|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 05/27/2007 : 08:55:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by beskeptigal
OK, Dave, you have succeeded in re-engaging me in a discussion, for the moment.
So opinion of one's personal preference is relevant here?
I am only using the certainty definition to address the issue at hand. In reality opinion and conviction can be indistinguishable or one can find distinctions if one chooses. None of that is helpful in resolving the issue at hand. |
The issue at hand appears to be a different one than you think. That you used the word 'opinion' way back when to express some amount of uncertainty doesn't seem relevant now, nor did it in the old thread, wherein you lectured me on how much self-confidence you have in your opinions in general. That my pointing out that 'opinion' and 'certainty' are two independent continua is what prompted your re-engagement is surprising considering the much more substantive points being discussed here. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 05/27/2007 : 09:21:20 [Permalink]
|
Well, sigh…
Beskeptigal:
I said it was going to fan the flames, Kil. I said I didn't want to but I knew it would. |
You didn't fan the flames. You blew the freakin thing up in my face.
Now that you have pulled the rug out from under me, you can have my chair.
More generally, I think the opinion vs. statement of facts discussion about how we approach those two things is still worthwhile. I still don't agree with Dude on that. And I would still argue that in the context of the thread, the position I took was valid. However, there is too much baggage to have a clean debate about that now. So thanks.
If you use the arguments that you have brought to this thread, I think you will loose. It really does look like I misjudged your request for counter evidence that you were wrong in the other thread if your statements in this thread are an indication of your intent over there.
Edited to add:
You have also brought the level of certainty you have in your original statement into question. It's one thing to say it was based on limited evidence, which you said after your statement, and another to say that your level of certainty, when you said it, was at the highest level of the continuum that I talked about. If the confidence level of your opinion was that it was really a statement of fact, just waiting for the evidence to support it that would be acceptable to a critical thinker, which is how it looks now, then Dude was right and I was wrong.
But that was not how you presented it in the thread, so again, I stand by the basics of my argument even if those parts that relate to the thread in question have now been blown to hell…
I am truly at a loss as to how to continue. A clean debate would have been nice but I don't see how that's possible now. I can't reference the other thread because your intent was a part of my argument. And Dude is too good a debater for me to go on if your going to be placing land mines in my path.
So, thanks again for the corrections…
And Dude, I will now humbly remove myself from this debate with the hope that we can have the debate under better circumstances…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 10:22:25 [Permalink]
|
Kil said:
And Dude, I will now humbly remove myself from this debate with the hope that we can have the debate under better circumstances…
|
Same here.
RE beskeptigal, Kil said:
If you use the arguments that you have brought to this thread, I think you will loose. It really does look like I misjudged your request for counter evidence that you were wrong in the other thread if your statements in this thread are an indication of your intent over there.
|
Otherwise clear headed and rationally skeptical people can still lose objectivity when it comes to politics. The extent to which beskeptigal has gone to defend her absurd statement (in the other thread and now this one) and the volume of angry people defending her in the other thread illustrates this mental quirk nicely.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 11:12:42 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
Otherwise clear headed and rationally skeptical people can still lose objectivity when it comes to politics. |
And again, politics had nothing to do with my objection over there. My argument was always about "opinion vs. statement of fact" and how best to apply critical thinking to subjective and objective conclusions. That is the debate still waiting to happen, though we made a good start of it. Unfortunately for me, my test case was apparently poorly chosen…  |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 23:35:56 [Permalink]
|
Kil said:
| My argument was always about "opinion vs. statement of fact" and how best to apply critical thinking to subjective and objective conclusions. |
The answer to that is very simple with regard to critical thinking.
All assertions of fact, regardless of how they are stated, are subject to some standard of evidence.
No assertion of fact can be shielded from criticism by falsely associating it with a purely subjective statement.
A properly stated opinion, that falls in between 100% subjective and a definitive assertion, must be phrased in tentative terms.
Regardless of what kinds of qualifiers you add after the fact, if you are not willing to modify the original statement (The majority of greens are magical thinkers) to a tentative format, you are not stating an opinion.
