campaign. 

I pointed out your use of the word "attack" when nothing was being "attacked" by me. Regardless of intended context, the word itself denotes aggressive action. There is no argument among rational people with that statement, but again, you wish to turn this into one. I've not set the terms of debate because this has not been a debate, I entered my comments in an attempt to help you. Yes, I am quick to conclude you are not rational. How many non-rational statements should I observe before I reach my conclusion? I did not determine you weren't sane, I don't understand why you feel compelled to introduce that word now, in the middle of your response. Nor do I understand why you bring up what is acceptable in a court of law. Again, not something rational people do. 

I want you to examine the basic morphology of this conversation. If you are having this much trouble communicating with someone who is simply trying to answer your questions and help you find understanding, what does it say about how you come across in a debate or how you interpret the debate points of another?


----------



## Unkotare

I don't know why you are bothering to wrestle this pig, Boss. You are not going to get anything out of it.


----------



## gnarlylove

2008 McCain slogans that represent idealist notions:

"Reform, Prosperity, Peace" (Reform=Change in case you didn't know)
"Best Prepared to Lead from Day"
"Country First"
"A Cause Greater Than Self" (This is 100% idealist, we are to sacrafice our own lives in order to serve the country).

From http://www.ithaca.edu/rhp/programs/...aganda/obama_and_mccain_slogans/#.UyCRVpa-lgM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008

So what've I've been trying to say all along is that your very first premise that Conservatives are practical and do not hold idealist notions like liberals do, is factually incorrect. Conservatives and liberals alike use idealist language and appeal to principles rather than compromise and pragmatism. Instead of getting the country to run smoothly, both parties lack in being practical. One of their rare demonstrations of practical measures is a bill came to the floor that involved the airline industry in late 2012, I think. Voting "Nay" would have meant longer lines at the airport and it was right before Congress let out, so what did they do? Your right, they set aside their ideals and decided to vote almost unanimously to fund the airlines so they wouldn't have to wait in line.

Practical indeed, but most situation invoke idealist principles that are not to be compromised ever no matter the conditions. So what is the result of idealism in Congress? Our Congress is at a gridlock because in almost every discussion they refuse to break with their "Conservative" or "Liberal" ideals to better the American dream for a better life.

I understand you overwhelmingly support conservative viewpoints. Why? Because they are practical? What people say often contradicts their actions. To believe Conservatives almost every time they speak while believing Liberals are not telling the truth is incredible display of gullibility. Preferential gullibility. Both parties tend to deceive us. Why? Self-interest, as we all know, can be highly motivating to the point of deception so we can achieve things for our family and ourselves. So they highlight certain issues to rally support and either lie or more often avoid talking about other issues.

In fact, there is a term for this, Boss. It's called wedge issue which gives rise to wedge politics. Essentially this is a device or technique to emphasis a certain controversial issue to exploit votes in favor or against a certain candidate.



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> A wedge issue is a social issue, often of a divisive or controversial nature, which splits apart a population or political group. Wedge issues can be advertised or publicly aired in an attempt to weaken the unity of a population; with the goal of enticing polarized individuals to give support to an opponent. The use of wedge issues gives rise to wedge politics. Wedge issues are also known as hot button or third rail issues.
> Political campaigns use wedge issues to exploit tension within a targeted population.



So going back to what I said pages ago:

Contrary to your emotional example/narrative about how liberals and Conservatives differ, we find that neither party differs all that much. Rather, they are two factions of the same party, namely, the business party. Libs and Cons stand for principles on certain wedge issues like abortion or gay marriage that appeal to a certain population, usually their emotional faculties, not rational faculties. The reason such an issue is called _third rail_ is because those issues, while important, do not have the significance as do primary issues that politicians often avoid speaking about: like how massive corporate subsidies and consumer subsidies are sometimes covers for welfare for the rich/business party like oil companies; or how US military campaigns are not intended to spread Democracy but rather to gain access to "critical leverage" against the rest of the world so business can do as they please in these countries.

But before we move on to address other topics like subsidies or whatever, I think it is essential for you to acknowledge your factually incorrect blanket statement about liberals and conservatives. While I have no doubt you are practical, the party with whom you associate is in fact not very practical, or at least not nearly as practical as you. So to align yourself with the conservative party based on this factually false narrative undermines some of your credibility in the area of rationality.

