CDZ Are Your Political Leanings Ruled by Feelings or Facts?

[GaryDog]

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.

How about global climate change, and man's effects on it? What's your "feeling" there? What are the facts?

 

[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.

How about global climate change, and man's effects on it? What's your "feeling" there? What are the facts?

I don't do feelings. I do facts

The fact is the global climate changes. The fact is it is pretty obvious that 8B human beings would have some affect on that change. The question is "how much?" The bullshit is "Climate change is a bigger danger than terrorism"

 

[GaryDog]

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.

How about global climate change, and man's effects on it? What's your "feeling" there? What are the facts?

I don't do feelings. I do facts

The fact is the global climate changes. The fact is it is pretty obvious that 8B human beings would have some affect on that change. The question is "how much?" The bullshit is "Climate change is a bigger danger than terrorism"

LMAO, thanks for confirming what I already knew. The death/displacement/injury count that can be attributed to global climate change (including spread of disease, displacement due to rising seas, heat, flooding, greater intensity of storms, etc.) positively DWARFS deaths by terrorist attacks.

Because this is fun, let's try this again. What are your thoughts on Trump's claim that violent crime is overtaking the country right now?

 

[Wyatt earp]

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 wallet, democrats tend to take to much.

 

[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?

My wallet, democrats tend to take to much.

lol, sure

 

[Wyatt earp]

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 wallet, democrats tend to take to much.

lol, sure

Prove me wrong... A pack of smokes in my home town of Chicago $10 bucks a pack, in south Carolina I am pay $1.29

I might not be a great speller or use correct grammar but I do know how to use math.

 

[jwoodie]

LMAO, thanks for confirming what I already knew. The death/displacement/injury count that can be attributed to global climate change (including spread of disease, displacement due to rising seas, heat, flooding, greater intensity of storms, etc.) positively DWARFS deaths by terrorist attacks.

Because this is fun, let's try this again. What are your thoughts on Trump's claim that violent crime is overtaking the country right now?

Try to stay on topic, Schizo. Just how many people have died from man-made "climate change" (not disease and earthquakes)? How does this compare with the effects of non-man-made climate changes throughout history?

 

[LABlk]

Wine. However, when I drink too much I lean too much.

 

[Hiryuu]

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

Everything can be a tool, but as an example critical analysis and thinking. Those are important tools because they require a substantial investment in making sure your desires or intent don't cloud the data. I believe it is a lot easier for people to accept what they want to be true, and finding something to support that is not as hard as finding the core of all issues. That is why I think principles are important where ideologies and facts are relevant but can be manipulated. Principles are often broader and deal with an approach taken towards the information available.

Just an example, If you had a principle of "doing no harm to living creatures", that doesn't require a fact nor a feeling, but can guide how you handle situations regarding both.

 

[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?

My wallet, democrats tend to take to much.

lol, sure

Prove me wrong... A pack of smokes in my home town of Chicago $10 bucks a pack, in south Carolina I am pay $1.29

I might not be a great speller or use correct grammar but I do know how to use math.

What's your income?

 

[GaryDog]

LMAO, thanks for confirming what I already knew. The death/displacement/injury count that can be attributed to global climate change (including spread of disease, displacement due to rising seas, heat, flooding, greater intensity of storms, etc.) positively DWARFS deaths by terrorist attacks.

Because this is fun, let's try this again. What are your thoughts on Trump's claim that violent crime is overtaking the country right now?

Try to stay on topic, Schizo. Just how many people have died from man-made "climate change" (not disease and earthquakes)? How does this compare with the effects of non-man-made climate changes throughout history?

Millions in Bangladesh and South Asia alone.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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 wallet, democrats tend to take to much.

lol, sure

Prove me wrong... A pack of smokes in my home town of Chicago $10 bucks a pack, in south Carolina I am pay $1.29

I might not be a great speller or use correct grammar but I do know how to use math.

What's your income?

$28 an hour

$60,000 ~$80,000 a year..depending on OT

If I was in still Illinois the take home adjusted for taxes and cost of living would be

$20,000 ~$30,000 a year...

 

[jwoodie]

If you had a principle of "doing no harm to living creatures", that doesn't require a fact nor a feeling, but can guide how you handle situations regarding both.

Rigid adherence to this principle would lead one to commit suicide.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

What exactly is the assumption or definition of fact here?

We are in the age of information.

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.

How about global climate change, and man's effects on it? What's your "feeling" there? What are the facts?

I don't do feelings. I do facts

The fact is the global climate changes. The fact is it is pretty obvious that 8B human beings would have some affect on that change. The question is "how much?" The bullshit is "Climate change is a bigger danger than terrorism"

LMAO, thanks for confirming what I already knew. The death/displacement/injury count that can be attributed to global climate change (including spread of disease, displacement due to rising seas, heat, flooding, greater intensity of storms, etc.) positively DWARFS deaths by terrorist attacks.

Because this is fun, let's try this again. What are your thoughts on Trump's claim that violent crime is overtaking the country right now?

See, your conclusions all come from feelings, not facts. You feel like what something we are doing is causing the spread of disease , etc , etc via climate change. But there are no facts to support this. None.

And you FEEL like we could do something to prevent same, but again there are no facts that suggest we can.. NONE

Liberals are silly, you believe in evolution, but don't believe the Earth itself can evolve to deal with what humans may or may not add to climate change.

 

[Hiryuu]

Rigid adherence to this principle would lead one to commit suicide.

That was an example of a principles, and I have no delusions that some people are far more comfortable remaining unprincipled in their approach to life's challenges.

 

[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?

My wallet, democrats tend to take to much.

lol, sure

Prove me wrong... A pack of smokes in my home town of Chicago $10 bucks a pack, in south Carolina I am pay $1.29

I might not be a great speller or use correct grammar but I do know how to use math.

