Do Facts hurt the contemporary political debate?

[Papageorgio]

How do you come to that conclusion. Fact, no study was cited. Fact, if study was conducted, what was the bias of the study. What was the goal of the study? Tons of other questions remain about the study, however you are quick to bite that is a factual study. Why? Because it fits your agenda.
I am paying attention. You have a poster that has had only 50 posts since 2015, come on the board, claims he has a study, provides no link to the study, provides no source of the study, we don't know if there was a study, we don't know who conducted the study, we have no idea of the agenda of the study, yet you accept it as fact? The only reason you do, it is because it fits your agenda.

Seems that you don't really need facts, you just proved the study if the word was left instead of conservative. Thanks.

Of course none of that is relevant to the point.

I had just as many facts as the OP. You proved the point. Irreverent to the facts, you took this study as fact. There is absolutely no proof this study was ever conducted. You took it on as a fact, why were you so excited to take this on as fact? Maybe it matches ideology?

Maybe it matches ideology?

So what? That certainly doesn't change any findings.
Obviously it makes you defensive.

No proof of findings, no proof of the study. You are batting .000 on facts.

You have yet to make a point.

Made over and over, the fact you don’t accept it speaks volumes of why the study is indeed wrong. Have a great rest of your day.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I said nothing of stereotypes let alone "bitched" about them.

Then

The problem with the cons is that they have problems processing information competently.

Just wow. You did not even bother to separate them.

Thanks for the example of my point.

The study is ludicrous. You could do the same study in another country with a different group of people and get the same result. The point of the study was to try to paint Conservatives in a bad light. It is rather obvious.

That is not obvious at all. The study made no such judgement. You did.

What study? Was there in fact a study? You have one guy's word that aligns with your belief system and it is now a fact? Do you know the bias of the group or individual that made the study, if it was actually made? Why are you accepting that it is a fact when there is no proof?

because PEOPLE tend to use things that validate their mindset w/o question and question the things that don't. HUMAN trait we all share.

But that's not what I'm doing. That's what you're doing. You're attributing a motive to my behavior that is not in evidence. Either by my admission or by action. You've taken the available information and concocted a narrative that validates your mindset.

And you have taken a study, that may not exist and accepted it as fact because it validates your narrative. Since the OP has ran away from the thread we have no idea the study in fact exists, yet you act like it does. Why is that?

Now, time for you to reject my position because it doesn’t fit your narrative.

That is not what I have done at all. I made my own independent assertion that you and others are proving with each post.

Those are the facts in evidence.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Of course none of that is relevant to the point.

I had just as many facts as the OP. You proved the point. Irreverent to the facts, you took this study as fact. There is absolutely no proof this study was ever conducted. You took it on as a fact, why were you so excited to take this on as fact? Maybe it matches ideology?

Maybe it matches ideology?

So what? That certainly doesn't change any findings.
Obviously it makes you defensive.

No proof of findings, no proof of the study. You are batting .000 on facts.

You have yet to make a point.

Made over and over, the fact you don’t accept it speaks volumes of why the study is indeed wrong. Have a great rest of your day.

Fragile.

 

[Olde Europe]

and this is why i won't take any convo with you seriously. you're only going to attack and disagree and pull some reason to do so out of your already-full-of-shit ass.

you don't want to talk over issues in order to come to a consensus, you want to attack people, esp anyone you view to be "on the right". given all that i will now go back to my landmark phrase to people like you and leave.

fuck off.

Thanks for letting me know you have no argument.

Let's look at the breezy dismissal of just one of Al Gore' claims:

1. Rising Sea Levels – inaccurate and misleading. Al was even discovered purchasing a beachfront mansion!

The earth is losing hundreds of billions of tons of land-based ice each year, which of course ends up in the oceans. Also, the oceans are warming, adding even more to sea level rise. There isn't even a point addressing the so-called "beachfront mansion".

That's the level of discourse you engage in, and you still seem to believe you have made a point. Having read a good bit about climate change and the consequences, I have some notion as to what the science says, and what it doesn't say. No, we're not all dead in a decade, and no climate scientist says so.

So, you are whining that your falsehoods are being pointed out, and whining even more I won't compromise with you. Tough. There is no compromise between truth and crap. That's not going to happen, not as long as reason has some currency among humankind.