So unless you can proffer a critical and adequate defense of your factually incorrect premise, that McCain's slogans and Cons in general are in fact not idealist etc., then a rational person will admit their mistake. I don't need you to type it out but as long as we can agree on this point (that your con/lib blanket statement is false), then I think we have found common ground from which to discuss, aka rationality. However, if you continue to believe factually incorrect statements without sufficient defense, then we cannot proceed rationally because you are not being rational. In other words, you are ignoring laws of thought, namely, for claim X (your blanket statement) to be true, there must be sufficient evidence (emotional narratives sparsely count as evidence) supporting it while any challenging claims (like the evidence that many cons are idealist I offered above) are adequately defended. I am awaiting your rational defense or rational admittance. Of course there are other options but none of them  are rational so I hope we can move forward without resorting to those.


----------



## Boss

I am not here to argue politics with you, gnarly. My only point was to attempt to explain the demographics of this and other Internet forums, to help you reach understanding. You continue to try and morph my comments into an "argument" that you can jump into. If you simply wanted to pick a fight and argue with someone, then your OP was completely dishonest and disingenuous. I suppose it is my error for taking you at your word and attempting to help you reach understanding, but I generally accept people at their word because I am rational. 

For the record, John McCain is not Conservative. What McCain did or said in his campaign has absolutely  nothing to do with the point I was attempting to make or the explanation I was trying to convey. You are off on a tangent in an argument that never was presented, and despite my repeated efforts to point this out, you just continue to persistently act as thought we are in an argument. This is not rational behavior, and demonstrates exactly what I said about you many posts ago.


----------



## Boss

Unkotare said:


> I don't know why you are bothering to wrestle this pig, Boss. You are not going to get anything out of it.



I don't know either at this point. It is purely a selfless act. I read his initial OP and thought I would interject my observations to perhaps help him gain understanding, but I am realizing now that he only wanted to bait someone into an argument and his OP premise was total bullshit.


----------



## gnarlylove

You claimed the use of the word "attack" defined my non-rational behavior. Then you call my honest and logical inquiry into your deficient claims "picking a fight." Using your same logic, you are not rational because you used "picking a fight" when everyone knows I am not fighting you, I am trying to proceed using rational discussion techniques (i.e. argument, evidence etc.). I'm sorry that you are so sensitive to critical thinking and rational argument that you ask I stop. So this officially terminates our discussion.

If anyone has followed our conversation as an _independent_ outside observer, then I'd imagine what they would conclude is that Boss has been irrational in a majority of posts, not to mention disrespectful which was admitted. I have repeatedly and sincerely apologized for my shortcomings and plainly asked to stick to the high road of clear logic and rational discussion. The fact that my authentic attempts to proceed with lucid rational discussion and challenging false claims have been alleged to lack rationality is clear evidence of Boss's duplicitous use of rationality.


----------



## Boss

I did not claim your use of the word "attack" defined your non-rational behavior. I stated that we cannot have a rational discussion because you are not rational. You took offense to this remark and denied not being rational. I then illustrated an example of you not being rational by pointing out the use of the word "attack" where it did not apply. You did not make an honest inquiry into my claim, you accused me of "attacking" both the "Hope and Change" mantra and you personally, neither of which was true. Since then, you have persisted in taking a hostile argumentative tone in our discussion, despite the fact I have repeatedly stated that I am not here to argue and fight. I continue to point out, this is not rational behavior. 

It is probably for the best that we terminate our conversation at this point. It is clear you have no intentions of being rational or engaging in any kind of self-evaluation. You simply want to be right and win an argument, and that is fine. I completely understand your sentiment and wish I had realized it earlier, I could have used this time more wisely. Thank you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Boss said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why you are bothering to wrestle this pig, Boss. You are not going to get anything out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know either at this point. It is purely a selfless act. I read his initial OP and thought I would interject my observations to perhaps help him gain understanding, but I am realizing now that he only wanted to bait someone into an argument and his OP premise was total bullshit.
Click to expand...


Live and learn.


----------



## shart_attack

Wow. Juuuuuuuust. Wow.

"_If y'uns cain't say sumin' nice, say nuttin'_," Mama Shart used to say to me when I was still crawlin', and hadn't yet heard of the _Springsteen(/tramp)(/shart) Credo_ of what some of us was born to do.

