CDZ Are Your Political Leanings Ruled by Feelings or Facts?

[jwoodie]

In other words, do you start with preconceived desired outcomes and then create a rationale to support them, or do you look at facts and let them lead you to whatever outcomes they support? I think that ideologues on both ends of the political spectrum tend to follow the former approach in order to address some unresolved dissonance in their own feelings. On the other hand, many "moderates" seem to be more interested in avoiding conflict than in actual resolution of issues. That leave very few who are willing to let the facts take them to a logical conclusion, regardless of whether it "offends" anyone. Where do you fit in?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Both

 

[depotoo]

Mostly fact driven here.

 

[Iceweasel]

My ideological leanings are based on results and what I think will achieve them. I don't base anything on feelings. Feelings come and go and are easily manipulated. Therefore I am a conservative.

 

[Fueri]

80% of people think they're above average.

99% of people will think they are fact driven.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

both for me......i feel we have the 2 worst candidates running,and going by what many here on both sides are saying it is backed up by fact...of course the die hard lefties and righties will say only one side fits that criteria....

 

[OldLady]

Could you possibly provide an example of the different postures you are asking about?
Seems to me you are asking some loaded "trick" questions. That's my "feeling."

 

[alang1216]

In other words, do you start with preconceived desired outcomes and then create a rationale to support them, or do you look at facts and let them lead you to whatever outcomes they support? I think that ideologues on both ends of the political spectrum tend to follow the former approach in order to address some unresolved dissonance in their own feelings. On the other hand, many "moderates" seem to be more interested in avoiding conflict than in actual resolution of issues. That leave very few who are willing to let the facts take them to a logical conclusion, regardless of whether it "offends" anyone. Where do you fit in?

My politics are values-based. Namely my values. For example, my values tell me that every child should have an equal chance to succeed, regardless of their parents. Any law or program that gets succeeds in getting us closer to that goal I'll support. Any that fail should be terminated.

 

[Michelle420]

In other words, do you start with preconceived desired outcomes and then create a rationale to support them, or do you look at facts and let them lead you to whatever outcomes they support? I think that ideologues on both ends of the political spectrum tend to follow the former approach in order to address some unresolved dissonance in their own feelings. On the other hand, many "moderates" seem to be more interested in avoiding conflict than in actual resolution of issues. That leave very few who are willing to let the facts take them to a logical conclusion, regardless of whether it "offends" anyone. Where do you fit in?

Feelings

 

[jwoodie]

Here is an example of how I approach tax policy: The Fact is that tax policy causes individuals and businesses to adjust their behavior in accordance with their self interests. Thus a static evaluation of raising or lowering taxes is a fundamentally flawed undertaking. The only objective evaluation of tax policy is the measurement of Net Government Revenues, that is, the balance of anticipated revenues and expenditures over a period of time.

If raising taxes results in reduced employment, then whatever increase in tax revenues may be offset by an increase in expenditures related to unemployment. Conversely, a reduction in taxes may result in an even greater reduction in expenditures, thereby creating a Net Government Surplus.

As a result, I think that tax policy should be driven by empirical data and not someone's feelings about "fairness."

 

[Michelle420]

Here is an example of how I approach tax policy: The Fact is that tax policy causes individuals and businesses to adjust their behavior in accordance with their self interests. Thus a static evaluation of raising or lowering taxes is a fundamentally flawed undertaking. The only objective evaluation of tax policy is the measurement of Net Government Revenues, that is, the balance of anticipated revenues and expenditures over a period of time.

If raising taxes results in reduced employment, then whatever increase in tax revenues may be offset by an increase in expenditures related to unemployment. Conversely, a reduction in taxes may result in an even greater reduction in expenditures, thereby creating a Net Government Surplus.

As a result, I think that tax policy should be driven by empirical data and not someone's feelings about "fairness."

So you feel empirical data is the best way to make your decisions.

 

[Holos]

What exactly is the assumption or definition of fact here?

We are in the age of information.

