|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2007 : 04:10:01 [Permalink]
|
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.
Re the platform, it doesn't exclude the kind of things I've seen people discuss in Green Party events on CSPAN. It's a reasonable claim there would be more woo in the platform but it isn't enough to convince me by itself. I've been to many Democratic Party caucuses and I'd say a lot of stuff doesn't make it into the platform by the time the local input makes its way to the national caucus.
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/09/2007 : 06:07:51 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal said: quote:
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.
Then Dude wrote: quote:
There you go again, making rash claims about a political party based on what a few people in that party think.
Dude, with all due respect, I think you are taking skepticism to an absurd extreme here by applying it where it cannot be applied (to an opinion, rather than a claim of fact). be stated that the majority of Greens were "overly idealistic" and the term "woo woo" was used. Now, just think for a minute -- how specific are those terms? What does it mean to be "overly idealistic"? And what qualifies one as a "woo woo"? Since these are not clearly defined terms in-of-themselves, it is clear in the context of the conversation from page 2 that be was simply expressing her general impression of Greens, her reaction to the ones she's met and seen on TV, in other words, her opinion.
In comparison, I could tell you my opinion that the majority of Greens are overly idealistic because I think an American almost must be an idealist to affiliate themselves officially with any third parties in the face of the overwhelming dominence of Dems and Republicans in this country. And I'm sure my husband would agree that most members of third parties qualify as woo woos for similar reasons. And in turn, someone who likes third parties could call Will and I cynical. Since none of these are claims with meanings specific enough to prove or disprove, they are opinions. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2007 : 00:06:34 [Permalink]
|
I should also mention that belief in unsound things is only a single aspect of a person. There are even nice Republicans though too pro-war reflects on the whole person a bit more than just believing in astrology or acupuncture. But just because someone believes in things for which there is no evidence doesn't say that much about the rest of their intellect or likability or altruism or other wonderful qualities a lot of woos happen to have. It's not like everyone who isn't grounded in critical thinking is flaky because some are. I believe the Green Party to also have many intelligent people. What I am saying is the party attracts a certain group.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/10/2007 00:09:02 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 03/10/2007 : 02:59:41 [Permalink]
|
marf....
Here is what beskeptigal said:
quote:
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.
She is calling the majority of the Green Party "magical thinkers".
In light of her obvious political bigotry towards libertarians this adds a disturbing note.
She is obviously incapable of thinking rationally about politics. She refuses to even acknowledge that the burden of proof is upon the claimant (her, in this instance).
IF she was merely expressing an opinion, then surely she is capable of stating things clearly.... as she doesn't appear to be retarded when discussing things in other areas here on these boards.
Lets see, somehting like, "In my experience, the majority of greens I have dealth with, are magical thinkers and idiots."
Would have made her point, not stepped ass deep into logical fallacy land, and would have avoided making an unsupportable claim!
How many times has she insisted that I have to prove her wrong? Several! And she continues to try and shift the burden of proof off of herself! WTF?!
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2007 : 03:04:02 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal said:
quote:
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.
You are the one making the claim. What part of that are you not comprehending?
FFS, you are starting to sound like Billscott or GK Paul.
So blinded by your convictions that you abandon critical thinking.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
McQ
Skeptic Friend
USA
258 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2007 : 08:55:03 [Permalink]
|
I'm with marfknox and beskeptigal on this one. This is really taking skepticism to an absurd level. We should maybe relax a bit on this one. I have the same opinion of the Green Party, based on my observations of Green Party members, press conferences, mailings, and discussions with them.
The Green Party does appear to me, as it does some others, to attract a certain type of person. In certain populations, such as all of the hundreds (more like thousands) of professional actors I have worked with over the past thirty years, there is a higher level of woo belief as well. In fact, when the 130+ member acting troupe I was a member of for the last three years took a poll similar to this one, on party membership, we found that just over 50% of the troupe were Green Party members! We had three Republicans. The rest were spread among Dems, Libertarians, and "other", including someone who said he was an anarchist.