What's your income?

$28 an hour

$60,000 ~$80,000 a year..depending on OT

If I was in still Illinois the take home adjusted for taxes and cost of living would be

$20,000 ~$30,000 a year...

If that's the case, get a new accountant. You're being screwed. And quit voting Republican. They have not done one thing to the tax code to benefit you.

 

[GaryDog]

What exactly is the assumption or definition of fact here?

We are in the age of information.

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.

How about global climate change, and man's effects on it? What's your "feeling" there? What are the facts?

I don't do feelings. I do facts

The fact is the global climate changes. The fact is it is pretty obvious that 8B human beings would have some affect on that change. The question is "how much?" The bullshit is "Climate change is a bigger danger than terrorism"

LMAO, thanks for confirming what I already knew. The death/displacement/injury count that can be attributed to global climate change (including spread of disease, displacement due to rising seas, heat, flooding, greater intensity of storms, etc.) positively DWARFS deaths by terrorist attacks.

Because this is fun, let's try this again. What are your thoughts on Trump's claim that violent crime is overtaking the country right now?

See, your conclusions all come from feelings, not facts. You feel like what something we are doing is causing the spread of disease , etc , etc via climate change. But there are no facts to support this. None.

And you FEEL like we could do something to prevent same, but again there are no facts that suggest we can.. NONE

Liberals are silly, you believe in evolution, but don't believe the Earth itself can evolve to deal with what humans may or may not add to climate change.

It's not me "feeling" this. It's 97% of the world's climate scientists. These are people who study the fax. Meanwhile you listen to Sean Hannity

 

[Wyatt earp]

My wallet, democrats tend to take to much.

lol, sure

Prove me wrong... A pack of smokes in my home town of Chicago $10 bucks a pack, in south Carolina I am pay $1.29

I might not be a great speller or use correct grammar but I do know how to use math.

What's your income?

$28 an hour

$60,000 ~$80,000 a year..depending on OT

If I was in still Illinois the take home adjusted for taxes and cost of living would be

$20,000 ~$30,000 a year...

If that's the case, get a new accountant. You're being screwed. And quit voting Republican. They have not done one thing to the tax code to benefit you.

Of course South Carolina has...

Does having one of the lowest gas taxes mean anything?

Hell obama socked me with like a 2% pay roll tax a few years ago, not to mention I have to pay obamacare tax

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

How about global climate change, and man's effects on it? What's your "feeling" there? What are the facts?

I don't do feelings. I do facts

The fact is the global climate changes. The fact is it is pretty obvious that 8B human beings would have some affect on that change. The question is "how much?" The bullshit is "Climate change is a bigger danger than terrorism"

LMAO, thanks for confirming what I already knew. The death/displacement/injury count that can be attributed to global climate change (including spread of disease, displacement due to rising seas, heat, flooding, greater intensity of storms, etc.) positively DWARFS deaths by terrorist attacks.

Because this is fun, let's try this again. What are your thoughts on Trump's claim that violent crime is overtaking the country right now?

See, your conclusions all come from feelings, not facts. You feel like what something we are doing is causing the spread of disease , etc , etc via climate change. But there are no facts to support this. None.

And you FEEL like we could do something to prevent same, but again there are no facts that suggest we can.. NONE

Liberals are silly, you believe in evolution, but don't believe the Earth itself can evolve to deal with what humans may or may not add to climate change.

It's not me "feeling" this. It's 97% of the world's climate scientists. These are people who study the fax. Meanwhile you listen to Sean Hannity

Seriously dude do you know how Cook came up with that 97% number?


Cooks study went like this:


..a paper is published on the three blind mice...


It has key words in the paper ..

A Man was walking down the street, theclimate was a fine day, three blind mice walked by and asked him for change..

And presto the author supports man made climate change..

Do you see now how The study was done?

Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.

 

[GaryDog]

How about global climate change, and man's effects on it? What's your "feeling" there? What are the facts?

I don't do feelings. I do facts

The fact is the global climate changes. The fact is it is pretty obvious that 8B human beings would have some affect on that change. The question is "how much?" The bullshit is "Climate change is a bigger danger than terrorism"

LMAO, thanks for confirming what I already knew. The death/displacement/injury count that can be attributed to global climate change (including spread of disease, displacement due to rising seas, heat, flooding, greater intensity of storms, etc.) positively DWARFS deaths by terrorist attacks.

Because this is fun, let's try this again. What are your thoughts on Trump's claim that violent crime is overtaking the country right now?

See, your conclusions all come from feelings, not facts. You feel like what something we are doing is causing the spread of disease , etc , etc via climate change. But there are no facts to support this. None.

And you FEEL like we could do something to prevent same, but again there are no facts that suggest we can.. NONE

Liberals are silly, you believe in evolution, but don't believe the Earth itself can evolve to deal with what humans may or may not add to climate change.

It's not me "feeling" this. It's 97% of the world's climate scientists. These are people who study the fax. Meanwhile you listen to Sean Hannity

Seriously dude do you know how Cook came up with that 97% number?


Cooks study went like this:


..a paper is published on the three blind mice...


It has key words in the paper ..

A Man was walking down the street, theclimate was a fine day, three blind mice walked by and asked him for change..

And presto the author supports man made climate change..

Do you see now how The study was done?

Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings.

Your ridiculous blind mice analogy doesn't jive with the facts of your own summary. Scientists operate in terms of precision, and they are not all setting out to endorse a direct relationship between CO2 emissions and global warming. Your summary above is typical of the types of smokescreens Republicans put out to try and confuse the issue and create "doubt" among the climate scientists where there is none.