CDZ Why is so much political discourse filled with unsupported claims?

[oldsoul]

When we ask for facts? Reasoned discussion? Rationality? Which of those are your triggers?

You recognize neither facts nor reason nor rationality. You live within a fantastical world of your own devise. That is a fact.

It's an intriguing hypothesis, but essentially baseless. However, I wonder if you realize it's eminently illustrative of the OP?

Oh, it's no hypothesis. Consider the history of the planet, and of especially the United States these last fifteen years, and the veracity of my statement shines through.

Red:
There you go right there...that is a perfectly good example of one class of empty claims people make.

What about the "history of the planet, and...the United States [over the past] fifteen years" is going to show that Arianrhod "recognizes neither facts nor reason nor rationality" and that he "live within a fantastical world of [his] own [devising]?"

You can make claims like that about people if you want, but if you're going to do so, please show us how it is so by giving us an inductive argument that includes quotes they've made, or something, that illustrate your claim's veracity and that show the person is imbued with the qualities you assert.

Anyone who wishes to remain ignorant of their own accord may exercise that prerogative. In terms of producing an inductive argument for that which is clearly in the mainstream domain and whose conclusions are long and clearly established, would it do any good to repeat them?

This board is basically a venue for koffee-klatch musings. Study the history and developments within the two primary political parties here, beginning with the 2000 election, and the subsequent national cultural slide. If you wish to delve into those details which, as I said, are already available in the public domain for those who wish to read them, I will be happy to provide support at my current fee schedule.

I think you are missing the point here. What 320 is getting at, I think, is that if you state something as fact, you should be able, and willing, to substantiate that claim, in the same discussion. If, however you do not wish to, or cannot, substatiate your statement, it would be more appropriate to state it as an opinion, that way anyone who claims you are wrong would have the burden of proof.

 

[320 Years of History]

When we ask for facts? Reasoned discussion? Rationality? Which of those are your triggers?

You recognize neither facts nor reason nor rationality. You live within a fantastical world of your own devise. That is a fact.

It's an intriguing hypothesis, but essentially baseless. However, I wonder if you realize it's eminently illustrative of the OP?

Oh, it's no hypothesis. Consider the history of the planet, and of especially the United States these last fifteen years, and the veracity of my statement shines through.

Red:
There you go right there...that is a perfectly good example of one class of empty claims people make.

What about the "history of the planet, and...the United States [over the past] fifteen years" is going to show that Arianrhod "recognizes neither facts nor reason nor rationality" and that he "live within a fantastical world of [his] own [devising]?"

You can make claims like that about people if you want, but if you're going to do so, please show us how it is so by giving us an inductive argument that includes quotes they've made, or something, that illustrate your claim's veracity and that show the person is imbued with the qualities you assert.

Anyone who wishes to remain ignorant of their own accord may exercise that prerogative. In terms of producing an inductive argument for that which is clearly in the mainstream domain and whose conclusions are long and clearly established, would it do any good to repeat them?

This board is basically a venue for koffee-klatch musings. Study the history and developments within the two primary political parties here, beginning with the 2000 election, and the subsequent national cultural slide. If you wish to delve into those details which, as I said, are already available in the public domain for those who wish to read them, I will be happy to provide support at my current fee schedule.

I think you are missing the point here. What 320 is getting at, I think, is that if you state something as fact, you should be able, and willing, to substantiate that claim, in the same discussion. If, however you do not wish to, or cannot, substantiate your statement, it would be more appropriate to state it as an opinion, that way anyone who claims you are wrong would have the burden of proof.

Spot on!!!! You have correctly interpreted the meaning of my post referenced in your reply.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yeah, it WOULD be nice if people would present their opinions as such, rather than trying to pass them off as "facts".

It really is too easy these days to look up the truth if you have internet access. Trouble is, most people appear to want to let others do their thinking for them.

As far as the narcissistic tendencies of people? All true. Ever been in a room full of people with smart phones? Instead of talking to each other, they are all staring at their screens.

I think the "smart phones" are making people dumber.

 

[Arianrhod]

Yeah, it WOULD be nice if people would present their opinions as such, rather than trying to pass them off as "facts".

It really is too easy these days to look up the truth if you have internet access. Trouble is, most people appear to want to let others do their thinking for them.

As far as the narcissistic tendencies of people? All true. Ever been in a room full of people with smart phones? Instead of talking to each other, they are all staring at their screens.

I think the "smart phones" are making people dumber.