This should not be so difficult for people to comprehend.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 23:43:16 [Permalink]
|
The world according to Beskeptigal.
I made a statement in the context of changing the Democratic Party from within vs joining or forming a third party. In doing so I commented that I believed the Green Party wasn't a viable third party because they supported too many woo causes. The way I worded the comment offended Dude:
"The Green Party has some values I can identify with, but the majority of the members are overly idealistic and as you point out by the stand on unorthodoxed medicine, magical thinkers rather than educated rational thinkers. IE a lot of them are idiots."
Dude objected vehemently to my portrayal of the Green Party as full of woo believers. The comment about "a lot of them being idiots" was, I'm sure, especially inflammatory. Dude demanded a retraction.
With his objection, Dude presented some alternative evidence:
There you go again, making rash claims about a political party based on what a few people in that party think....Here are 10 major values of the US Green Party: http://www.gp.org/tenkey.shtml
In lieu of a retraction I admitted my opinion was only based on personal experience and that of course, was insufficient evidence to draw a valid conclusion. Nonetheless, it was my opinion and I invited additional evidence supporting an alternative view.
Beskep's reply to Dude's objection:I stated in my post that I was overgeneralizing, Dude. I was trying to discuss some larger issues without getting bogged down in political correctness.
A lot of Democrats are idiots, that doesn't hurt my feelings at all. I don't have a personal stake in party identity.
But I'll try to be more careful about my insults in the future. I was referring to the people in the Green Party who are believers in extreme conspiracies about government and corporate powers. They don't trust the mainstream and my observation is a lot of them adopted the Green Party.
That doesn't mean there aren't intelligent people trying to form a viable third party via the Green Party. If they can do it, more power to them. If they have good candidates, I'll be voting for them. But I happen to think it is wishful thinking given the current political state of affairs.
Do you have anything that describes the Green Party members which shows the majority are not from the woo rank and file? I'd be more than happy to reconsider the conclusions I've drawn from my limited experience with the members. |
Any rational person would have accepted that retraction about the "idiots", ("That doesn't mean there aren't intelligent people trying to form a viable third party via the Green Party."), and moved on. Dude, however continued to be irrational and has been having a cow ever since.
I posted: Your party platform link doesn't say anything about party membership... My evidence comes from Green Party conferences on CSPAN where woo causes are often overwhelmingly evident....I'll see what else I can find.
That was not satisfactory to Dude. I continued, | "But I am concerned about the large number of people the Green Party attracts that are 'out there'. I've been involved in political activism for a long time. It's a real pain when the Socialists Worker's Party shows up at your 'US Out of El Salvador' march with signs reading 'Free the Gang of Four'.... I was attacked from all sides when I posted about the "World Can't Wait" protest rally last year. Everyone had a cow the initial organization was the Communist Party even though the rally drew very wide support and there was no more communist presence there than any other group.... There is a radical fringe, with many woo believers and they are attracted to the causes of the Green Party. That's all I said and it's pretty silly to claim they are not attracted to the Greens. That doesn't mean the ideals of the Green Party are bad. Of course they aren't. If you think that's what I think you haven't been reading my posts." |
Dude replied:YOU made the claim that the "majority" of people in the green party are "woo woos".
I'm just asking you to present some real evidence to back that claim up. Anecdotes and your personal limited exposure to some crazy people do not support your claim that the majority are irrational.... |
Dude ignored all my statements qualifying my opinion as based on limited personal experience and offering to change my opinion if he presented contradictory evidence.
| I told you, Dude, I am drawing the conclusion from what I have observed. You don't have anything to the contrary. I don't have to PROVE to you what I observed, I'm telling you what I observed. I get it that you don't agree. I am willing to consider evidence, but you have none. |
Dude never presented more than the single link above.