Here is an example of how I approach tax policy: The Fact is that tax policy causes individuals and businesses to adjust their behavior in accordance with their self interests. Thus a static evaluation of raising or lowering taxes is a fundamentally flawed undertaking. The only objective evaluation of tax policy is the measurement of Net Government Revenues, that is, the balance of anticipated revenues and expenditures over a period of time.

If raising taxes results in reduced employment, then whatever increase in tax revenues may be offset by an increase in expenditures related to unemployment. Conversely, a reduction in taxes may result in an even greater reduction in expenditures, thereby creating a Net Government Surplus.

As a result, I think that tax policy should be driven by empirical data and not someone's feelings about "fairness."

So you feel empirical data is the best way to make your decisions.

There must be a distinction between fact and perception.
Although perceptions are always true, facts are not.
Perceptions will concern the individual only, therefore are always true to the individual. They have origin in the individual's past, they proceed into the individual's future.

That's the reason for which we have psychiatric wards. Because it is possible that an individual will be convinced to the extreme that his perception is the same as fact, willing to prove by force that no other fact is supportive of no other perception.

Facts are enterprises, often presented first in a blueprint or planned possibility, and then continued and established upon the verification of benefits for necessarily inclusive and including perspectives, or otherwise discontinued at their blueprint stage, upon the verification that there are no benefits for necessarily inclusive and including perspectives.

Empirical data is what constitutes of perception, always true to the individual by the influence of his, her or their imagination.

Empirical data cannot establish facts, but facts can only be initiated through empirical data.

People have different empirical experiences, which explains why people have different empirical preferences and is the reason why no person should be offended by an opinion or by an honest expression of their perception.

A fact, however, is when after those perceptions have been captured into descriptions to be expressed and opinionated they may or may not proceed into enterprises through collaboration or decline of other individuals with their own and unique perceptions and preferences so their experiences may be improved or guarded.

 

[Staidhup]

My opinion is based on facts, research, and common sense. Emotions and feelings were lost long ago, replaced by reality and tangible results.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

In other words, do you start with preconceived desired outcomes and then create a rationale to support them, or do you look at facts and let them lead you to whatever outcomes they support? I think that ideologues on both ends of the political spectrum tend to follow the former approach in order to address some unresolved dissonance in their own feelings. On the other hand, many "moderates" seem to be more interested in avoiding conflict than in actual resolution of issues. That leave very few who are willing to let the facts take them to a logical conclusion, regardless of whether it "offends" anyone. Where do you fit in?

Facts, always facts. Sometimes those facts even show that what I "feel" is wrong.

This is proven by the fact that I have been called both a left wing nut job and a right wing nut job by various posters on this thread simply for posting facts that disprove their opinions.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

What exactly is the assumption or definition of fact here?

We are in the age of information.

Here is an example of how I approach tax policy: The Fact is that tax policy causes individuals and businesses to adjust their behavior in accordance with their self interests. Thus a static evaluation of raising or lowering taxes is a fundamentally flawed undertaking. The only objective evaluation of tax policy is the measurement of Net Government Revenues, that is, the balance of anticipated revenues and expenditures over a period of time.

If raising taxes results in reduced employment, then whatever increase in tax revenues may be offset by an increase in expenditures related to unemployment. Conversely, a reduction in taxes may result in an even greater reduction in expenditures, thereby creating a Net Government Surplus.

As a result, I think that tax policy should be driven by empirical data and not someone's feelings about "fairness."

So you feel empirical data is the best way to make your decisions.

There must be a distinction between fact and perception.
Although perceptions are always true, facts are not.
Perceptions will concern the individual only, therefore are always true to the individual. They have origin in the individual's past, they proceed into the individual's future.

That's the reason for which we have psychiatric wards. Because it is possible that an individual will be convinced to the extreme that his perception is the same as fact, willing to prove by force that no other fact is supportive of no other perception.

Facts are enterprises, often presented first in a blueprint or planned possibility, and then continued and established upon the verification of benefits for necessarily inclusive and including perspectives, or otherwise discontinued at their blueprint stage, upon the verification that there are no benefits for necessarily inclusive and including perspectives.