The point here is that by far, the most woo-believing people were represented among the Greens. The only three skeptics I could find over three years of working with these folks were one of each: Lib, Rep, Dem.
So even though I have at least some way to measure this, it is still just my opinion, based on personal experience, that be and marf are right about this.
And let's not take it so dreadfully seriously either. This is one of those threads where civility just took a dump in favor of "being right at all cost".
And now back to your locally scheduled WWE cage match.
|
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Gillette |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2007 : 15:56:42 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
She is calling the majority of the Green Party "magical thinkers".
In light of her obvious political bigotry towards libertarians this adds a disturbing note.
She is obviously incapable of thinking rationally about politics. She refuses to even acknowledge that the burden of proof is upon the claimant (her, in this instance).
IF she was merely expressing an opinion, then surely she is capable of stating things clearly.... as she doesn't appear to be retarded when discussing things in other areas here on these boards.
Lets see, somehting like, "In my experience, the majority of greens I have dealth with, are magical thinkers and idiots."
Would have made her point, not stepped ass deep into logical fallacy land, and would have avoided making an unsupportable claim!
How many times has she insisted that I have to prove her wrong? Several! And she continues to try and shift the burden of proof off of herself! WTF?!
Dude, please don't take offense, but I don't think this responds to my main point which is that this is about a vague matter of opinion, and therefore right and wrong and burden of proof is not applicable. Magical thinking is still not specific enough. What qualifies any one individual as a "magical thinker"? Most of us engage in magical thinking from time to time about certain things. The claim that a group of people are magical thinkers is only slightly less vague than claiming they are woowoos or idiots. What is mean is general, vague, and dependent on the context of the conversation. It's more about getting the gist rather than discovering the facts.
Edited to add: Also, if beskeptigal did not make her statement clear initially, she certainly did later on state that it was her opinion. To attack her so much for how she initially phrased things is rather harsh. I mean, come on, we all know how difficult these typed-out conversations can be. Misunderstandings are a constant. Now that be has made it clear that she was expressing an opinion, why are you still asking for proof of a factual claim? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/10/2007 15:59:32 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2007 : 16:06:44 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: quote:
IF she was merely expressing an opinion, then surely she is capable of stating things clearly.... as she doesn't appear to be retarded when discussing things in other areas here on these boards.
Lets see, somehting like, "In my experience, the majority of greens I have dealth with, are magical thinkers and idiots."
This particular criticism really reminds me of a meeting I had a few years ago with my local Humanist group in Columbus, Ohio. It was a meeting about re-clarifying the direction the group wanted to head in, and setting clear goals. About 12 people were present, and only 2 were women, including myself. The other woman kept stating things in the way that Dude advocates above. She used "I" a lot, claiming what she said as her opinion. But I and the men were stating things more assertively. Suddenly, the person moderating the meeting pointed out this difference and mentioned how he'd read something about how women tend to talk that way. In certain situations - when diplomacy is more effective - that is the better approach. But in other situations, it makes the speaker sound weak. A good rule of thumb is to only bother with the "My opinion is..." when it is not clear that it is an opinion, or when you are sure that submissiveness will be an advantage. I tend to think that in conversations about politics, one should try to sound as assertive as possible because that is more persuasive. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/10/2007 16:08:04 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2007 : 22:10:08 [Permalink]
|
No, beskeptigal is engaging in logical fallacy on a large scale here. When you make a claim that the majority of a group is "X", then you need to be able to back that shit up with some evidence.
You can BS all you want about expressing opinions, but the bottom line here is that beskeptigal is maligning an entire group of people (much in the same way that fauxnews and the neocons do to liberals). Her unstated implication is that these people have nothing worth considering to add to the political discussions of the day BECAUSE they are "magical thinkers".
I could build just such a fallacious case against all democrats and all republicans too. It is easy to pick one thing, or take a limited exposure (anecdotal evidence included) and draw false claims via fallacious induction.
For example:
My sister is blond, and an airhead.
My girlfriend is blond, and an airhead.