Skip ahead to the current conversation. While a discussion is going on about definitions of opinion vs statement of fact, and the focus is on that definition, the initial issue is being lost in the distractions. The account above is what occurred. There is no reason to be fussing over definitions or anything else. I was very clear about my position. I am grateful for Marf's and Kil's attempts to discuss reason with Dude and I'm sorry that Kil thinks I have now made things worse. But the facts in this case are in my posts, not in anyone's attempts to get Dude to listen to reason by discussing opinion vs statements of fact. And Dave W's semantics side track was even less helpful.
Dude is misrepresenting what I said and then taking that misrepresentation personally. I was very clear, and made no claim of knowledge beyond the facts. I made a claim that I had drawn an opinion and admitted that opinion was tentative, but nonetheless I felt it was correct. Because I recognized the tentativeness of that opinion, I stated I was open to alternative conclusion should additional data be revealed.
Since this occurred Dude continues to be completely irrational. At the same time, I have found nothing but supporting evidence my initial tentative conclusion was probably correct.
So, am I supposed to pacify Dude's irrational reaction and not discuss the supporting evidence? Should I bow to Dave W's semantics argument, "Yes Dave W, you're right, but it doesn't have shit to do with the issue Dude is still having a cow over that I was trying to address. But of course, I was so stupid to try to use an oversimplified definition to address an insane reaction. Anal word definitions are so much more important." My bad, I forgot to say the definition I had in mind was only in this particular context.
I will say there is a nice thing about this forum. I don't mind saying what I think. I think Dude is being an ass, I never said anything unsupportable, what I did say was in context, I clearly re-framed the offensive statement as a tentative conclusion when it was objected to, I frankly don't give a shit what Dave W's opinion of me or this issue is, I much appreciate the support from some forum members, and I'm sorry Kil thinks I made things worse, I wasn't trying to.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 00:19:35 [Permalink]
|
STILL demanding that you be proved wrong!
And you have the sack to call me irrational...
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 00:50:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
STILL demanding that you be proved wrong!
And you have the sack to call me irrational...
|
Right, and this is how I worded it: "I stated I was open to alternative conclusion should additional data be revealed".
Still misrepresenting what I said and you are most definitely being irrational.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 06:57:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Should I bow to Dave W's semantics argument, "Yes Dave W, you're right, but it doesn't have shit to do with the issue Dude is still having a cow over that I was trying to address. But of course, I was so stupid to try to use an oversimplified definition to address an insane reaction. Anal word definitions are so much more important." My bad, I forgot to say the definition I had in mind was only in this particular context. |
You missed the point, but you "don't give a shit." I forgot all about the fact that you substitute whatever meaning you like for the words in my posts, regardless of my intent. In this case, for example, you've turned "irrelevant" into "of utmost importance." beskeptigal, no matter what you think of Dude, you're the undisputed irrationality champion. Not that you care. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 08:39:05 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal said:
Right, and this is how I worded it: "I stated I was open to alternative conclusion should additional data be revealed".
|
Which is a demand to be proven wrong!
Still misrepresenting what I said and you are most definitely being irrational.
|
No, YOU are defending a false assertion of fact. You have abandoned any pretense of logic or critical thinking.
You made a claim of fact, you were asked to support it with some evidence, you couldn't support it so you veered into crazy-town with absurd demands to be proven wrong, AND YOU ARE STILL DOING IT!
You have become a pathetic side-show freak, spouting claims that are not supported by evidence (like so many of the rabidly religious do) and then sitting back claiming that you are right unless someone can prove you wrong!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 16:29:13 [Permalink]
|
Since you can't seem to understand the difference between, "I have an opinion and if you don't like it you are welcome to present alternative evidence", and your claim I am somehow demanding you do something, Dude, then I'll just take your lead. You are demanding I prove you wrong, not the other way around. So I will.
I presented all sorts of supporting evidence the strongest of which was the political science article that actually sampled Green Party sentiments which were as they described it:| The main finding is that [the Green Party] is the social movement oriented, eco-pacifist membership with a sceptical attitude towards private enterprise... |
In addition to this survey which found the members did indeed include a majority "eco-pacifists" skeptical of private enterprise, examples of the kind of beliefs that attitude represents are reflected in the additional citations I posted describing the woo positions consistent with the findings of the survey. That is the Green Party is against fluoridating water, against genetically modified foods, against "dangerous" cell phone towers, and for "natural" foods. Those are typical woo beliefs.
