The people on these forums that go against the grain do not get enough respect in my opinion.
I point to Unsung for example. I never agreed with his views on most things, however he was consistent with his opinions and his reasoning was well formulated- he never came upon his perspective lightly. I remember him when he said he 'was out'... and he left for good.
How else is one forced to examine their positions without a strong 'opponent' to test them?
It's funny to me that you mentioned Unsung, because he is the poster I thought of when I read the thread topic and link. He continually refused to acknowledge the irrefutable link between gun prevalence and murder rates in the US, using confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance to entrench his views.
The people on these forums that go against the grain do not get enough respect in my opinion.
I point to Unsung for example. I never agreed with his views on most things, however he was consistent with his opinions and his reasoning was well formulated- he never came upon his perspective lightly. I remember him when he said he 'was out'... and he left for good.
How else is one forced to examine their positions without a strong 'opponent' to test them?
It's funny to me that you mentioned Unsung, because he is the poster I thought of when I read the thread topic and link. He continually refused to acknowledge the irrefutable link between gun prevalence and murder rates in the US, using confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance to entrench his views.
Yup. Consistantly sticking to the narrative despite the evidence is the problem.
I made the title controversial to get people to check the link posted. It seems to have had the negative affect of people reacting to only the title without actually reading the content posted for context. Guess that's my bad.
The people on these forums that go against the grain do not get enough respect in my opinion.
I point to Unsung for example. I never agreed with his views on most things, however he was consistent with his opinions and his reasoning was well formulated- he never came upon his perspective lightly. I remember him when he said he 'was out'... and he left for good.
How else is one forced to examine their positions without a strong 'opponent' to test them?
It's funny to me that you mentioned Unsung, because he is the poster I thought of when I read the thread topic and link. He continually refused to acknowledge the irrefutable link between gun prevalence and murder rates in the US, using confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance to entrench his views.
Yup. Consistantly sticking to the narrative despite the evidence is the problem.
Consistancy should win you no points.
Conviction should though, and Unsung certainly had conviction!
I made the title controversial to get people to check the link posted. It seems to have had the negative affect of people reacting to only the title without actually reading the content posted for context. Guess that's my bad.
Thanks to those who did read the content.
I just think you stumbled onto something with the thread title. A useful reminder that no matter how right we may think we are, ALL the evidence is rarely ever on one side or another. Maybe thinking that it does becomes an easy trap to fall into and contributes to why the other guy cannot see our points.
The people on these forums that go against the grain do not get enough respect in my opinion.
I point to Unsung for example. I never agreed with his views on most things, however he was consistent with his opinions and his reasoning was well formulated- he never came upon his perspective lightly. I remember him when he said he 'was out'... and he left for good.
How else is one forced to examine their positions without a strong 'opponent' to test them?
It's funny to me that you mentioned Unsung, because he is the poster I thought of when I read the thread topic and link. He continually refused to acknowledge the irrefutable link between gun prevalence and murder rates in the US, using confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance to entrench his views.
I argued with him incessantly.
He also clung to the notion that the US needed to be armed so that the citizens could honor the constitution and prevent a police state from establishing roots- the very idea you and a few others have promoting yourselves to some degree in the multitude of police abuse threads.
And most of us are all guilty of such tactics at some point in time. Don't you remember when I offered a link to you that had the mayor of Vancouver and other prominent people call the predominantly white Stanley Cup rioters 'thugs'? You dismissed the example and suggested that Canada's use of the term thug differs from that of the US (a textbook case of confirmation bias in my eyes).
The article asks the question, "It begs the question: what corrective information has backfired on you?". I'm not sure if I am highly disappointed that I could find no answer to that question which might indicate some personal confirmation bias I'm unaware of or feel good knowing I'm widely enough read and have had enough life experience to have no major confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
The people on these forums that go against the grain do not get enough respect in my opinion.
