This is us, and it's everybody else too...

[Midnight Marauder]

It is so sad that people consider being proven wrong to somehow lessen the person. I disagree I think if you are PROVEN wrong you become a BETTER person because you have learned something new and if you ever get into an argument about it you will KNOW you are in the right.

You're only "lessened" if you come to believe you are. If you give a red rat's ass what others think of you, you have already lost... yourself.

Useful quote though: (Paraphrased for brevity)

"When you want to win, you have to teach. When you lose, you have to learn." -- Tom Landry

And this is the lesson I am trying to teach Maggie here. She bought totally, hook line and sinker, the article she started this thread on. Because she is sloppy, careless and not a critical thinker. And that's not meant as a cut -- it actually describes most people.

But...

A critical thinker comes along, sees the "Lombardi" quote, and because he is educated and is a critical thinker, has a instinct that it's wrong. Sure enough, he looks it up and it sure as hell is.

The writer of the article was sloppy, careless and lazy. And that probably marks all of his work. He was probably spoonfed the quote he used and just took it on faith that Lombardi said it -- not bothering to take the two minutes max to look it up and verify it -- then regurgitated it that way. That is totally inexcusable laziness, carelessness and sloppiness, especially for any writer. Then Maggie here, comes along and regurgitates it back to us faithfully. Again, careless, sloppy and yes, lazy. Not really trying very hard at all to "keep it honest."

Again, Lombardi:

"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."

The writer of the article wasn't pursuing perfection, therefore didn't catch excellence. And never will. And this is the sloppiness, carelessness and laziness that we're seeing permeate all levels of society today. Seeing it becoming acceptable. Seeing it become okay.

It's not okay. Erosion of standards is like what is called "mission creep."

Folks these days try to poke fun at people who point out spelling and grammatical errors -- deriding what they call the "grammar police" or "spelling police" -- but the deal really is, no one really objects to the spelling, punctuation or grammatical errors -- they're really objecting to the laziness, carelessness, and sloppiness which produces them.

Pursue perfection to attain excellence. In everything you do, 24/7/365. Instead of just being a typical sloppy, lazy, careless regurgitator of pablum and a faithful one at that.

 

[xsited1]

Took a whole hour for someone to introduce partisanship - that's probably a record of some sort.

Did you somehow miss that the OP posted in the politics section? It started off partisan: "Us and everybody else, too."

By "us" I mean we who post on the USMB. By "everyone else" I meant just that--everyone everywhere who has strong and diverse opinions. Now if I had said "us and them," yes, that would have been partisan.

That doesn't really 'jive' with your post:

Why do people cling to an opinion even after they're presented with contradictory evidence? The easy answer, of course, is simply that people are irrational. But the way in which they're irrational is telling.

You think 'everybody else' clings to their opinion even when presented with contradictory evidence? Uh, no. Those are the partisans you are referring to. Fortunately, there are fewer now than ever before, although the Obamabots are currently the biggest cult in American politics.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Well there ARE a lot of people who, at least SEEM, to feel being PROVEN wrong makes them LESS of a person. Like I have said MANY times before, if I am PROVEN wrong I will admit it and be BETTER for it. Basically like our argumen for plug in cars. I still FAVOR those types of cars for energy independance but you showed me a VERY cool and VERY possible option that I not only admited sounded good but hoped you would be able to make work. I still don't think you really said much about the NEW diesels. They seem to get GREAT millage but have FEW of the probs that plagued older diesel cars.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Well there ARE a lot of people who, at least SEEM, to feel being PROVEN wrong makes them LESS of a person..

As I said, the only reason they might feel that way is because they have lost themselves.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I like you MM at least you back up your shit which, sadly, most don't.

 

[Oddball]

[
You think 'everybody else' clings to their opinion even when presented with contradictory evidence? Uh, no. Those are the partisans you are referring to. Fortunately, there are fewer now than ever before, although the Obamabots are currently the biggest cult in American politics.