 

[Crepitus]

I have been listening to TED talks and have stumbled across some sources of studying performed regarding what happens when we introduce even the simplest facts into a debate. One would hope in an ideal world that if the person reading the facts (assuming proper citation and simple mathematical prove/disprove scenario) would take the moment to digest the material and then either offer their own interpretation of those facts, concede, or move on tangentially like so many of us do with politics. HOWEVER, the studies out today could suggest how Conservatives Vs Liberals react to intro of facts into a debate.
Statements (opinions rather) ranging from national security to healthcare to general constitutionality, that were considered to be liberal, were placed in front of a number of random Trump voters who considered themselves conservative. Half of the participants were given statements that were simply book-ended with pro-patriotic statements- (a), and the other half were left unadulterated and included factual data/charts to back up each opinion/claim (b) (remember the conclusion left by a normal reader would deduce that regardless of the format they are both essentially saying the same thing). The conservatives that were presented (a) showed a massively higher support even to the point of moving the needle to moderate to liberal views on things like gun control and healthcare etc, while the conservatives that were presented (b) tended to actually state that their original position has now become even more polarized to the Right after being forced to read what was essentially the same exact thing.
So the question is, If you consider yourself conservative and I start putting in what most would consider reputable facts/numbers to help my case, would you feel a quick urge to pull away? Should I stay in lighter water and use fact-free language to have a better chance at moving the needle toward the middle? Please take a moment if you have one to select one of the three options for a quick poll. Thanks.

Real facts are fine. Crap from Wing Nut Daily or the Palmer Report?

Nope.

That's the crux of the dynamic. The ability to process information competently so as to discern fact from fiction. Reality over narrative.

Barr's narrative of the Mueller report vs Mueller's testimony is a perfect example.

or you could also say the lefts narrative of russia that fell flat in "reality" so they rush to "obstruction" cause there was no COLLUSION.

someone seeing something differently than you doesn't make you right, them wrong anymore then it makes them right and you wrong. however, you have proven to be incapable of putting your own viewpoints away to look at someone elses. you just do your scream shout DOPE crap.

It's not the "left's" narrative of Russia.

That is the right's narrative. Don't you see that?

please show me the vast amount of people on the right who investigated trump for RUSSIA collusion.

Lol, the criminals on the right spent all their time denying and obstructing. There was no real investigating by the right at all.

 

[Olde Europe]

Lol, the criminals on the right spent all their time denying and obstructing. There was no real investigating by the right at all.

Comey, Rosenstein and Mueller never happened?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Lol, the criminals on the right spent all their time denying and obstructing. There was no real investigating by the right at all.

Comey, Rosenstein and Mueller never happened?

Leftists!

 

[Papageorgio]

I said nothing of stereotypes let alone "bitched" about them.

Then

The problem with the cons is that they have problems processing information competently.

Just wow. You did not even bother to separate them.

Thanks for the example of my point.

That is not obvious at all. The study made no such judgement. You did.

What study? Was there in fact a study? You have one guy's word that aligns with your belief system and it is now a fact? Do you know the bias of the group or individual that made the study, if it was actually made? Why are you accepting that it is a fact when there is no proof?

because PEOPLE tend to use things that validate their mindset w/o question and question the things that don't. HUMAN trait we all share.

But that's not what I'm doing. That's what you're doing. You're attributing a motive to my behavior that is not in evidence. Either by my admission or by action. You've taken the available information and concocted a narrative that validates your mindset.

And you have taken a study, that may not exist and accepted it as fact because it validates your narrative. Since the OP has ran away from the thread we have no idea the study in fact exists, yet you act like it does. Why is that?

Now, time for you to reject my position because it doesn’t fit your narrative.

That is not what I have done at all. I made my own independent assertion that you and others are proving with each post.

Those are the facts in evidence.

What facts?

 

[iceberg]

Real facts are fine. Crap from Wing Nut Daily or the Palmer Report?

Nope.

That's the crux of the dynamic. The ability to process information competently so as to discern fact from fiction. Reality over narrative.

Barr's narrative of the Mueller report vs Mueller's testimony is a perfect example.

or you could also say the lefts narrative of russia that fell flat in "reality" so they rush to "obstruction" cause there was no COLLUSION.

someone seeing something differently than you doesn't make you right, them wrong anymore then it makes them right and you wrong. however, you have proven to be incapable of putting your own viewpoints away to look at someone elses. you just do your scream shout DOPE crap.

It's not the "left's" narrative of Russia.

That is the right's narrative. Don't you see that?

please show me the vast amount of people on the right who investigated trump for RUSSIA collusion.