I point to Unsung for example. I never agreed with his views on most things, however he was consistent with his opinions and his reasoning was well formulated- he never came upon his perspective lightly. I remember him when he said he 'was out'... and he left for good.
How else is one forced to examine their positions without a strong 'opponent' to test them?
It's funny to me that you mentioned Unsung, because he is the poster I thought of when I read the thread topic and link. He continually refused to acknowledge the irrefutable link between gun prevalence and murder rates in the US, using confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance to entrench his views.
I argued with him incessantly.
He also clung to the notion that the US needed to be armed so that the citizens could honor the constitution and prevent a police state from establishing roots- the very idea you and a few others have promoting yourselves to some degree in the multitude of police abuse threads.
And most of us are all guilty of such tactics at some point in time. Don't you remember when I offered a link to you that had the mayor of Vancouver and other prominent people call the predominantly white Stanley Cup rioters 'thugs'? You dismissed the example and suggested that Canada's use of the term thug differs from that of the US (a textbook case of confirmation bias in my eyes).
I offered up very white Captain America referring to a very white bad guy as a thug in a billion dollar motion picture seen all over the world. It was ignored.
A few outlier examples isn't a weighty load of evidence. One was a fictional entertainment movie and the other was from a country that doesn't have similar race issues at all.
Thirty, the link between the gun issue and police abuse I just don't get. Wanting peoples bodily rights to be protected from police is the same as wanting people armed so they can avert a martial law takeover?
A few outlier examples isn't a weighty load of evidence. One was a fictional entertainment movie and the other was from a country that doesn't have similar race issues at all.
Thirty, the link between the gun issue and police abuse I just don't get. Wanting peoples bodily rights to be protected from police is the same as wanting people armed so they can avert a martial law takeover?
See? You did it again.
Keep with the dismissal tactics to preserve your inherent bias.
A few outlier examples isn't a weighty load of evidence. One was a fictional entertainment movie and the other was from a country that doesn't have similar race issues at all.
Thirty, the link between the gun issue and police abuse I just don't get. Wanting peoples bodily rights to be protected from police is the same as wanting people armed so they can avert a martial law takeover?
See? You did it again.
Keep with the dismissal tactics to preserve your inherent bias.
Look, we all use confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance to defend our positions. Are you suggesting I accept every little bit (and that truly is a tidbit) of evidence as proof and change my mind? Are you suggesting that everything is relevant always and nothing can be dismissed? The problem lies with denial of evidence on a systematic basis, not here and there with outlier examples.
A few outlier examples isn't a weighty load of evidence. One was a fictional entertainment movie and the other was from a country that doesn't have similar race issues at all.
Thirty, the link between the gun issue and police abuse I just don't get. Wanting peoples bodily rights to be protected from police is the same as wanting people armed so they can avert a martial law takeover?
See? You did it again.
Keep with the dismissal tactics to preserve your inherent bias.
Look, we all use confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance to defend our positions. Are you suggesting I accept every little bit (and that truly is a tidbit) of evidence as proof and change my mind? Are you suggesting that everything is relevant always and nothing can be dismissed? The problem lies with denial of evidence on a systematic basis, not here and there with outlier examples.
Yeah, I agree, Gambs. If we look at consistent evidence gathered in a systematic matter we're much more likely to get to the root of things than if we rely on outlier information. That information can be informative and add to understanding but it's also those little bits of information (or "Evidence") that people use to deny the existence of global warming. The idea of confirmation bias is interesting and useful but like anything, taken to an extreme it can also be used to divert from what seems to be most evident. Otherwise, we might as well all go back to smoking cigarettes because Eubie Blake chain smoke and lived to be 96 years old.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
For political arguments I have found that, even when presented with evidence, the right wingers will completely reject evidence by stating that: 1. It comes from the "liberal" media 2. It comes from the government (which cannot be trusted, except for when the GOP occupies the white house) 3. Sources posted on Fox News or Alex Jones say otherwise
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
A few outlier examples isn't a weighty load of evidence. One was a fictional entertainment movie and the other was from a country that doesn't have similar race issues at all.