I wonder if some on this board even know the difference between opinion and fact. Many post as if they're identical. Are they either very, very young and inexperienced, or are they accustomed to surrounding themselves with people who agree with them? They get so OFFENDED when you ask them to support their opinion...as if no one's ever questioned them before.

 

[320 Years of History]

Yeah, it WOULD be nice if people would present their opinions as such, rather than trying to pass them off as "facts".

It really is too easy these days to look up the truth if you have internet access. Trouble is, most people appear to want to let others do their thinking for them.

As far as the narcissistic tendencies of people? All true. Ever been in a room full of people with smart phones? Instead of talking to each other, they are all staring at their screens.

I think the "smart phones" are making people dumber.

I wonder if some on this board [don't] know the difference between opinion and fact. Many post as if they're identical. Are they either very, very young and inexperienced, or are they accustomed to surrounding themselves with people who agree with them? They get so OFFENDED when you ask them to support their opinion...as if no one's ever questioned them before.

I have wondered the same thing, and not just of the folks who participate here. Sadly, I haven't any way to determine what might be the reason; moreover, alone, reaching the age of majority doesn't guarantee one can make such distinctions.

 

[D Truth]

The right thing in speaking really is that we should be satisfied not to annoy our hearers, without trying to delight them: we ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts. Still, as has been already said, other things affect the result considerably, owing to the defects of our hearers.
-- Aristotle, Rhetoric, Book III, Chapter I


Time and again, I read posts on this forum wherein members make a claim of some sort and that they in turn offer not one well developed argument to support it. The frequency with which I see a dialectically structured argument is, in contrast, close to zero. It's as though people have this idea that if they say "such and such" is, it is. How much arrogance does it take for one to make utterances as though they be the Pope speaking on a matter about which he is deemed (by Catholicism) infallible? I don't know, but clearly more than I have.

I might be inclined to believe a claim is true if it's universally accepted, such as "the sky is blue," or "the Sun rises in the East." When a physicist attest to something having to do with how the natural work works, or when an economist speaks about economics, I'm again inclined to believe them, but I also expect them to produce some sort of scholarly evidence that what they have attested to is so. Too, I will believe that when a person says they've seen "this or that," I am willing to believe they did observe "whatever it is;" however, if I'm to concur that what they observed is evidence of something more than just their having seen it, again, I expect to see the correlation made and demonstrated.

Here's just one example of a litany of claims for which not one source or argument supporting them is provided: CDZ - Barrack, it was you.... | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum . Every one of them is presented as though they fairly present the truth in all material respects and we readers should accept them merely because the author presented them. I don't even care if one is a fan of Mr. Obama's or not; one need not be to see how empty those claims are as they are presented.

This is a forum where writing is the mode of communication. There is no time constraint on reading or writing a post. Is it asking too much for us to compose solid arguments -- seeing as this place exists to debate points not just utter catch phrases -- instead of making empty claims? Perhaps if more the posts offered presented cogent and well formed arguments, readers might actually be convinced of the claims made.

The phenomenon of making unsubstantiated claims -- be they true ones that cannot be supported, claims that are only somewhat true, or false ones -- is not limited to the people here. It seems our public figures and political candidates do it as well.

• Carly Fiorina
• Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina, and Jeb Bush
• California Governor Jerry Brown
• Dr. Ben Carson
• Arizona State Senator Nancy Barto
• Bill Clinton

Note:
The Google search I did returned one result on the first page that pertains to Hillary Clinton, and I was inclined to include it in the list above until it became apparent that AP goofed in checking the facts.
​

Now I'm not so naive that I don't understand what spin/marketing is about. I get it. I realize too that a fair quantity of the sample statements I provided from public figures and candidates were made during oral presentations where the speakers may not have had time to present a fully developed argument. By the same token, however, it's not as though the second it'd take to state the claim and the source supporting it would cut greatly into their time: it doesn't take long to say "according to 'so and so' " or "the XYZ calculated...."

Moreover, those public figures have staff who are more than capable of, and who probably did, researching a topic and presenting the full picture to the candidate/official. Assuming I'm correct, and assuming one or more staffers did present an accurate picture to them (or they knew "the whole story" independently of what their staffers conveyed to them), what that means is that the speakers have deliberately elected to utter assorted half truths and lies, along with an occasional bit of the truth.

When did politicians decide that we voters do not deserve the modicum of respect that accompanies merely telling the truth, simply and fairly presenting the facts and telling us how they interpret them, and leaving it to us to decide for ourselves if we concur with and will adopt their interpretation? When did politicos decide that presenting "spun" details is what we want? But most importantly, why have so many voters acquiesced allowing elected officials and candidates get away with treating us as though we cannot analyze the facts for ourselves?