So there is a survey of the members and examples of woo beliefs. Yet you want me to take your unsupported opinion as fact. I don't think so.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 19:10:44 [Permalink]
|
Those were from UK green party link.
You are truly psychotic on this, aren't you?
Just go back to ignoring my posts, I don't have any further desire to speak to you.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 01:29:39 [Permalink]
|
Do you have any evidence the Greens in England are different from the Greens in the USA? I thought not. Can't support your irrational attack on me so you run away. What a surprise. 
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 05/29/2007 01:30:12 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 02:11:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Should I bow to Dave W's semantics argument, "Yes Dave W, you're right, but it doesn't have shit to do with the issue Dude is still having a cow over that I was trying to address. But of course, I was so stupid to try to use an oversimplified definition to address an insane reaction. Anal word definitions are so much more important." My bad, I forgot to say the definition I had in mind was only in this particular context. |
You missed the point, but you "don't give a shit." I forgot all about the fact that you substitute whatever meaning you like for the words in my posts, regardless of my intent. In this case, for example, you've turned "irrelevant" into "of utmost importance." beskeptigal, no matter what you think of Dude, you're the undisputed irrationality champion. Not that you care.
|
No, Dave you missed the point. If you wanted to make the argument you were making, instead of getting anal about a word definition, you could have said, "Well, that isn't right but I understand what you are trying to say." Instead you posted some off topic example of how you could use 'opinion' in another context and in that other context degree of certainty is not the defining difference.
Dude can't even comprehend no one "demands" he "prove" anything by merely stating they believe something or have an opinion. So how does getting sidetracked by the definition of opinion help matters one little bit?
Kil was paraphrasing what I said and meant. I should have said if one gives an opinion one is not necessarily trying to convince another therefore one is not demanding to be proved wrong. But I didn't. I tried to make the different argument that I qualified my opinion as being based on weak evidence.
In either case, you butting in with your anal definition and now your sarcasm claiming I am being irrational when this entire mess is over Dude's completely absurd reaction to an earlier post shows you are the one who doesn't get it.
Have you posted anything giving examples of or commenting on the definition of "a demand for proof"? Your comments about the definition of opinion show you were more interested in discussing the definition of a word than in resolving this ridiculous crap Dude is still spewing out.
I sat back waiting for Dude to get over his absurd $h!+ but he never did. And Mycroft went and started up again because I called him on his hypocrisy attacking another forum member at JREF for the very insults he falsely foamed at the mouth about me. Now Kil is pissed because I didn't sit back and take being told I drew an invalid conclusion just so Kil could pacify Dude's a-hole behavior. (I still appreciate the effort, Kil, but I was not the asshole here, Dude was.)
So what do you do, Dave W? You butt in with some unimportant crap that I defined 'opinion' wrong. Yeah, I did. Big deal. The issue here is Dude's $h!+. You think Dude's and Mycroft's $h!+ is fine, then screw you! So you really think this is about the definition of 'opinion'? Is that your position? And you wonder why I think you're as bad as they are.
Since when is this forum about personal attacks against people who disagree with one another? Since when should I accept being called left wing extremist because I am against the Iraq war, being verbally assaulted for voicing my unfavorable opinion of the Green Party membership, or being repeatedly insulted for merely choosing not to engage in a particular debate (which I might add you still haven't seen the least bit fit to apologize for)?
Well I've had enough.
Dude, grow up.
Mycroft, if you can't take it, don't dish it out.