Thirty, the link between the gun issue and police abuse I just don't get. Wanting peoples bodily rights to be protected from police is the same as wanting people armed so they can avert a martial law takeover?
See? You did it again.
Keep with the dismissal tactics to preserve your inherent bias.
Look, we all use confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance to defend our positions. Are you suggesting I accept every little bit (and that truly is a tidbit) of evidence as proof and change my mind? Are you suggesting that everything is relevant always and nothing can be dismissed? The problem lies with denial of evidence on a systematic basis, not here and there with outlier examples.
I'm only pointing out that Unsung wasn't the only cat on these boards to defend his bias with the strategies you pinned him on.
For political arguments I have found that, even when presented with evidence, the right wingers will completely reject evidence by stating that: 1. It comes from the "liberal" media 2. It comes from the government (which cannot be trusted, except for when the GOP occupies the white house) 3. Sources posted on Fox News or Alex Jones say otherwise
For political arguments I have found that, even when presented with evidence, the right wingers will completely reject evidence by stating that: 1. It comes from the "liberal" media 2. It comes from the government (which cannot be trusted, except for when the GOP occupies the white house) 3. Sources posted on Fox News or Alex Jones say otherwise
Hmmm...I have found it to be the exact opposite.
OK fella, shack hands, LOL!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
For political arguments I have found that, even when presented with evidence, the right wingers will completely reject evidence by stating that: 1. It comes from the "liberal" media 2. It comes from the government (which cannot be trusted, except for when the GOP occupies the white house) 3. Sources posted on Fox News or Alex Jones say otherwise
Hmmm...I have found it to be the exact opposite.
Of course you do. Delusional people skip on the facts.
For political arguments I have found that, even when presented with evidence, the right wingers will completely reject evidence by stating that: 1. It comes from the "liberal" media 2. It comes from the government (which cannot be trusted, except for when the GOP occupies the white house) 3. Sources posted on Fox News or Alex Jones say otherwise
There is a danger in labeling those who disagree with you and pretending they all respond the same. It closes you off to alternative viewpoints, making the other guy wrong before he even responds.
Not to mention that someone being to your right does not automatically mean they are a "right winger." There is plenty of room on the political spectrum in between the two extremes.
For political arguments I have found that, even when presented with evidence, the right wingers will completely reject evidence by stating that: 1. It comes from the "liberal" media 2. It comes from the government (which cannot be trusted, except for when the GOP occupies the white house) 3. Sources posted on Fox News or Alex Jones say otherwise
I think this post exemplifies the exact issue the OP is referencing. I have a "gift" of not always remembering each poster's political leanings, save for a few, so I don't get so entrenched in arguing with someone rather than debating the topic.
starting off with "blue vs red" will get you nowhere.
I have agreed with people, and disagreed with those same folks. people need to leave their donkey or elephant at the door and discuss the issue, without fear of being wrong.
I've been wrong and/or changed my mind several times over the years. Post 9/11, I was pro-Iraq invasion. Then I had my eyes opened by someone (not on this website) who knew more, politically, than I did at the time. One of the first times I posted on AMT was a thread where a justice of the peace refused to marry interracial couples. I defended him and his right to choose, and then through many pages , gimmesometruth and others opened my eyes to why it was incorrect.
Thirty Bills Unpaid is one person who I clash with often. Mostly on crime and punishment issues. But he has caused me to question my position on many occasions.
All this because I listened instead of waited for my turn to talk (one of the many lessons marriage has taught me-LOL).
HAVE I BEEN GUILTY OF THE LATTER? MORE TIMES THAN I CAN COUNT. But the point is to keep trying to be consious of "is this really my position? or is it my pride?".
