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

[Dr.House]

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

He mentiond Bushbots and 0bamabots, dipwad...

Sounds pretty bipartisan...

He has no brain in his head, he says so himself. Your expectations are too high.

Nah, I never had any expectaions for nobrainindahead...lol

Pure leftist hack bullshit is pretty much all you'll get... Someone for AutoZona to suck up to...

 

[Foxfyre]

"Why Fact Can't Compete With Belief"
(excerpt from The Atlantic, and appearing in THE WEEK, 10/09/09):

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.

In a new study, Social Science Researchers have found that people employ 'motivated reasoning' to fend off any evidence that their strongly held beliefs are wrong. Many people feel that they ARE their opinions, and hate to lose arguments. As Vince Lombardi once said "Every time you lose, you die a little."

__________________________________________________________________________________

First I disagree with Vince Lombardi. Maybe HE died a little, but for many of us, losing only increases our determination and resolve to get it right, do it better.

Still, there is that terrible, most awful experience--that precise moment in a heated argument that you realize that you are wrong. How we handle that says a lot about our character I think, and I don't claim any more virtue than most in willingly admitting that I am wrong. I have tried to work on that with varying degrees of success.

But I think it is much easier to adjust an opinion or concept when discussing it with somebody we like and respect. More than tenaciously hanging on to a belief, the problem is turning our focus and anger to the one expressing the opinion rather than focusing on the opinion itself. I think unwillingness to relinquish our prejudices is far more of a handicap in rationale debate than is unwillingness to change our opinion about a fact or fundamental. Probably there are many motivations for such resistance.

Accusing Obama of Marxist tendencies becomes a substitute for serious discussion of Obama's proposal. Accusing George W. Bush of illegal activities becomes a substitute for serious discussion of the pros and cons, necessities and shortcomings of those activities. Insulting another member replaces any effort to articulate a reasoned response.

Once we attack the messenger, the debate has ended and attempted character assassination commences. And once we become angry, there is little hope of a satisfactory conclusion to the discussion.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Still, there is that terrible, most awful experience--that precise moment in a heated argument that you realize that you are wrong. How we handle that says a lot about our character I think, ... the problem is turning our focus and anger to the one expressing the opinion rather than focusing on the opinion itself.... Insulting another member replaces any effort to articulate a reasoned response.

Once we attack the messenger, the debate has ended and attempted character assassination commences.

How very true

Thank goodness that NEVER happens on these boards.

 

[Foxfyre]

Still, there is that terrible, most awful experience--that precise moment in a heated argument that you realize that you are wrong. How we handle that says a lot about our character I think, ... the problem is turning our focus and anger to the one expressing the opinion rather than focusing on the opinion itself.... Insulting another member replaces any effort to articulate a reasoned response.

Once we attack the messenger, the debate has ended and attempted character assassination commences.

How very true

Thank goodness that NEVER happens on these boards.

 

[Diuretic]

I read somewhere that we learn beliefs and facts in different ways and that if we want to change someone's beliefs we don't use the same "channel" that they used to form those beliefs.

Also this ability to ignore the facts seems to have more than a little cognitive dissonance in it.

This is a non-partisan comment

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm not sure the "birthers" numbers are small and insignificant. I think the numbers of those who think that constantly carping on it will have any influence at all at this point are small and insignificant.

Personally, I think it's entirely possible Obama was born in Kenya or wherever they're saying he was born now.

But every aspect of that man is a lie, that's just one more, and the effect it's likely to have on the US is miniscule compared to the bigger issues he lies about.

You skirted the entire premise of this thread. THAT ^ could have been said anywhere, and of course you've said it every chance you get. You hate Obama--everyone gets that.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

The birthers? Their numbers are so small and insignificant, they aren't even on the radar. The Obamabots are the problem now. Two words: Liberal Fascism.

Two more words: Fear mongering.

I actually disagree with you, but agree with Dr. Traveler. When a single major issue begins to have a domino effect on all the other major issues, people WILL change their ideological stance and often by degrees based on forthcoming information. For example:

I once was convinced that global warming was entirely the fault of too much manmade interference with the delicate balance of nature. I now believe that it is a combination of a lot of things, many of which are not within man's control. BUT, I continue to believe that man CAN and SHOULD do what is necessary to not make it any worse.

I also initially believed that health care reform could be accomplished in a less costly manner and should be pushed hard for, now, since it failed at every other attempt during previous administrations, and since private health care has finally become out of reach for millions of middle-class Americans. BUT that was before the economy continued to slide, and at that point, I decided the entire process needed to be pared down until it was fiscally more feasible. My opinion, however, has not changed that health care reform is necessary in some form and that the industry (as well as the existing government programs) need to be studied and overseen better to eliminate the unnecessary costs. And THEN attempt to do something more dramatic.

I am beginning to think that Barack Obama relies too heavily on his advisers (just as Bush did), and that they are directing his every move. I'd like to see him show more of a backbone when he receives bad advice; reach out to some of the non-elitists in the financial realm who really do have some good ideas. Obama does that only where Joe Biden is concerned, and thank God for that. Biden isn't afraid to call a spade a spade (no pun intended) and doesn't hesitate to call out Obama on issues of foreign policy where he (Obama) waivers. Biden is the one with 30 years of experience in that area, and Obama needs to listen to others with that kind of experience (regardless of party) in other areas as well.

Is that enough to prove that I'm not a "liberal Obamabot"??

What if YOU cross a Black Cat's path?

 

[MaggieMae]

That explains the Obamabots and Bushbots. Thankfully, the Bushbots are no longer a concern. Unfortunately, the Obamabots are a HUGE problem and they have the power to do whatever they want.

