08-27-2012, 07:43 PM | #51 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Eh, I don't give two shits what he's here for :p If he's here for real debate and can be persuaded, don't treat him like dirt. If he's not, just don't rise to it.
|
08-27-2012, 07:55 PM | #52 |
Banned
|
I will just say that, I will hold to my beliefs, for as long as I lack any reason to question them. I feel I am right, and seek to share my views with others. If those others give me serious reason to doubt my beliefs, I will happily reconsider my position. And that is even partially why I am debating. I want to prove what I know to myself, or prove it wrong so I can change it. And if I know something 100% absolutely, why would I not seek to enlighten those I see as being misguided?
The problem I see, is, while I try to address all evidences given to me, my own evidences on the other hand, are outright ignored, or insulted, without being given much, if any, consideration whatsoever. This only further re-enforces my beliefs, as I think logically, and logically, if my positions were really that easy to disprove, why isn't the other side doing so? Why are they instead focused on attacking me personally, if they truly had evidence to show me to the contrary? It doesn't make any logical sense. I'll never claim to be the best communicator, or the best orator, but I know what I know, and I've yet to see any reason to disbelieve it. Last edited by unownmew; 08-27-2012 at 07:59 PM. |
08-27-2012, 07:58 PM | #53 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
True logic does not involve faith. Put up a veil of ignorance and think things through, then you're thinking logically. Otherwise, you're not quite there.
|
08-27-2012, 08:06 PM | #54 |
Banned
|
On the contrary, everything relies upon faith.
I have faith that tomorrow the sun will rise. I was told how it works by an authority figure whom, presumably, did the experiments and math to prove it. I have not done the experiments myself, but every day the sun rises nevertheless, and I have no reason to doubt this will not continue to be the case, except for some freak galactic accident like a pulsar or quasar or whatever, swallows up the sun or blows our solar system away. Ultimately, everything we think we know, we actually only have faith in. True Knowledge comes from doing the experiments ourselves to find out if what we know is right or wrong. And right now I'm trying to experiment with what I know, to prove it right or wrong. That's that true debate is, is it not? |
08-27-2012, 08:16 PM | #55 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Yeah I was talking about true logic, and you clearly don't know what a veil of ignorance is. But fair dos. True knowledge, indeed, requires one to test the boundaries themselves.
|
08-27-2012, 08:43 PM | #56 |
Banned
|
Nope, to be honest I don't know what a veil of ignorance is. ^^;
And while I'm spilling honesty, I never took a debate class, or any sort of logic class either. |
08-27-2012, 09:01 PM | #57 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
I wouldn't worry; the veil is a philosophical tool. It's actually intended to discuss morality, as opposed to logic, but it does the same job in both cases. The idea is that you put yourself in a position where you do not know your status in society, your characteristics, your attributes, resources etc etc. From this position, you ask yourself if things are just.
For example, imagine you did not know your own nationality, race or biological sex. Fron beneath the veil, you could be a rich white guy from New York or a poor black woman in Somalia. It is likely that you would come up with a fairer theory of equality from such a position because you would want to minimise your own risk of being at the bottom of the ladder. You would not choose to laud a society in which there is still quite a lot of racism, sexism and there's a monumental wealth divide. You would choose to promote a society in which all have an equal starting point in life. To use it for logic, as some philosophers do, simply erase all prior knowledge. |
08-27-2012, 09:07 PM | #58 |
Banned
|
Ah, that makes sense. Very interesting. Sounds a bit difficult though. And I assume it requires a predetermined situation to make full use?
|
08-27-2012, 10:42 PM | #59 | |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Quote:
However, UM doesn't appear to be here for such. He comes in to tell us "facts", how things are, and how they're going to be, and that's just that. He doesn't care for our point of view save to take it and create an argument opposite to it. I cannot for the life of me recall a single time I have seen him actually say "I suppose you're right, and I wasn't aware of this. I'm going to learn more about the issue!" or something. He sticks to his guns no matter the amounts of evidence or articles contrary, a true biased conservative to the very core. He reminds me of my mother. You can argue with her for hours and tell her the facts, but at the end of the day she'll sit there and accuse your sources of being liberally biased liars and "you can't believe everything you read on the internet" while then going back to listening to talk radio and watching Fox News. It is about as productive as trying to discuss the ethics of abortion with a brick wall. It's become a fruitless waste of time, which is why you don't see me here hardly ever anymore. I've done this for about a year, the back and forth with him. It's just unnecessary and not true debate. I didn't block UM because I feel like that's kind of mean, personally, and when I see most of his posts anymore I tend to read one or two sentences or none at all before realizing how disappointed I am and just scrolling past. So let this be a lesson to anyone who tries to debate UM now. You can try to relate with him all you want, agree with him on some issues even, but he will never open his mind to new perspectives outside of that which he knows, and you will just be wasting your time debating.
