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

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Oh, I thought you were talking about me. Now that we've cleared that up, 15 years is an interesting parameter. Were you about to blame 9/11 on "liberals"?

They are equally at fault. Are you saying they aren't?

 

[Arianrhod]

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.

Oh, I thought you were talking about me. Now that we've cleared that up, 15 years is an interesting parameter. Were you about to blame 9/11 on "liberals"?

They are equally at fault. Are you saying they aren't?

Just a reminder about the thread title: unsupported claims.

That's exactly what you're presenting.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.

Oh, I thought you were talking about me. Now that we've cleared that up, 15 years is an interesting parameter. Were you about to blame 9/11 on "liberals"?

They are equally at fault. Are you saying they aren't?

Just a reminder about the thread title: unsupported claims.

That's exactly what you're presenting.

As I said. Coffee break. And most of what I claim here is not special knowledge, and could not be more obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and education.

 

[Arianrhod]

And most of what I claim here is not special knowledge, and could not be more obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and education.

For example?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

And most of what I claim here is not special knowledge, and could not be more obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and education.

For example?

Read my posts.

 

[Arianrhod]

And most of what I claim here is not special knowledge, and could not be more obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and education.

For example?

Read my posts.

So opinion put forward as fact. QED.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

And most of what I claim here is not special knowledge, and could not be more obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and education.

For example?

Read my posts.

So opinion put forward as fact. QED.

Nope. Opinion formed by fact.

 

[Arianrhod]

And most of what I claim here is not special knowledge, and could not be more obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and education.

For example?

Read my posts.

So opinion put forward as fact. QED.

Nope. Opinion formed by fact.

When you provide said facts, you'll have some credibility. Until then, the OP couldn't have written a better script to illustrate his example than the one you're continuing to provide.

Do it again.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

And most of what I claim here is not special knowledge, and could not be more obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence and education.

For example?

Read my posts.

So opinion put forward as fact. QED.

Nope. Opinion formed by fact.

When you provide said facts, you'll have some credibility.

All in the public domain. You can't miss them, even trying.

 

[Arianrhod]

For example?

Read my posts.

So opinion put forward as fact. QED.

Nope. Opinion formed by fact.

When you provide said facts, you'll have some credibility.

All in the public domain. You can't miss them, even trying.

And all as fact-filled as the ones you've presented here. I'm sure you have many more just like this one.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey Arianrhod, give Billy K. some props. He's pretty much proving your point for you.

Billy, granted your opinion might have been formed by the facts you found, but do you care to link to those facts so that others can check them out for themselves?

 

[Arianrhod]

Hey Arianrhod, give Billy K. some props. He's pretty much proving your point for you.

He's certainly proving the OP's point, as I've indicated.

In my observation, people who are sure of their facts are eager to present them. People who promulgate opinion as fact say things like "read my posts."

If he wanted to, Billy could prove me wrong easily enough.

 

[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.

 

[Arianrhod]

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.

 

[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!

 

[Arianrhod]

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.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

I understand and share your frustration. The short answer is, of course, "it is what it is".

America itself appears to be becoming a more and more narcissistic society by the day, and unfortunately this is reflected in (what remains of) our political discourse. Worse, most of the energy in that discourse resides in the ends of the political spectrum, hard left and hard right.

These are people to whom honesty and humility have virtually zero priority. Instead, public "debate" is now filled with distortion, deflection, hyperbole, denial and outright lies. Not to mention the traditional nasty personal insults and name-calling which seemingly infect every thread.

I would tell you, "hey, don't worry, this is just a message board, it's not real life". The sad and troubling thing is, I don't think that's the case any more.
.

 

[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.

 

[320 Years of History]

People are willing to write a sentence or two expressing what they have come to believe about a given subject, but are due to time constraints or simple lack of motivation often unwilling to write the ten pages of personal research or dig up a like number of websites necessary to fully explain in detail that which they contend.

This forum is coffee break entertainment for most people, not a vocation.

As for politicians, well ... they're politicians. Whaddaya want.

Perhaps you are correct. If you are, fine, but in such cases, why do they write more than "I think so too," or "I agree" or "I disagree?" Barring that, they could simply express their opinion as such rather than presenting statements as facts, and everyone would realize their words represent nothing more than that, their opinion.

For example:

• Thought presented as opinion: I think Obama is the best president ever.
• Thought presented as opinion: IMO, if more people own guns, fewer people will be victims of crime.
• Thought presented as fact: Obama is the best president ever.
• Thought presented as fact: If more people own guns, fewer people will be victims of crime.

There's no need to support the first two claims. It is a given that the reader believes that the writer does indeed think exactly what s/he stated because the statements attest to things the writer is best poised, among all people, to assert. The third and fourth claims, however, need to be supported, especially for folks who don't concur.

The point is that if one doesn't want to (for whatever reason) present a full argument to support an assertion, just don't make one that begs for one.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

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.