Bet even yet Mama woulda said that this thread behoovingly prooves that some fellow animal kingdom critters sadly take themselves waaaaaaaay too seriously.

Aww, Gary Larson: please come back. We hardly knew ye.


----------



## editec

This is a board filled with* faith based partisans.*

*Faith based partisan* is probably a redundant term since in order to be a partisan, one must eschew thinking for oneself and accept the PARTY LINE (on faith)


----------



## Barb

editec said:


> This is a board filled with* faith based partisans.*
> 
> *Faith based partisan* is probably a redundant term since in order to be a partisan, one must eschew thinking for oneself and accept the PARTY LINE (on faith)



Virus of the Mind is a decent reference...if a little one-sided, but Memetics, as much as there's a spat between "purely" a physical part of our brains and "purely" a non literal social function,has excellent explanations:

Memetic Lexicon



> "Every scheme includes a vaccime to protect against rival memes. For instance:
> 
> Conservatism: automatically resist all new memes.
> Orthodoxy: automatically reject all new memes.
> Science: test new memes for theoretical consistency and(where applicable) empirical repeatability; continually re-assess old memes; accept schemes only conditionally, pending future re:-assessment.
> Radicalism: embrace one new scheme, reject all others.
> Nihilism: reject all schemes, new and old.
> New Age: accept all esthetically-appealing memes, new and old, regardless of empirical (or even internal) consistency; reject others. (Note that this one doesn't provide much protection.)
> Japanese: adapt (parts of) new schemes to the old ones."
> Yesterday at 5:32am · Like



I'm working on cross referencing mimetics with semiotics. Both have a wealth of information to share.


----------



## gnarlylove

Karl Marx said:
			
		

> So our slogan must be: reform of consciousness not though dogmas, but through the analysis of mystical consciousness that is not clear to itself, whether it appears in religious or political form. It will then be clear that the world has long dreamt of something of which it only needs a fully developed consciousness in order to really possess it. Clearly, the problem does not lie in filling some great void between past ideas and those of the future but in the completion of ideas of the past. Finally, it will be clear that humanity is not beginning a new work, but consciously bringing its old work to completion.
> 
> So we can summarize the purpose of our journal [Marx's employment at the time] in one word: self-understanding (meaning critical philosophy) by our age of its struggles and desires. This is as tas for the world and for us. it can only be achieved by united forces. What is at stake is a confession, nothing more. To have its sins forgiven, humanity needs only to recognize them as they are.



From _Early Texts_ found in "Karl Marx His Life and Thought" by David M.


----------



## flacaltenn

Barb said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a board filled with* faith based partisans.*
> 
> *Faith based partisan* is probably a redundant term since in order to be a partisan, one must eschew thinking for oneself and accept the PARTY LINE (on faith)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Virus of the Mind is a decent reference...if a little one-sided, but Memetics, as much as there's a spat between "purely" a physical part of our brains and "purely" a non literal social function,has excellent explanations:
> 
> Memetic Lexicon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Every scheme includes a vaccime to protect against rival memes. For instance:
> 
> Conservatism: automatically resist all new memes.
> Orthodoxy: automatically reject all new memes.
> Science: test new memes for theoretical consistency and(where applicable) empirical repeatability; continually re-assess old memes; accept schemes only conditionally, pending future re:-assessment.
> Radicalism: embrace one new scheme, reject all others.
> Nihilism: reject all schemes, new and old.
> New Age: accept all esthetically-appealing memes, new and old, regardless of empirical (or even internal) consistency; reject others. (Note that this one doesn't provide much protection.)
> Japanese: adapt (parts of) new schemes to the old ones."
> Yesterday at 5:32am · Like
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm working on cross referencing mimetics with semiotics. Both have a wealth of information to share.
Click to expand...


Actually Barb -- I think you've got an interesting premise to explore.. Science also "resists all new memes" because of the proof required for the new meme. RDean will flip-out if you relate Conservatives and Science in any way... 

 So I suggest you add --

leftists -- whatever new meme might gain power.

liberals -- refuse to judge the quality of any meme they encounter. New or Old. Black or       White. Rich or Poor.. 

You are welcome...