Have I been guilty of googling something with an obvious bias towards what I'm trying to prove so I can post the link to prove my point? Absolutely. Guilty as charged. Sometimes pride just takes over. I will readily admit that.
but what I try to remember is the reason I came to this forum in the first place: it's not about winning. it's about learning.
For political arguments I have found that, even when presented with evidence, the right wingers will completely reject evidence by stating that: 1. It comes from the "liberal" media 2. It comes from the government (which cannot be trusted, except for when the GOP occupies the white house) 3. Sources posted on Fox News or Alex Jones say otherwise
I think this post exemplifies the exact issue the OP is referencing. I have a "gift" of not always remembering each poster's political leanings, save for a few, so I don't get so entrenched in arguing with someone rather than debating the topic.
starting off with "blue vs red" will get you nowhere.
I have agreed with people, and disagreed with those same folks. people need to leave their donkey or elephant at the door and discuss the issue, without fear of being wrong.
I've been wrong and/or changed my mind several times over the years. Post 9/11, I was pro-Iraq invasion. Then I had my eyes opened by someone (not on this website) who knew more, politically, than I did at the time. One of the first times I posted on AMT was a thread where a justice of the peace refused to marry interracial couples. I defended him and his right to choose, and then through many pages , gimmesometruth and others opened my eyes to why it was incorrect.
Thirty Bills Unpaid is one person who I clash with often. Mostly on crime and punishment issues. But he has caused me to question my position on many occasions.
All this because I listened instead of waited for my turn to talk (one of the many lessons marriage has taught me-LOL).
HAVE I BEEN GUILTY OF THE LATTER? MORE TIMES THAN I CAN COUNT. But the point is to keep trying to be consious of "is this really my position? or is it my pride?".
Have I been guilty of googling something with an obvious bias towards what I'm trying to prove so I can post the link to prove my point? Absolutely. Guilty as charged. Sometimes pride just takes over. I will readily admit that.
but what I try to remember is the reason I came to this forum in the first place: it's not about winning. it's about learning.
I've had my mind changed more times than I can count here. Sometimes on major issues, sometimes on nuanced detail. Like you said, it's not about winning - it's about learning. If it was about winning, I'd be on what ever websites reaffirm my opinions best, not here, where I get a litany of different ones.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I have to admit to not having changed my mind about much while here. Partly that is because I've read about/studied/thought about so many of these issues for a long time. The one issue that I've changed on is the Israeli/Palestinian issue. Maybe it's partly due to my age, partly due to earlier influences but I used to be very sympathetic toward Israel- not that historically speaking there isn't some good reason for that. But I've learned a lot about the injustices toward the Palestinians and don't see any way I can be supportive of what Israel had done in that region.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
For political arguments I have found that, even when presented with evidence, the right wingers will completely reject evidence by stating that: 1. It comes from the "liberal" media 2. It comes from the government (which cannot be trusted, except for when the GOP occupies the white house) 3. Sources posted on Fox News or Alex Jones say otherwise
I think this post exemplifies the exact issue the OP is referencing. I have a "gift" of not always remembering each poster's political leanings, save for a few, so I don't get so entrenched in arguing with someone rather than debating the topic.
starting off with "blue vs red" will get you nowhere.
I have agreed with people, and disagreed with those same folks. people need to leave their donkey or elephant at the door and discuss the issue, without fear of being wrong.
I've been wrong and/or changed my mind several times over the years. Post 9/11, I was pro-Iraq invasion. Then I had my eyes opened by someone (not on this website) who knew more, politically, than I did at the time. One of the first times I posted on AMT was a thread where a justice of the peace refused to marry interracial couples. I defended him and his right to choose, and then through many pages , gimmesometruth and others opened my eyes to why it was incorrect.
Thirty Bills Unpaid is one person who I clash with often. Mostly on crime and punishment issues. But he has caused me to question my position on many occasions.
All this because I listened instead of waited for my turn to talk (one of the many lessons marriage has taught me-LOL).
