I Totally Support the Occupy Movement...Follow

"a.k.a making it up as I go along."

Aw come on guys, Gbaji like, thinks real hard and stuff!

There should never be a disagreement over what things are fact and what things are opinion. There absolutely can (and should) be a disagreement over the opinions/conclusions, but not the facts. As I stated above, the problem is that many people attempt to label their opinions as facts and then think that the issue is over disagreement about facts.

Example:
That the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased over the last 40 years is a fact. That measured global temperatures have increased by about a degree over the last century is also a fact. That failing to dramatically decrease the amount of human production of CO2 will lead to a runaway greenhouse gas effect which will result in massive flooding and other harm to earths ecosystem in the next 50-100 years is an opinion.

See the difference? We don't argue over the first things. The problem is that far too many people label the final conclusion in that paragraph a "fact". It's not. It's an opinion. If you can't tell the difference without falling back to your own initial biases about something, then you lack even the start of critical thinking abilities.

Huh, an argument that relied on someone else to provide the conclusion.

That was nearly the least significant statement I made which you could have quoted if your purpose was to honestly assess what *I* think critical thinking is.



You are correct. Good thing I never said that's what it was.



Yes. But that has nothing to do with whether critical thinking skills were used when deciding whether to agree or disagree. Why you agree with what someone else says is what determines that, but your statement doesn't touch on that. What matters is if you assess what that person says and attempt to test it in some way, using logic, reason, objective facts, etc.

What's important here is that someone who has done such an analysis should be able to readily repeat that process when he's asked why he agrees with that other person. If you used critical thinking to decide to agree or disagree, then why not repeat that thought process when challenged? Yet, what I see overwhelmingly is someone just point to what someone else said and say "this person is right, so you are wrong". When asked *why* they think that person is right, they rarely ever give a reason other than to point to other people who also agree with them (or make fun of the person asking the question, or change the subject).


That's not to say it's not possible that there is a good rational argument in support of your position, but if you can't (or wont) provide one, then one has to wonder why *you* hold the position you do. It's absolutely valid for someone else to claim you're just parroting what someone else said in that case, because that's all you're doing. Hell. Even if you start out thinking a position is right and you do some research to learn the reason why, it would be a step in the right direction.


I just have pretty much zero respect for the "I'm right because <someone else> says I am" approach. To me, it's not just a **** poor argument, but it always makes me wonder at the motives of the other person. I get why you might use BS arguments in a debate, but why do *you* think X is correct? And if you can't give a reason, then how do you derive positions on issues? Random flip of a coin? First "expert" you run across? Or do you pick a "side" and then go with that side's experts no matter what? How far do you abrogate your own responsibility for making your own choices in your own life?


What's amazing is that I actually get lots of heat for this. It's like freaking children of the corn on this forum sometimes.

Edited, Dec 9th 2011 4:44pm by gbaji

You know that sound people make when they see something like a dog or a three year old get slammed by a speeding 18 wheeler? That sound of sucking wind through the teeth in audible grimace? Yeah, just imagine everyone that just read that line of crap you spewed just did that. Again, your failing in this is that at the end of the day sort of speak, you decide (and loudly proclaim) who is using logic, reason, objective facts, etc. And it just so happens that it is only you that does so. Funny how that works. You don't bother to look at both sides of any argument, you just say "I used logic, you didn't." That's all. You use a lot of words, which is adorable. If you can't beat them through real logic and common sense, brow beat them and win a war of attrition. Maybe you're so stupid and you don't realize it, or you're just playing devil's advocate. I can't make that call, though you're logically going to deny both. What's really amazing is you just wrote all that and still don't know what you're "getting heat" for. Only slightly less amazing, because we're all pretty much used to it by now, is that you still think that your "I'm thinking for myself, it's just a coincidence that everything I say just so happens to be what my party says" line is at all believable.

I mean, you just did it without batting an eye.

Edited, Dec 9th 2011 7:54pm by lolgaxe

It's good to see that you are objectively assessing things there.



And folks claiming this and repeating it over and over makes it true? Again, good to see logic and reason in action! Really? You're playing a caricature of yourself right now, right?



I say that after using logic to assess both side of any argument and use that to support my position. I know that for those who don't bother, this may be troubling so they may feel a need to lash out as a sort of defense mechanism, but that not my problem.



It takes a lot of words to actually write down the thought process you're using to derive a position. It takes very few words to say "I'm right, because someone else says so". Certainly, the person arguing their position in one line sarcastic posts is *not* using any sort of logic or reason, right?



Shrug. How logical my arguments appear is kinda dependent on the capabilities of the person reading them, and their own willingness to re-assess their own positions based on logic and reason. If you either don't know how to logically assess something, or don't want to, you're going to just ignore the words because they say things you don't like.



I imagine it's mostly because I do make strong arguments for my positions and that makes those who hold opposite positions for far weaker reasons incredibly uncomfortable. Like I said earlier, most people don't like to have their assumptions challenged.



I'm not sure what your point is here. People pick parties based on how well the party's ideology and positions matches their own. The same thing can be said of most people, but it's interesting that you ascribe that sort of blindness to me, but not to every other person who votes for and agrees with the party they've chosen to join.





And btw: I'm still waiting for someone to provide an example of a Dem solution to our current economic problems which does not include raising taxes on the rich. Interesting how the topic keeps moving away from that, isn't it? Can't answer the question, so you attack the person asking it.

And you claiming this and repeating it over and over makes it true? Again, good to see logic and reason in action! Really? You're playing a caricature of yourself right now, right? Funny how that works. So go ahead and tell us why you're always right and it's everyone else that's always wrong. Not only is that not true, but it's usually a sign of a disorganized thought processes where someone will go out of their way to try to "explain" something, mostly to try to convince themselves that what they did or think is true. Nine out of ten statements I've taken have shown that to be the case. But what would I know about that? I've only been interrogating and taking statements from people for eight years, which by your "logic" means I don't know anything about it at all. You have a very autistic imagination then. And by "autistic" I mean "full fledged retarded." Don't worry, I remember how much you cried crocodile tears of asshurt when I am subtle, so I'll explain it to you when it's necessary. It really amazes me that you don't hang yourself when you try to tie your shoes. And we've been waiting like a month for you to answer Joph's question.

Edited, Dec 9th 2011 8:26pm by lolgaxe

Or, because what they say is logical, it doesn't require fifteen paragraphs of bullshit to try and persuade people into believing it.

Jus' sayin'. With logic!

You would think, that if by now he couldn't convince anyone that his argument was sound, that maybe there was another reason?

Duh! It's because we don't want our assumptions challenged!

It's the perfect cocoon of self-delusion. "Everything I say is 100% logical and accurate and anyone who disagrees is only afraid of having their assumptions challenged. Any evidence to the contrary is flawed 'evidence' by 'experts' who are obviously biased."

I'm sure someone who has taken more than a semester of Intro Psych can pinpoint the exact name of that condition.

Edited, Dec 10th 2011 12:57am by Jophiel

Up arrow 4u