__________________
|
|
08-28-2012, 12:29 PM | #60 |
Banned
|
I stick to my guns, because I've heard much of the opposing arguments before, and seen them viscerally dismembered besides. I'm still waiting to see my guns viscerally dismembered in a similar way, in some manner outside of personal attacks, or immediate "oh that's conservative Bias," without consulting the figures inside.
|
08-28-2012, 01:26 PM | #61 | |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Quote:
I'll agree we need to not worry about you as a person so much as you opinions and thus cut the attacks out, but it's frustrating as fuck. I could bring a scientist who had studied a field like global warming for 25 years and he could dispute all of your points and explain why he's correct after having studied for so long and you'd write him off as liberal bias or something. Thus, arguing with you in particularly has become a triesome and fruitless battle for many of us because you have made it clear you will never, ever see it from a different perspective. I think it's unfair that we can try to show you evidence that disputes your argument but you will just always call it liberal bias if it states a fact opposite of what you believe (of course, I'm talking actual facts, not articles from an MSM news source.)
__________________
|
|
08-28-2012, 03:18 PM | #62 |
Banned
|
I could argue that I've done the exact same thing, posting clear evidence totally disproving your points, and it just gets ignored or called conservative right-wing bias extremism.
So, which of us is right? |
08-28-2012, 03:28 PM | #63 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
There's not really any such thing as neutral evidence, to be honest. UM, you are extremely biased in the stuff you come out with, but that's not to say that you aren't presented with fairly partisan stuff in return. I'm assuming that most of you are American and thus presented with the extremely filtered viewpoints of your national media.
|
08-28-2012, 04:08 PM | #64 | ||
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Quote:
The beeb is pretty good though. I'm always amused reading articles quoting critcism of itself. Certainly not perfect (and it's had it's moments) but fairly good.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Concept; 08-28-2012 at 04:16 PM. |
||
08-28-2012, 04:19 PM | #65 | |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Quote:
|
|
08-28-2012, 04:26 PM | #66 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
It's not neutral - the opinion pieces are often hilarious, in particular - but most of the time when our two major parties squabble, for example, it generally just quotes what the two sides said and leaves you to sort your own opinion out.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
08-28-2012, 04:31 PM | #67 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Did you see IDS recently complaining about Flanders pissing all over the economy? love it.
|
08-28-2012, 04:33 PM | #68 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
I didn't. Link meh!
Although I fear we're getting somewhat off topic here as we appear to have segued into "why the news is crap".
__________________
Quote:
|
|
08-28-2012, 07:36 PM | #70 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Which is why you don't get your news from mainstream sources, as they will be biased every time, especially Fox News and MSNBC.
Presenting UM with official scientific data, lists of voting records, and charts, is pretty damn neutral. It shows the evidence front and center--- the only evidence I've ever seen him link in his argument exchanges are those that link to little known conservative blogs or conservative sites. I personally only ever try linking to as neutral as I can find, because I think it would be unfair and hypocritical to link to a liberal site in return.
__________________
|
08-29-2012, 03:57 AM | #71 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
I generally go with the theory that there's no such thing as neutral evidence. Scientists are as biased as everyone else, academics are hugely biased, everyone is. However, trying to find sources which mimic neutrality is of course a good thing to do. This is why several of us Brits will link to the BBC's articles for neutral evidence. It isn't neutral, but it tries to be some of the time.
Personally, I prefer to create neutrality by presenting multiple sources of evidence which cover a wide array of viewpoints. So, for example, were I writing an essay on opinion polls in America I would source multiple polling companies, news sources from both sides of the spectrum and academic articles with different viewpoints. It still wouldn't be neutral, but it would be easier to take your own opinion from it. |
08-30-2012, 06:41 PM | #72 |
The hostess with the mostess
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 226,522
|
I'll just leave this here
http://dailycurrant.com/2012/08/30/b...lenges-debate/ Although apparently its fake? idk. |
09-03-2012, 01:34 PM | #73 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Daily Currant is a parody news site similar to the Onion.
__________________
|
09-03-2012, 02:09 PM | #74 |
The hostess with the mostess
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 226,522
|
Yeah me and Talon got to the bottom of that. I realized it's fake a few minutes after I posted it.
|
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|