They have a pretty good rivalry going with the gullible warming cargo cultists.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

I like you MM at least you back up your shit which, sadly, most don't.

In the pursuit of perfection, you catch excellence.

And that's the only way it's ever caught.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

It is difficult to argue with someone who says, after you point out that Obama has welched on about every campaign promise he made, "well Bush did the same thing!"
How do you argue with a non-sequitur like that? Yet we see it here all the time.

You don't argue with it.

You merely point out that it's actually an argument against Obama, and is the "Appeal to Mom" fallacy. Which is in the "bandwagon" category of logical fallacies, and is among the most infantile arguments of all time. And one that's never worked.

Did it work when we were kids, got in trouble and said "But MOM, the other kid did it too!"

Hell no. It managed only to earn us a rap in the mouth. And most of us realized this early on, and dropped this nonsensical infantile blame-shifting bullshit.

BUT...

The Obamaphiles continue with it, because not only do they not learn -- they ARE infantile idiots to boot!

There was supposed to be change, and they're evoking Booooosh as a defense?

That makes me LOL out loud and stuff!

 

[DiveCon]

[
You think 'everybody else' clings to their opinion even when presented with contradictory evidence? Uh, no. Those are the partisans you are referring to. Fortunately, there are fewer now than ever before, although the Obamabots are currently the biggest cult in American politics.

They have a pretty good rivalry going with the gullible warming cargo cultists.

but then a lot of them are BOTH

 

[nodoginnafight]

[
You think 'everybody else' clings to their opinion even when presented with contradictory evidence? Uh, no. Those are the partisans you are referring to. Fortunately, there are fewer now than ever before, although the Obamabots are currently the biggest cult in American politics.

They have a pretty good rivalry going with the gullible warming cargo cultists.

but then a lot of them are BOTH

How many are both Dive Con? Betcha you can gin up some statistics on that can't ya?

 

[MaggieMae]

It is so sad that people consider being proven wrong to somehow lessen the person. I disagree I think if you are PROVEN wrong you become a BETTER person because you have learned something new and if you ever get into an argument about it you will KNOW you are in the right.

You're only "lessened" if you come to believe you are. If you give a red rat's ass what others think of you, you have already lost... yourself.

Useful quote though: (Paraphrased for brevity)

"When you want to win, you have to teach. When you lose, you have to learn." -- Tom Landry

And this is the lesson I am trying to teach Maggie here. She bought totally, hook line and sinker, the article she started this thread on. Because she is sloppy, careless and not a critical thinker. And that's not meant as a cut -- it actually describes most people.

But...

A critical thinker comes along, sees the "Lombardi" quote, and because he is educated and is a critical thinker, has a instinct that it's wrong. Sure enough, he looks it up and it sure as hell is.

The writer of the article was sloppy, careless and lazy. And that probably marks all of his work. He was probably spoonfed the quote he used and just took it on faith that Lombardi said it -- not bothering to take the two minutes max to look it up and verify it -- then regurgitated it that way. That is totally inexcusable laziness, carelessness and sloppiness, especially for any writer. Then Maggie here, comes along and regurgitates it back to us faithfully. Again, careless, sloppy and yes, lazy. Not really trying very hard at all to "keep it honest."

Again, Lombardi:

"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."

The writer of the article wasn't pursuing perfection, therefore didn't catch excellence. And never will. And this is the sloppiness, carelessness and laziness that we're seeing permeate all levels of society today. Seeing it becoming acceptable. Seeing it become okay.

It's not okay. Erosion of standards is like what is called "mission creep."

Folks these days try to poke fun at people who point out spelling and grammatical errors -- deriding what they call the "grammar police" or "spelling police" -- but the deal really is, no one really objects to the spelling, punctuation or grammatical errors -- they're really objecting to the laziness, carelessness, and sloppiness which produces them.

Pursue perfection to attain excellence. In everything you do, 24/7/365. Instead of just being a typical sloppy, lazy, careless regurgitator of pablum and a faithful one at that.