----------



## Barb

flacaltenn said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a board filled with* faith based partisans.*
> 
> *Faith based partisan* is probably a redundant term since in order to be a partisan, one must eschew thinking for oneself and accept the PARTY LINE (on faith)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Virus of the Mind is a decent reference...if a little one-sided, but Memetics, as much as there's a spat between "purely" a physical part of our brains and "purely" a non literal social function,has excellent explanations:
> 
> Memetic Lexicon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Every scheme includes a vaccime to protect against rival memes. For instance:
> 
> Conservatism: automatically resist all new memes.
> Orthodoxy: automatically reject all new memes.
> Science: test new memes for theoretical consistency and(where applicable) empirical repeatability; continually re-assess old memes; accept schemes only conditionally, pending future re:-assessment.
> Radicalism: embrace one new scheme, reject all others.
> Nihilism: reject all schemes, new and old.
> New Age: accept all esthetically-appealing memes, new and old, regardless of empirical (or even internal) consistency; reject others. (Note that this one doesn't provide much protection.)
> Japanese: adapt (parts of) new schemes to the old ones."
> Yesterday at 5:32am · Like
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm working on cross referencing mimetics with semiotics. Both have a wealth of information to share.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Barb -- I think you've got an interesting premise to explore.. Science also "resists all new memes" because of the proof required for the new meme. RDean will flip-out if you relate Conservatives and Science in any way...
> 
> So I suggest you add --
> 
> leftists -- whatever new meme might gain power.
> 
> liberals -- refuse to judge the quality of any meme they encounter. New or Old. Black or       White. Rich or Poor..
> 
> You are welcome...
Click to expand...


Meh. Science is continually reassessed, and therefore a work in progress, so I think you are mistaken. Also, you mistake "liberal" for "new age," which is covered. I like to think that liberal, as I understand it, would more closely resemble "Japanese: adapt (parts of) new schemes to the old ones."


----------



## Boss

Barb, your scalloped potatoes are fucked!


----------



## Barb

Boss said:


> Barb, your scalloped potatoes are fucked!



I never really liked scalloped potatoes. 

Not too fond of word salad, either. Keep that in mind, okay? Thanks.


----------



## gnarlylove

Barb said:


> "Every scheme includes a vaccime to protect against rival memes. For instance:
> 
> Conservatism: automatically resist all new memes.
Click to expand...


This is quite helpful way of conceiving certain beliefs. The viral analogy is quite appropriate insofar as certain beliefs, like American Conservatism, the host must reject all new memes that conflagrate the conservative meme.

As far as liberals go, one must look further. Official Democrats are what was known as moderate Republicans just three or four decades ago. Democrat voters and nonvoters who are genuinely liberal tend to agree neither with Democrat policy (e.g. Obama) nor Republican policy. The ones that vote often think they are selecting the lesser of two evils. So it's unfair to lump these two together.

I think it's fair to lump the official parties into the conservatism meme above. Both refuse to take  measures to ensure the well being of the masses--Obama slashing 38 billion in Welfare. But this is nothing new and will not change unless we the people unite against tyranny where neither party represents the majority of people.

A genuinely liberal meme is as you assessed, Barb: to be understood as synthesizing old and new memes. I think further elaboration is important here. What this means is old memes like white males are superior are challenged by new memes like "gay rights" and "women are people too" and either expel the old meme or somehow synthesize the two. There are various stages but hopefully the new memes of treating everyone with inherent dignity will supersede these horrendous viral memes that have infected humanity from the beginning.

Thus the liberalism meme requires fundamental challenges to their old memes. If healthy criticism and skepticism was not part of the genuine liberalism meme, then I'd assume the only other meme for Americans is the conversatvism meme. Therefore the only rigorous and intelligent meme is liberalism. That being said, this does not mean to hold liberal beliefs. Liberal beliefs must be challenged and the dialectic the Hegel identified continues.

It's just so sad that Americans believe conservatism is the end of history--that society has developed as far as it should and we must put the brakes on to keep history right where it is. That of course means fighting against admitting women, gays, blacks, browns are people, the reason is white males were better off when we owned them and exploited them--demanding equal pay and opportunity is just crazy! Heck, women were not considered "peers" until 1975 when they could begin serving on a jury. Conservativism is so junked up with oppression of people that the only way to keep the host susceptible is make him reject all new memes.


----------



## Unkotare

What a self-important little airhead.


----------