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.

 

[MaggieMae]

He mentiond Bushbots and 0bamabots, dipwad...

Sounds pretty bipartisan...

He has no brain in his head, he says so himself. Your expectations are too high.

Nah, I never had any expectaions for nobrainindahead...lol

Pure leftist hack bullshit is pretty much all you'll get... Someone for AutoZona to suck up to...

So, I'm curious. How would you define the stuff you spew?

 

[MaggieMae]

Still, there is that terrible, most awful experience--that precise moment in a heated argument that you realize that you are wrong. How we handle that says a lot about our character I think, ... the problem is turning our focus and anger to the one expressing the opinion rather than focusing on the opinion itself.... Insulting another member replaces any effort to articulate a reasoned response.

Once we attack the messenger, the debate has ended and attempted character assassination commences.

How very true

Thank goodness that NEVER happens on these boards.

I find there are quite often serious discussions that get heated but not to the boiling point. There will always be those that jump in with inane comments and try to destroy the motivation of those having a decent debate, but they only look silly (I wonder if they know that) and generally get ignored.

 

[MaggieMae]

Here's more on the subject. Excerpts from an editorial at the link.

In political argument this means acknowledging up front whatever truth or strength there is in an opposing point of view. It's there. Smart people disagree with you for a host of reasons, some of them good.

The worst thing you can do is begin with an insult, as do so many of the e-mails I receive after stating an unpopular opinion, those that begin with, to use printable terms, "You are a blithering idiot." You might as well stop writing at that point, because no one is going to bother sticking around for the rest of your pitch. It means the door has just slammed in your face.

To persuade, you must anticipate and refute objections. It means exposing your convictions in advance to thorough, skeptical scrutiny. This is a lot harder than making emphatic statements of belief designed, consciously or not, to draw cheers from those already in your camp, which is what passes for political argument for the loudest voices in public debate.

Being persuasive is hard, because it demands that you consider, even if only momentarily, for purposes of argument, that you might be wrong. For anything beyond closing the sale of a vacuum cleaner, it requires broadening your mind. To refute opposing points of view capably (and winningly) means you must first be willing to listen to them. To really hear opposing points of view, you must make yourself open to them.

There's a catch here. Sometimes you might find that after really hearing an opposing viewpoint, you can't refute it. Then you must do the unthinkable: Change our own mind. Grow.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20091018

 

[Foxfyre]

I read somewhere that we learn beliefs and facts in different ways and that if we want to change someone's beliefs we don't use the same "channel" that they used to form those beliefs.

Also this ability to ignore the facts seems to have more than a little cognitive dissonance in it.

This is a non-partisan comment

Interesting observation. Can you give us an illustration or example of the sort of 'channel' you mean?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

As Vince Lombardi once said "Every time you lose, you die a little."

Vince Lombardi never said that. George Allen did. And it goes:

“Every time you lose you die a little bit. You die inside...a portion of you. Not all of your organs. Maybe just your liver.” -- George Allen.

So much for the credibility and veracity of your article there, "Keeping it Honest" and all Maggie!

 

[Midnight Marauder]

HERE's a worthy and topical Lombardi Quote:

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.

 

[MaggieMae]

As Vince Lombardi once said "Every time you lose, you die a little."

Vince Lombardi never said that. George Allen did. And it goes:

“Every time you lose you die a little bit. You die inside...a portion of you. Not all of your organs. Maybe just your liver.” -- George Allen.

So much for the credibility and veracity of your article there, "Keeping it Honest" and all Maggie!

Don't shoot the messenger. I just copied the thing. I forgot to check my football encyclopedia. My bad.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

And more than two hours before name-calling and personal insults - for sure that's a record

oh quit yer whining....

some advice for our board members.....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izTIqUSDcR8]YouTube - Whiny Little Brat[/ame]

 

[Dr.House]

He has no brain in his head, he says so himself. Your expectations are too high.

Nah, I never had any expectaions for nobrainindahead...lol

Pure leftist hack bullshit is pretty much all you'll get... Someone for AutoZona to suck up to...

So, I'm curious. How would you define the stuff you spew?

You're really not curious are you?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

As Vince Lombardi once said "Every time you lose, you die a little."

Vince Lombardi never said that. George Allen did. And it goes:

“Every time you lose you die a little bit. You die inside...a portion of you. Not all of your organs. Maybe just your liver.” -- George Allen.

So much for the credibility and veracity of your article there, "Keeping it Honest" and all Maggie!

Don't shoot the messenger. I just copied the thing. I forgot to check my football encyclopedia. My bad.

I did not "shoot the messenger" I merely commented on your article you presented here.

However...

These sloppy habits of regurgitation without cogitation are the reason many people are and stay uninformed. It's not all YOUR "bad" in this case, it's the writer of the article you regurgitated. The writer should have not been so sloppy, it calls into question the rest of his work. Probably sloppy too.

I do agree with one point the writer makes. People who refuse to abandon their strongly held beliefs even after they are proven wrong ARE irrational. But the writer tries to sell us the hokum that we ALL are irrational. That's simply pablum.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

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.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

I had a discussion with one of the more reasoned members about health care. I pointed out that every place that a health care reform involving universal coverage was tried, the results were the same: spiraling costs and worse quality of health care.
The answer was, "well none of these involved a "public option" so they aren't applicable." As though a public option somehow was going to change the dynamic in the equation.

Others cannot understand that when gov't gives a dollar to one person, it must, must, take a dollar from someone else. Thus there is no stimulus. Then I hear "but, but FDR did it!" Or "There's a stimulus in the short term!"
It is nonsense. You cannot argue with people who aren't competent in the fields they are discussing.