Yowza. Now that's what I call a fascinating surgical parsing of the intent of the editorial. Other than taking another opportunity to take another swipe at me, I had to read it 3 times to understand how your own regurgitation applied to the substance. And it still doesn't.

I think it's rather telling that your contribution did not actually address the crux of the editorial by admitting one way or the other whether you ever cave during a debate, but instead you choose to attack my credentials--not in one reply but in three. And then of course you offer no examples of what the fuck drives your opinion of me. My guess is you don't like the challenges I present in general, so you escape to your narcissistic and inflated ego in order to impress your audience with your intelligence by articulating a bunch of stuff which has nothing to do with the subject here.

The topic isn't about football, genius, nor is it about the author's writing talent. It's about an inherent mental reaction to stick to one's guns until proven to be wrong. Which of course is precisely what you attempt to do here by your usual inconsequential ranting.

"I don't think there's a punchline scheduled, is there?"
Vince Lombardi

 

[MaggieMae]

Did you somehow miss that the OP posted in the politics section? It started off partisan: "Us and everybody else, too."

By "us" I mean we who post on the USMB. By "everyone else" I meant just that--everyone everywhere who has strong and diverse opinions. Now if I had said "us and them," yes, that would have been partisan.

That doesn't really 'jive' with your post:

Why do people cling to an opinion even after they're presented with contradictory evidence? The easy answer, of course, is simply that people are irrational. But the way in which they're irrational is telling.

You think 'everybody else' clings to their opinion even when presented with contradictory evidence? Uh, no. Those are the partisans you are referring to. Fortunately, there are fewer now than ever before, although the Obamabots are currently the biggest cult in American politics.

I didn't say that. It was contained in the editorial from The Philadelphia Inquirer. Better pay attention, or Maurader will be all over you like a new suit.

 

[xsited1]

By "us" I mean we who post on the USMB. By "everyone else" I meant just that--everyone everywhere who has strong and diverse opinions. Now if I had said "us and them," yes, that would have been partisan.

That doesn't really 'jive' with your post:

Why do people cling to an opinion even after they're presented with contradictory evidence? The easy answer, of course, is simply that people are irrational. But the way in which they're irrational is telling.

You think 'everybody else' clings to their opinion even when presented with contradictory evidence? Uh, no. Those are the partisans you are referring to. Fortunately, there are fewer now than ever before, although the Obamabots are currently the biggest cult in American politics.

I didn't say that. It was contained in the editorial from The Philadelphia Inquirer. Better pay attention, or Maurader will be all over you like a new suit.

What a great idea! Start a thread that contains a bunch of stuff you don't believe in and when somebody calls you on it just say, "I didn't say that!" If you want to troll, that's fine, but why waste everybody's time?

 

[MaggieMae]

It is difficult to argue with someone who says, after you point out that Obama has welched on about every campaign promise he made, "well Bush did the same thing!"
How do you argue with a non-sequitur like that? Yet we see it here all the time.

You don't argue with it.

You merely point out that it's actually an argument against Obama, and is the "Appeal to Mom" fallacy. Which is in the "bandwagon" category of logical fallacies, and is among the most infantile arguments of all time. And one that's never worked.

Did it work when we were kids, got in trouble and said "But MOM, the other kid did it too!"

Hell no. It managed only to earn us a rap in the mouth. And most of us realized this early on, and dropped this nonsensical infantile blame-shifting bullshit.

BUT...

The Obamaphiles continue with it, because not only do they not learn -- they ARE infantile idiots to boot!

There was supposed to be change, and they're evoking Booooosh as a defense?

That makes me LOL out loud and stuff!

The only time I use "Bush" as a "defense" is when someone posts something and acts like it's the first time in history it's ever happened. Just trying to keep it honest...

That said, why is it you folks can't take the criticism of Bush if, as most of you say, you didn't like his administration any more than Obama's? 'Tis a mystery to many (but not to me).

 

[nodoginnafight]

I have changed my mind on an issue while debating it on message boards before. I'll admit that it has only happened once or twice and that it only happens when the opposing view is presented respectfully and with documentation and sound logic. (So maybe THAT explains why it is so rare).