My friend from work is blond, and an airhead.
Therefore all blonds are airheads!
A person's exposure to some members of a group is almost NEVER accurately representative of the group in question.
It is always easier to dismiss others when you can rationalize them away as kooks or idiots. Why do you think people like MAnn Coultergeist are so popular? They ignore all semblance of critical thinking and provide the rationalizations for people to demonize liberals of all stripes.
This is the exact same thing beskeptigal is doing here, just doing it to libertarians and greens.
It is no trivial matter.
There are certain rules to this skepticism game. One of them is that the burden of proof always lies with the claimant. No exceptions. When people try to shift that burden it is a symptom of a breakdown in their critical thinking skills.
If we are going to discuss politics on a skeptics forum we have to excercise out all of our own personal bias on the topics we discuss. We have to strictly adhere to the rules of logic and doublecheck our critical thinking.
Religion and politics are the two most feared topics of conversation for a reason..... because almost everyone will abandon reason for one or the other.
If we are going to be calling ourselves skeptics here and talk about politics and religion, then we should not accept what beskeptigal is doing. We don't tolerate it from the few conservatives who post here, so lets not tolerate it from the liberals just because we are a majority here.
|
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
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2007 : 23:34:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Dude:
If we are going to discuss politics on a skeptics forum we have to excercise out all of our own personal bias on the topics we discuss. We have to strictly adhere to the rules of logic and doublecheck our critical thinking.
In general, I think we should do the best we can to avoid using logical fallacies when discussing politics. We should do our best to not have a bias. However, in politics, after due diligence and with all of the critical thinking we can muster, we will still be left with an opinion regarding, for example, what party will do the best job of governing. Look at the poll and you will see that skeptics have differing opinions on that. But that isn't so when we are discussing homeopathics or whether evolution happens or some crazed conspiracy theory or what have you. Politics is more philosophical than scientific in nature and is therefore much harder to quantify.
Take opinion out of the politics folder, and we will soon have no threads there.
Of course, it's okay to challenge an opinion, but I submit that it is impossible or nearly impossible to leave all of your bias at home when discussing politics. I would go as far as to say that the term “political science” is alarmingly close to an oxymoron.
I said that the Green's woo the woo woo's. And that makes sense because the New Age is aggressively green. Plus, they vote. And I also said that New Ager's are less likely to vote as pragmatically as I do, which is to say, they will vote for a looser just to be heard. My opinion. I have no idea how many magical thinkers make up the Green party, but my gut tells me that it's more than a few. I have no way to prove it though. Would that stop me from voting for Green Party candidates? Nope. Not if I agreed with their platform and thought they had a chance in hell of winning. I vote democratic, and frankly I hear so much crap coming from democrats, I must keep my fingers crossed every time I vote.
I do the best I can to bring logic and rules of reason to my decisions of whom to vote for. And I'm sure you do too, Dude. And yet we may not be voting for the same people or party. Why? Because we simply can't avoid filtering political arguments through our own biases.
|
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 - 03/11/2007 : 01:34:35 [Permalink]
|
kil said:
quote:
Take opinion out of the politics folder, and we will soon have no threads there.
That's true.
But not relly what I am talking about.
As skeptics we should be trying to apply our skepticism to all claims of fact. Nothing should get a free pass.
Obviously we will never be on the same sheet, politically, with everyone else around us. But when a person makes a positive claim, about any issue, we should require a certain standard of evidence regardless of their political party choice.
We should not give people a free pass because the topic is politics. Most members of this board wouldn't even consider giving people a free pass on evidence in the religion folder, so why would anyone do it for politics?
Claims of fact SHOULD be met with demands for evidence.
The demonizing of political groups based on nothing more than a difference of opinion should make skeptics angry. (most of us are liberals to one degree or another, and we've been subjected to it by the rightwing spin machine for years, and I think the general concensus is that we don't like it)
So, again, I ask those of you who are claiming that the "majority" of greens are "magical thinkers" to put forth some evidence. If you can't, then you need to retract those claims and apologize.