Empirical data is what constitutes of perception, always true to the individual by the influence of his, her or their imagination.

Empirical data cannot establish facts, but facts can only be initiated through empirical data.

People have different empirical experiences, which explains why people have different empirical preferences and is the reason why no person should be offended by an opinion or by an honest expression of their perception.

A fact, however, is when after those perceptions have been captured into descriptions to be expressed and opinionated they may or may not proceed into enterprises through collaboration or decline of other individuals with their own and unique perceptions and preferences so their experiences may be improved or guarded.

LOL facts are ALWAYS true. Interpretation of facts can of course lead to trouble, but that doesn't change the truth. Facts are facts.

 

[Hiryuu]

In other words, do you start with preconceived desired outcomes and then create a rationale to support them, or do you look at facts and let them lead you to whatever outcomes they support? I think that ideologues on both ends of the political spectrum tend to follow the former approach in order to address some unresolved dissonance in their own feelings. On the other hand, many "moderates" seem to be more interested in avoiding conflict than in actual resolution of issues. That leave very few who are willing to let the facts take them to a logical conclusion, regardless of whether it "offends" anyone. Where do you fit in?

Feelings are relevant, but change with experience, facts are relevant but change with knowledge/analysis, principles guide our interpretations and resulting activities in regards to both. My political leanings are decided by principles.

 

[jwoodie]

In other words, do you start with preconceived desired outcomes and then create a rationale to support them, or do you look at facts and let them lead you to whatever outcomes they support? I think that ideologues on both ends of the political spectrum tend to follow the former approach in order to address some unresolved dissonance in their own feelings. On the other hand, many "moderates" seem to be more interested in avoiding conflict than in actual resolution of issues. That leave very few who are willing to let the facts take them to a logical conclusion, regardless of whether it "offends" anyone. Where do you fit in?

Feelings are relevant, but change with experience, facts are relevant but change with knowledge/analysis, principles guide our interpretations and resulting activities in regards to both. My political leanings are decided by principles.

Principles often elevate ideology over facts, thereby stifling rational discussion and preventing solutions. Facts are the foundation of logical reasoning. Those who are intellectually honest are willing to change their conclusions when presented with new facts. Principles, on the other hand, are often praised for the opposite reasons.

 

[Hiryuu]

Principles often elevate ideology over facts, thereby stifling rational discussion and preventing solutions. Facts are the foundation of logical reasoning. Those who are intellectually honest are willing to change their conclusions when presented with new facts. Principles, on the other hand, are often praised for the opposite reasons.

Perhaps you skipped the fact I mentioned principles were a guide for properly interpreting either. They do not determine the outcome, they lead you to the most appropriate tools to determine the proper outcome. Sloppy observations can often lead to incorrect assumptions presented as facts.

 

[jwoodie]

Perhaps you skipped the fact I mentioned principles were a guide for properly interpreting either. They do not determine the outcome, they lead you to the most appropriate tools to determine the proper outcome

What "tools" do you use to determine "proper" outcome, other than logical reasoning?

 

[GaryDog]

In other words, do you start with preconceived desired outcomes and then create a rationale to support them, or do you look at facts and let them lead you to whatever outcomes they support? I think that ideologues on both ends of the political spectrum tend to follow the former approach in order to address some unresolved dissonance in their own feelings. On the other hand, many "moderates" seem to be more interested in avoiding conflict than in actual resolution of issues. That leave very few who are willing to let the facts take them to a logical conclusion, regardless of whether it "offends" anyone. Where do you fit in?

Facts, always facts. Sometimes those facts even show that what I "feel" is wrong.

This is proven by the fact that I have been called both a left wing nut job and a right wing nut job by various posters on this thread simply for posting facts that disprove their opinions.

Uh, no. And I can prove this based on a post from minutes ago. Matter of fact, I'm hard pressed to find a single fact-based post of yours.