And I refuse to believe that I'm anything special in that regard. I think most people can admit a mistake or admit that their mind has been changed IF they can respect the person who is trying to change their mind or point out a mistake.

 

[MaggieMae]

[
You think 'everybody else' clings to their opinion even when presented with contradictory evidence? Uh, no. Those are the partisans you are referring to. Fortunately, there are fewer now than ever before, although the Obamabots are currently the biggest cult in American politics.

They have a pretty good rivalry going with the gullible warming cargo cultists.

but then a lot of them are BOTH

So who should I bow to? Glenn Beck? The right's very own Messiah?

 

[MaggieMae]

That doesn't really 'jive' with your post:



You think 'everybody else' clings to their opinion even when presented with contradictory evidence? Uh, no. Those are the partisans you are referring to. Fortunately, there are fewer now than ever before, although the Obamabots are currently the biggest cult in American politics.

I didn't say that. It was contained in the editorial from The Philadelphia Inquirer. Better pay attention, or Maurader will be all over you like a new suit.

What a great idea! Start a thread that contains a bunch of stuff you don't believe in and when somebody calls you on it just say, "I didn't say that!" If you want to troll, that's fine, but why waste everybody's time?

Don't quote me as saying something I didn't. I never suggested that "everybody else" clings to anything because I don't think they do. But IF they do, all the two excerpts are trying to say is that it's a normal reaction.

Jeezus, some people go over the edge at the slightest suspicion of criticism. (I'M NOT CRITICIZING YOU OR YOUR POLITICS!!!!) I also think I've been posting on this board long enough for YOU to know that I'm certainly not trolling. Where the fuck would you have me start this thread, smartass? And finally, all this bashing frankly gives credence to the concept of the OP, in case you can't get that.

 

[nodoginnafight]

That doesn't really 'jive' with your post:



You think 'everybody else' clings to their opinion even when presented with contradictory evidence? Uh, no. Those are the partisans you are referring to. Fortunately, there are fewer now than ever before, although the Obamabots are currently the biggest cult in American politics.

I didn't say that. It was contained in the editorial from The Philadelphia Inquirer. Better pay attention, or Maurader will be all over you like a new suit.

What a great idea! Start a thread that contains a bunch of stuff you don't believe in and when somebody calls you on it just say, "I didn't say that!" If you want to troll, that's fine, but why waste everybody's time?

I think if you don't enjoy the discussion, you probably should choose another to post on.

 

[MaggieMae]

I have changed my mind on an issue while debating it on message boards before. I'll admit that it has only happened once or twice and that it only happens when the opposing view is presented respectfully and with documentation and sound logic. (So maybe THAT explains why it is so rare).

And I refuse to believe that I'm anything special in that regard. I think most people can admit a mistake or admit that their mind has been changed IF they can respect the person who is trying to change their mind or point out a mistake.

The thing is, there are always two credible "sides" to most issues, and if they are presented intelligently, there's nothing wrong with admitting you might be wrong on a particular point but stick to your guns on another with respect to the same issue. That's what a DEBATE is all about. But when it becomes just a shouting match, it's downright stupid and NOBODY'S point is accepted as a possibility.

 

[MaggieMae]

I didn't say that. It was contained in the editorial from The Philadelphia Inquirer. Better pay attention, or Maurader will be all over you like a new suit.

What a great idea! Start a thread that contains a bunch of stuff you don't believe in and when somebody calls you on it just say, "I didn't say that!" If you want to troll, that's fine, but why waste everybody's time?

I think if you don't enjoy the discussion, you probably should choose another to post on.

I was actually trying to play referee for the whole board by posting that. You can see how far I got with it. Most people will remain stuck in their own personal beliefs no matter what. So....that's the final answer. Sad. I honestly wish I had another 20 years or so to see how this country slips into oblivion because we apparently now have two Americas and the word "United" no longer belongs in the official name of our country.