Lol, the criminals on the right spent all their time denying and obstructing. There was no real investigating by the right at all.

cause there was nothing to find, as illustrated by mueller. so "the left" drops the collusion aspect and goes for obstruction. this shows the left doesn't care what they go after trump for as long as they're going after him for something.

are you saying mueller didn't find it cause the evil right didn't pitch in? please be saying that. i need a good guffaw.

 

[DBA]

funny you bitch about stereotypes while in the middle of doing it.

i gave him a straight answer. you just laughed. i rest my case.

I said nothing of stereotypes let alone "bitched" about them.

The problem with the cons is that they have problems processing information competently.

And Republicans believe Democrats have problems processing information competently. I see it as both parties see it their way and damn the facts. Real liberals and real conservatives are open to dialogue. There are few real liberals or real conservatives, that is the problem.

Then you're not paying attention. The OP outlined a study focused on conservatives and how they react to facts when presented.
Saying "nuh-uh" or "they both do it" does not address the point. If anything, it reinforces the findings of the study.

The study is ludicrous. You could do the same study in another country with a different group of people and get the same result. The point of the study was to try to paint Conservatives in a bad light. It is rather obvious.

That is not obvious at all. The study made no such judgement. You did.

So why not ask the same questions to liberals and get their reaction? Why no opposing study? We all know, its ok.

 

[Crepitus]

Lol, the criminals on the right spent all their time denying and obstructing. There was no real investigating by the right at all.

Comey, Rosenstein and Mueller never happened?

Leftists!

According to our resident RWNJs yes.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I said nothing of stereotypes let alone "bitched" about them.

Then

The problem with the cons is that they have problems processing information competently.

Just wow. You did not even bother to separate them.

Thanks for the example of my point.

What study? Was there in fact a study? You have one guy's word that aligns with your belief system and it is now a fact? Do you know the bias of the group or individual that made the study, if it was actually made? Why are you accepting that it is a fact when there is no proof?

because PEOPLE tend to use things that validate their mindset w/o question and question the things that don't. HUMAN trait we all share.

But that's not what I'm doing. That's what you're doing. You're attributing a motive to my behavior that is not in evidence. Either by my admission or by action. You've taken the available information and concocted a narrative that validates your mindset.

And you have taken a study, that may not exist and accepted it as fact because it validates your narrative. Since the OP has ran away from the thread we have no idea the study in fact exists, yet you act like it does. Why is that?

Now, time for you to reject my position because it doesn’t fit your narrative.

That is not what I have done at all. I made my own independent assertion that you and others are proving with each post.

Those are the facts in evidence.

What facts?

Exactly my point. Do you need a side of your RW sauce for dipping?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I said nothing of stereotypes let alone "bitched" about them.

The problem with the cons is that they have problems processing information competently.

And Republicans believe Democrats have problems processing information competently. I see it as both parties see it their way and damn the facts. Real liberals and real conservatives are open to dialogue. There are few real liberals or real conservatives, that is the problem.

Then you're not paying attention. The OP outlined a study focused on conservatives and how they react to facts when presented.
Saying "nuh-uh" or "they both do it" does not address the point. If anything, it reinforces the findings of the study.

The study is ludicrous. You could do the same study in another country with a different group of people and get the same result. The point of the study was to try to paint Conservatives in a bad light. It is rather obvious.

That is not obvious at all. The study made no such judgement. You did.

So why not ask the same questions to liberals and get their reaction? Why no opposing study? We all know, its ok.

Liberals weren't the subject. Do your own if you wish.

 

[Papageorgio]

Then
Just wow. You did not even bother to separate them.

Thanks for the example of my point.

because PEOPLE tend to use things that validate their mindset w/o question and question the things that don't. HUMAN trait we all share.

But that's not what I'm doing. That's what you're doing. You're attributing a motive to my behavior that is not in evidence. Either by my admission or by action. You've taken the available information and concocted a narrative that validates your mindset.

And you have taken a study, that may not exist and accepted it as fact because it validates your narrative. Since the OP has ran away from the thread we have no idea the study in fact exists, yet you act like it does. Why is that?

Now, time for you to reject my position because it doesn’t fit your narrative.

That is not what I have done at all. I made my own independent assertion that you and others are proving with each post.

Those are the facts in evidence.

What facts?

Exactly my point. Do you need a side of your RW sauce for dipping?

nope, you proved me right and I thank you.