HAVE I BEEN GUILTY OF THE LATTER? MORE TIMES THAN I CAN COUNT. But the point is to keep trying to be consious of "is this really my position? or is it my pride?".
Have I been guilty of googling something with an obvious bias towards what I'm trying to prove so I can post the link to prove my point? Absolutely. Guilty as charged. Sometimes pride just takes over. I will readily admit that.
but what I try to remember is the reason I came to this forum in the first place: it's not about winning. it's about learning.
Great post! I agree with the sentiment, and feel the same way. I think partisans are as goofy as religionists in terms of trying to convince someone of the One True Way®. I prefer to look at individual issues or candidates, read what I can, enjoy discussions here, and draw my conclusions. I like the dialog on AMT, but agree that too often people are completely entrenched and do try to 'win'. I have had to question my own beliefs many times over the years due to compelling discussions here, and have learned a lot. Occasionally I will change or modify my position based on these discussions, but even when I don't, I still learned something. I admit I tried to 'win' arguments here years ago, but now am mostly just interested in reading peoples' thoughts, chiming in occasionally to support or challenge something, and enjoying the back and forth. I am occasionally frustrated by the course discussions take, but at the same time can't look away (much like a train wreck). I'm happy we have this place, and thank everyone here who contributes, regardless of where you stand on issues! I've learned a lot about issues and about myself.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
For political arguments I have found that, even when presented with evidence, the right wingers will completely reject evidence by stating that: 1. It comes from the "liberal" media 2. It comes from the government (which cannot be trusted, except for when the GOP occupies the white house) 3. Sources posted on Fox News or Alex Jones say otherwise
I think this post exemplifies the exact issue the OP is referencing. I have a "gift" of not always remembering each poster's political leanings, save for a few, so I don't get so entrenched in arguing with someone rather than debating the topic.
starting off with "blue vs red" will get you nowhere.
I have agreed with people, and disagreed with those same folks. people need to leave their donkey or elephant at the door and discuss the issue, without fear of being wrong.
I've been wrong and/or changed my mind several times over the years. Post 9/11, I was pro-Iraq invasion. Then I had my eyes opened by someone (not on this website) who knew more, politically, than I did at the time. One of the first times I posted on AMT was a thread where a justice of the peace refused to marry interracial couples. I defended him and his right to choose, and then through many pages , gimmesometruth and others opened my eyes to why it was incorrect.
Thirty Bills Unpaid is one person who I clash with often. Mostly on crime and punishment issues. But he has caused me to question my position on many occasions.
All this because I listened instead of waited for my turn to talk (one of the many lessons marriage has taught me-LOL).
HAVE I BEEN GUILTY OF THE LATTER? MORE TIMES THAN I CAN COUNT. But the point is to keep trying to be consious of "is this really my position? or is it my pride?".
Have I been guilty of googling something with an obvious bias towards what I'm trying to prove so I can post the link to prove my point? Absolutely. Guilty as charged. Sometimes pride just takes over. I will readily admit that.
but what I try to remember is the reason I came to this forum in the first place: it's not about winning. it's about learning.
Relationship management is important when engaging in debate on this forum. Perspective is huge.
As Hugh has said here... we have gone at each other at times; but many other times, we have agreed on other issues as well as corresponded via email and private messages.
Because this has happened... I know that Hugh is some guy in Winnipeg who is a good guy- not a faceless, soulless entity who has pitted himself as my opponent- challenging my value set as if it was a defamation of my character. Our viewpoints on some things do not mesh very well, but that fact means very little in the bigger picture.
People never joined the 10C to engage in debate. They came here because Pearl Jam beckoned them. Then, they discovered the MT and the possibilities this website offers them.
Number 1: Pearl Jam fans (big ones). Number 2: All the other stuff that should never trump Number 1.