And Dave, if you think the definition of 'opinion' is a bigger issue than Dude's absurd claim I have demanded he prove the Green Party members aren't majority woo believers and if you think Mycroft's intentionally rude name calling that I'm a left wing radical is merely his relative definition of radical left wing, then it is you who is missing the point. You miss the point of what is really important in this world.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 05/29/2007 02:12:26 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 07:40:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Should I bow to Dave W's semantics argument, "Yes Dave W, you're right, but it doesn't have shit to do with the issue Dude is still having a cow over that I was trying to address. But of course, I was so stupid to try to use an oversimplified definition to address an insane reaction. Anal word definitions are so much more important." My bad, I forgot to say the definition I had in mind was only in this particular context. |
You missed the point, but you "don't give a shit." I forgot all about the fact that you substitute whatever meaning you like for the words in my posts, regardless of my intent. In this case, for example, you've turned "irrelevant" into "of utmost importance." beskeptigal, no matter what you think of Dude, you're the undisputed irrationality champion. Not that you care.
|
No, Dave you missed the point. If you wanted to make the argument you were making, instead of getting anal about a word definition, you could have said, "Well, that isn't right but I understand what you are trying to say." Instead you posted some off topic example of how you could use 'opinion' in another context and in that other context degree of certainty is not the defining difference.
Dude can't even comprehend no one "demands" he "prove" anything by merely stating they believe something or have an opinion. So how does getting sidetracked by the definition of opinion help matters one little bit?
Kil was paraphrasing what I said and meant. I should have said if one gives an opinion one is not necessarily trying to convince another therefore one is not demanding to be proved wrong. But I didn't. I tried to make the different argument that I qualified my opinion as being based on weak evidence.
In either case, you butting in with your anal definition and now your sarcasm claiming I am being irrational when this entire mess is over Dude's completely absurd reaction to an earlier post shows you are the one who doesn't get it.
Have you posted anything giving examples of or commenting on the definition of "a demand for proof"? Your comments about the definition of opinion show you were more interested in discussing the definition of a word than in resolving this ridiculous crap Dude is still spewing out.
I sat back waiting for Dude to get over his absurd $h!+ but he never did. And Mycroft went and started up again because I called him on his hypocrisy attacking another forum member at JREF for the very insults he falsely foamed at the mouth about me. Now Kil is pissed because I didn't sit back and take being told I drew an invalid conclusion just so Kil could pacify Dude's a-hole behavior. (I still appreciate the effort, Kil, but I was not the asshole here, Dude was.)
So what do you do, Dave W? You butt in with some unimportant crap that I defined 'opinion' wrong. Yeah, I did. Big deal. The issue here is Dude's $h!+. You think Dude's and Mycroft's $h!+ is fine, then screw you! So you really think this is about the definition of 'opinion'? Is that your position? And you wonder why I think you're as bad as they are.
Since when is this forum about personal attacks against people who disagree with one another? Since when should I accept being called left wing extremist because I am against the Iraq war, being verbally assaulted for voicing my unfavorable opinion of the Green Party membership, or being repeatedly insulted for merely choosing not to engage in a particular debate (which I might add you still haven't seen the least bit fit to apologize for)?
Well I've had enough.
Dude, grow up.
Mycroft, if you can't take it, don't dish it out.
And Dave, if you think the definition of 'opinion' is a bigger issue than Dude's absurd claim I have demanded he prove the Green Party members aren't majority woo believers and if you think Mycroft's intentionally rude name calling that I'm a left wing radical is merely his relative definition of radical left wing, then it is you who is missing the point. You miss the point of what is really important in this world. |
Wow!
All sorts of vitriol from you, beskeptigal, in a post where you quote me telling you that the definition of 'opinion' is irrelevant to the larger issues under discussion here. How much more clear could I have been?
You, of course, "don't give a shit" about what issues I'm actually interested in, and so you insist that I think that some "anal word definition" is more important than the other points I'd been addressing. And so we come full circle on this thread, back to Mycroft's OP in which he discusses your persistent misrepresentations of other people, and my later post discussing the same thing.
But you don't care at all what I think of you or what I think of the issues at hand. No, that's why you'll spend your valuable time writing over 500 words insulting me, being hyper-defensive and generally making a fool of yourself.
And speaking of insults, you were never once insulted for refusing to engage in a debate. That's all a delusion you've fabricated. I'm never going to apologize to you for something that you made up. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Bringing personal arguments home
Topic Locked