The evidence you need to present should be up to the same standards you would accept for the claims of ESP, ET, and ghosts! Anecdotes (your personal stories of greens you have met) DO NOT COUNT.
Because, seriously, you are talking out of your ass when you make such claims. The only evidence you have, or apparently personally need, is of the same quality that assholes like Sylvia Brown present as "proof" of their psychic abilities.
In a skeptics political forum I would expect debate about specific issues, opinions included. I would expect the different sides to have well reasoned arguments and some evidence to support them. I would expect objections and dissent to be laid out clearly with the reasons and evidence for the dissent also made clear. I'd expect all sides to be capable of recognizing issues that do not have enough evidence available to make a clear judgement or case, and acknowledge that they are speaking only opinion.
What I would not expect is what is happening here. I would not expect to find neocon style political bigotry and a disregard for reason and evidence.
quote:
Why? Because we simply can't avoid filtering political arguments through our own biases.
I disagree.
If all parties make a legitimate effort to apply reason, we can manage to make political decisions based on solid critical thinking. We can engage in reasonable debate on those issues we disagree on. We can recognize issues that are not settled and do not have enough evidence for anything other than opinion.
It is hard to do, yes. But I think the effort is well placed.
|
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 - 03/11/2007 : 03:20:23 [Permalink]
|
I can't change my opinion because it bothers you, Dude. So short of that what is it you are expecting? That I prove to myself my observations were wrong? I have no need to do that. I'm trying to work through Progressives invading and taking over the Democratic Party, I have a son, a house, a business, and taxes that are almost due. No time to meet your needs. If you have something that contradicts what I've observed, I'll read it. I don't need you to agree with my observation.
Soo... all your ranting is not going to make me look up more stuff on the Green Party, and my observations are what they are. The end.  |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 03/11/2007 03:21:34 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 12:39:36 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal said:
quote:
I can't change my opinion because it bothers you, Dude. So short of that what is it you are expecting?
You were not stating an opinion. You were making a rash, and derogatory, statement about the "majority" composition of a specific group of people based on your own limited personal experience. You are seeking a way to demonize them so you can rationalize marginalizing them.
I do not expect you to change your opinion. What I expect (maybe I'm asking to much) is for you, and others, to leave the political bigotry out of political conversations here. Apply your critical thinking skills to all claims of fact regarding political issues, and be capable of minimizing your own personal bias.
When you strut in here and claim that the majority of greens are magical thinkers(based on your limited exposure to some of them), you are making a claim akin to someone saying aliens are real because they saw a dot in the sky!
The funny part is that you don't even seem to realize what you are doing.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 13:30:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
That I prove to myself my observations were wrong?
Seems to me that what's at issue are not your observations, but instead the conclusion you stated that you drew from those observations. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Vegeta
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
238 Posts |
Posted - 03/11/2007 : 13:39:24 [Permalink]
|
Wow, some people can get really defensive about their party preference it seems, we can all come together to gang up on religious people, but when it comes to politics its every man or woman for himself.
I've always been put off Green parties rightly or wrongly because of their priorities not being in line with my own. Personally a strong economy is more important to me than emission rates. Call me short sighted and selfish but I think being in a strong economic position is ultimately more beneficial for me and my immediate descendants. I am put off by the green party's lack of any experience in power and radical views. Electing them would be a huge risk, where'as the status quo choice(s) are the safer option, you could call this cowardice I suppose, but maybe that label is more suitably reserved for people who WANT to vote green, but daren't.
I am in favour of nuclear power and I am not a pacifist.
I don't really see anything in their manifesto that appeals to me, besides the things that are already in the main party's manifestos and are taken for granted in this day and age.
|
What are you looking at? Haven't you ever seen a pink shirt before?
"I was asked if I would do a similar sketch but focusing on the shortcomings of Islam rather than Christianity. I said, 'No, no I wouldn't. I may be an atheist but I'm not stupid.'" - Steward Lee |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Party, Party, Party!