For political arguments I have found that, even when presented with evidence, the right wingers will completely reject evidence by stating that: 1. It comes from the "liberal" media 2. It comes from the government (which cannot be trusted, except for when the GOP occupies the white house) 3. Sources posted on Fox News or Alex Jones say otherwise
I think this post exemplifies the exact issue the OP is referencing. I have a "gift" of not always remembering each poster's political leanings, save for a few, so I don't get so entrenched in arguing with someone rather than debating the topic.
starting off with "blue vs red" will get you nowhere.
I have agreed with people, and disagreed with those same folks. people need to leave their donkey or elephant at the door and discuss the issue, without fear of being wrong.
I've been wrong and/or changed my mind several times over the years. Post 9/11, I was pro-Iraq invasion. Then I had my eyes opened by someone (not on this website) who knew more, politically, than I did at the time. One of the first times I posted on AMT was a thread where a justice of the peace refused to marry interracial couples. I defended him and his right to choose, and then through many pages , gimmesometruth and others opened my eyes to why it was incorrect.
Thirty Bills Unpaid is one person who I clash with often. Mostly on crime and punishment issues. But he has caused me to question my position on many occasions.
All this because I listened instead of waited for my turn to talk (one of the many lessons marriage has taught me-LOL).
HAVE I BEEN GUILTY OF THE LATTER? MORE TIMES THAN I CAN COUNT. But the point is to keep trying to be consious of "is this really my position? or is it my pride?".
Have I been guilty of googling something with an obvious bias towards what I'm trying to prove so I can post the link to prove my point? Absolutely. Guilty as charged. Sometimes pride just takes over. I will readily admit that.
but what I try to remember is the reason I came to this forum in the first place: it's not about winning. it's about learning.
Great post! I agree with the sentiment, and feel the same way. I think partisans are as goofy as religionists in terms of trying to convince someone of the One True Way®. I prefer to look at individual issues or candidates, read what I can, enjoy discussions here, and draw my conclusions. I like the dialog on AMT, but agree that too often people are completely entrenched and do try to 'win'. I have had to question my own beliefs many times over the years due to compelling discussions here, and have learned a lot. Occasionally I will change or modify my position based on these discussions, but even when I don't, I still learned something. I admit I tried to 'win' arguments here years ago, but now am mostly just interested in reading peoples' thoughts, chiming in occasionally to support or challenge something, and enjoying the back and forth. I am occasionally frustrated by the course discussions take, but at the same time can't look away (much like a train wreck). I'm happy we have this place, and thank everyone here who contributes, regardless of where you stand on issues! I've learned a lot about issues and about myself.
Great responses by both You and Hugh.I couldn't agree more.
I think there definitely is winners and losers on Amt.
Winners are the folks who regardless of stance and opinion engage in the debate and are willing to consider the other side of the coin.If for no other reason then to see things from someone else's perspective.Our life experiences shape our opinions right?It dosent really matter wether we agree,but what's important is that we try to see things through others eyes.
With those on the losing side being closed minded and not willing to at least consider there may be a different angle on an issue being discussed .
It took me a while to learn not to get sucked into the mentality of having to win a debate now I try to just state my point of view on issues and learn from the others ....I respect everyone's right to their voices ...
It took me a while to learn not to get sucked into the mentality of having to win a debate now I try to just state my point of view on issues and learn from the others ....I respect everyone's right to their voices ...
Sounds sensible to me, Jose.
Has anyone ever won a debate here, ever, really? How does that work? What is the prize? And is that why we come here? I'd rather learn, educate and be educated, discover, share and simply endure rather than win. At least here. The only win for me would be if this place and 10,000 others like it instigated enough change in the world to reduce our negative impact on the environment or stop the killing of dolphins or slow global warming or end sexism and homophobia and racism or end poverty. That is the only kind of win that makes sense and seems worth the effort. Everything else is just glorified flatulence.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Comments
Let it be said that in retrospect, it's brought some insight into myself
Consistancy should win you no points.