Note:
The comments above are not offered with a view toward or against any political party or position. People, so-called leaders, from all parties do it. Frankly, I don't care for it no matter who does it or what position they aim to portray or bolster.

Sorry to say...
Blah blah blah.

All those "political" people you mention... they are nothing more than celebrity gossip. They are spending millions for propaganda. Nothing more, nothing less. They are all just a smokescreen of burning money.

Your gripe is that there simply is no reliable source of information. And many, too many, are simply too lazy to use their own ability to reason to sort information, and make decisions. EVERY SANE INDIVIDUAL HAS THE ABILITY TO MAKE DECISIONS!
Fact is that it is entirely possible to judge information as an individual. If you are not capable of doing so, well the problem is YOU.

Be not afraid, you are capable of making logical statements without any "source".

Or?
Is your gripe more to do with that people are and always willl make their own decision?
Ya know, they aren't following what the chosen almighty media is telling them to do?
Bummer for you if that is the case.

The "gripe," if you reread the OP, is that there are individuals on message boards who make statements that they expect to be taken as truth but, when asked to provide supporting data, they can't or won't.

That's distilled down to its essence. It's right there in the thread title, actually.

"Re-Read" the reply. Again, if you are too stupid to formulate your own opinion without a "source", then construct your own logical argument... well then ARE YOU NOT THE PROBLEM?!?!

The so called sources are always just a waste of time, blah blah blah as it were. State your opinion man! damned be your sources!

My opinion is that you've completely misconstrued the issue. The ad hominem, and the repetition of "blah-blah-blah" are confirmatory.

Very good then, it is decided.
Your opinion is that if someone does not toe the party line, then they are "wrong". My, how astute are you then!

The so called "elections" we banter over with are merely an entertainment, a distraction. One is certainly a fool to pay more attention to them than that.

 

[320 Years of History]

"Re-Read" the reply. Again, if you are too stupid to formulate your own opinion without a "source", then construct your own logical argument... well then ARE YOU NOT THE PROBLEM?!?!

The so called sources are always just a waste of time, blah blah blah as it were. State your opinion man! damned be your sources!

There is nothing at all wrong with forming an opinion without having a source; however, on the rare occasions one does so, it become incumbent on one to examine the facts and determine whether they support the opinion. Unless one is going to design and execute one's own valid experiments, one must use facts -- complete facts or sets thereof, not just some part of them -- gathered by others. When doing so, one will necessarily have sources and the legitimacy, and objectivity of those sources becomes relevant. One must, if one is to be credible, if one is to have confidence in one's opinion, confirm it, no matter what gave rise to one's having it.

It may or may not be one's fault for not knowing what constitutes an intellectually rigorous approach to confirming one's opinions. Whether one is to blame depends on whether anyone ever attempted to show one what constitutes such an approach. One is, however, fully at fault for understanding how to confirm one's opinion and not doing so, regardless of why. Failing to do so is a display of willful ignorance, or worse willful manipulation in service of one's own selfish and/or self-aggrandizing aims. It shows a lack of integrity, and that, quite frankly, is what I have a problem with, not whether one invents opinions on one's own, absent input from others.

As for being stupid, well, I doubt anyone wants to be or appear stupid; however, when they put forth unsupported ideas and poorly developed arguments, that is precisely the trait they manifest. Why folks don't feel stupid when uttering opinions for which they cannot and do not also offer credible support is beyond me.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
-- Abraham Lincoln

 

[oldsoul]

Love the quote, Tony. Hope you don't mind, I added it to my signature. We could all use a reminder of that from time to time.

 

[320 Years of History]

Love the quote, Tony. Hope you don't mind, I added it to my signature. We could all use a reminder of that from time to time.

Of course I don't mind. They are Mr. Lincoln's words, not mine. I think he'd be thrilled that folks share them.

 

[Fueri]

It's a public discussion board. We are going to get all types and levels of responses. I've only been here a short time and I've seen plenty of both, although admittedly I'd agree that most of it is shite (my words of course).

I look at it like a bell curve, we're going to get a lot of average stuff bunched in the middle and then there will be some outliers on either end, yes? I don't, therefore, see this general rubbish deluge as good or bad or even lazy necessarily but rather a function of probability.

I can also see how the outliers (if we can call them that) will eventually get discouraged as they are drowned out relentlessly over time and simply say 'screw it' and go elsewhere. I can't blame anyone for thinking that maybe posting here is simply a time hole and going to do something else.