Thanks to those who did read the content.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
He also clung to the notion that the US needed to be armed so that the citizens could honor the constitution and prevent a police state from establishing roots- the very idea you and a few others have promoting yourselves to some degree in the multitude of police abuse threads.
And most of us are all guilty of such tactics at some point in time. Don't you remember when I offered a link to you that had the mayor of Vancouver and other prominent people call the predominantly white Stanley Cup rioters 'thugs'? You dismissed the example and suggested that Canada's use of the term thug differs from that of the US (a textbook case of confirmation bias in my eyes).
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Thirty, the link between the gun issue and police abuse I just don't get. Wanting peoples bodily rights to be protected from police is the same as wanting people armed so they can avert a martial law takeover?
Keep with the dismissal tactics to preserve your inherent bias.
The problem lies with denial of evidence on a systematic basis, not here and there with outlier examples.
1. It comes from the "liberal" media
2. It comes from the government (which cannot be trusted, except for when the GOP occupies the white house)
3. Sources posted on Fox News or Alex Jones say otherwise
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Not to mention that someone being to your right does not automatically mean they are a "right winger." There is plenty of room on the political spectrum in between the two extremes.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
starting off with "blue vs red" will get you nowhere.
I have agreed with people, and disagreed with those same folks. people need to leave their donkey or elephant at the door and discuss the issue, without fear of being wrong.
I've been wrong and/or changed my mind several times over the years. Post 9/11, I was pro-Iraq invasion. Then I had my eyes opened by someone (not on this website) who knew more, politically, than I did at the time. One of the first times I posted on AMT was a thread where a justice of the peace refused to marry interracial couples. I defended him and his right to choose, and then through many pages , gimmesometruth and others opened my eyes to why it was incorrect.
Thirty Bills Unpaid is one person who I clash with often. Mostly on crime and punishment issues. But he has caused me to question my position on many occasions.
All this because I listened instead of waited for my turn to talk (one of the many lessons marriage has taught me-LOL).
HAVE I BEEN GUILTY OF THE LATTER? MORE TIMES THAN I CAN COUNT. But the point is to keep trying to be consious of "is this really my position? or is it my pride?".
Have I been guilty of googling something with an obvious bias towards what I'm trying to prove so I can post the link to prove my point? Absolutely. Guilty as charged. Sometimes pride just takes over. I will readily admit that.
but what I try to remember is the reason I came to this forum in the first place: it's not about winning. it's about learning.
www.headstonesband.com
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
As Hugh has said here... we have gone at each other at times; but many other times, we have agreed on other issues as well as corresponded via email and private messages.
Because this has happened... I know that Hugh is some guy in Winnipeg who is a good guy- not a faceless, soulless entity who has pitted himself as my opponent- challenging my value set as if it was a defamation of my character. Our viewpoints on some things do not mesh very well, but that fact means very little in the bigger picture.
People never joined the 10C to engage in debate. They came here because Pearl Jam beckoned them. Then, they discovered the MT and the possibilities this website offers them.
Number 1: Pearl Jam fans (big ones).
Number 2: All the other stuff that should never trump Number 1.
I think there definitely is winners and losers on Amt.
Winners are the folks who regardless of stance and opinion engage in the debate and are willing to consider the other side of the coin.If for no other reason then to see things from someone else's perspective.Our life experiences shape our opinions right?It dosent really matter wether we agree,but what's important is that we try to see things through others eyes.
With those on the losing side being closed minded and not willing to at least consider there may be a different angle on an issue being discussed .
Has anyone ever won a debate here, ever, really? How does that work? What is the prize? And is that why we come here? I'd rather learn, educate and be educated, discover, share and simply endure rather than win. At least here. The only win for me would be if this place and 10,000 others like it instigated enough change in the world to reduce our negative impact on the environment or stop the killing of dolphins or slow global warming or end sexism and homophobia and racism or end poverty. That is the only kind of win that makes sense and seems worth the effort. Everything else is just glorified flatulence.