It's also primarily a political discussion board. Politics is a hot button topic in general. IMO, politics (and religion) are held to be so personal in nature that anything that questions or conflicts with an individual's opinion is not an attack on the logic, but an attack on the person. This is not to say this is right, but quite often it seems to be the case. People often, IMO, are not looking to learn anything and most times won't even bother to consider an opposing argument much less incorporate it into their thinking, regardless of whether or not the facts would tell them otherwise, as doing so would force them to question themselves, which they are simply unwilling to do. The same is to be said with formulating an argument in that they grab what they generally agree with in the first place and toss it out there. Some will verify, some will not, some are doing it for simple entertainment or to troll and some are actually looking for a real discussion. All of the above are just opinions, of course.

Why do politicians get away with it? Because they know it's a bell curve too, whether consciously or not. they're firing those BS cannons for the masses, not the outliers, and, of course, because they get away with it AND it gets people's attention which, to some extent, is the point in the first place of barking out all of that malarkey.

I get your frustration Tony. I think we need better and should demand better from our politicians especially. I do not, however, hold out much hope for that happening any time in the near future.

 

[Arianrhod]

Your opinion is that if someone does not toe the party line, then they are "wrong".

No. My opinion is that if you express an opinion, admit that it's an opinion. Don't insist that it's "A FACT!!!!!" (almost always in upper case) unless you can prove it's a fact.

 

[320 Years of History]

Yet they always seem to find time for name-calling.

That's the entertainment angle. You can live with it, or not.

??? Are you really suggesting that publicly insulting other people during public discourse is a form of entertainment. I get it, just as most folks do when comedians do it, but the context of those situations makes it acceptable, funny even? Here, it's just rude and does nothing to further one's case/cause. If you are so suggesting, do you honestly find it acceptable?

 

[ABikerSailor]

The reason so many nowadays don't provide proof to substantiate their claims is because they don't hear their politicians do it, so they think that rhetoric and vitriol is all that is required.

 

[320 Years of History]

The reason so many nowadays don't provide proof to substantiate their claims is because they don't hear their politicians do it, so they think that rhetoric and vitriol is all that is required.

I don't have evidence supporting your hypothesis as it specifically applies to political comments and campaigns, but I do know that "tone at the top" is phrase we consultants use to describe the phenomenon whereby leaders, by their acts, encourage or dissuade similar behavior among their immediate staff and larger community of employees. The same thing happens in the home with parents and children. I have no reason to think the principle would not apply to politicians and voters.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The reason so many nowadays don't provide proof to substantiate their claims is because they don't hear their politicians do it, so they think that rhetoric and vitriol is all that is required.

I don't have evidence supporting your hypothesis as it specifically applies to political comments and campaigns, but I do know that "tone at the top" is phrase we consultants use to describe the phenomenon whereby leaders, by their acts, encourage or dissuade similar behavior among their immediate staff and larger community of employees. The same thing happens in the home with parents and children. I have no reason to think the principle would not apply to politicians and voters.

Remember Bachmann and her claim that vaccines cause autism? She said it without any thing to back it up with, just referring to "some woman I met on the campaign trail"?

How about the fact that Donald the Chump hasn't really provided any information on how he would take out Daesh, he just said he would be great at it. How about his claim that he saw Muslims celebrating when the WTC came down? He just said he saw it somewhere on television, and it's true because he's got "the greatest memory in the world"?

No, the politicians aren't providing any facts. When they say Obama is bad, they don't really specify why, just general terms that will scare their constituents into voting for them again.

If we want to know why there are low information voters, look no farther than the politicians because very few of them provide details about what they are talking about.

Bernie Sanders is an exception, because he explains exactly what he sees as the problem, and how to arrive at some kind of solution.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Yet they always seem to find time for name-calling.

That's the entertainment angle. You can live with it, or not.

??? Are you really suggesting that publicly insulting other people during public discourse is a form of entertainment. I get it, just as most folks do when comedians do it, but the context of those situations makes it acceptable, funny even? Here, it's just rude and does nothing to further one's case/cause. If you are so suggesting, do you honestly find it acceptable?

Get bent, rube.

 

[Arianrhod]

Get bent, rube.

Congratulations. You've once again managed to illustrate the original premise (and the one about which group is more prone to anger), in addition to violating the rules of the CDZ without being reprimanded, all in three simple words.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Get bent, rube.

Congratulations. You've once again managed to illustrate the original premise (and the one about which group is more prone to anger), in addition to violating the rules of the CDZ without being reprimanded, all in three simple words.

Merely providing an example of an alternative viewpoint. Note the laughing jester. I believe that is quite permissible under CDZ rules.