Quote:
Originally Posted by **********
Hi Squealer,
I was wondering if you were interested in trying an experiment?
Personally, I do not think I am biased, at least for biased-sake. I see, or think I see, republicans making lots of mistakes and doing some really bad things. You, or at least some GFY'ers on the other hand, see, or think you see, democrats doing bad things.
What always happens in arguments like this is that the thread goes off topic.
Would you be interested in say, making 2 or 3 points maximum, that you think that I, with my "bias", would argue against?
What I will do then is, if I disagree on an item, I will try to argue my point, and back it up with links and as much facts as I can, at which time you could of course argue back.
The only rule is that we must remain exactly on-topic. This can be very hard to do, but I think it would be a good way to illuminate bias from a conversation, and stick to only the facts.
What do you say?
|
To be clear, Democrats and Republicans to me, are two sides of the same coin. Bias towards one side or the other is (in my mind) the product of evolutionary adaptation to better regulate large sedentary societies. Put simply, without individual and group bias, there is no argument/debate. Without argument/debate, there is a greater chance of failure than success in an evolutionary sense. Meaning that the best answers for the group, come from debating all sides of an argument. Argument cannot happen without individual and group bias. However, thats a long and very discussion.
Most people do not believe they are biased. We all are. Our brains use a massive array of cognitive biases to navigate the world and to base assumptions on. Largely the result of evolution and the brains amazing ability to conserve energy. Regardless, biases and your obvious political bias have nothing to do with debating facts point for point. If it did, everyone would have agreed on the "facts" long ago. You are simply attempting to sneak away from an obvious uncomfortable fact by changing the discussion to what you believe is a winnable argument... or one where you can at least say "i beat him in the global warming debate and as such, according to me, i'm not biased". That's the reasoning of a 12 year old.
How about this ... as the intelligent "man of science" which you'd like to think you are and have others think you are, ... how about you make a rare attempt to open your eyes and make some minimal attempt to try to open your mind.
Here is pic
You may see an old woman.
I may see a young women.
We both may argue until we are blue in the face that it is one or the other and present all the facts and evidence to support that view.
Does my attacking your arguments change what is in the picture? Does it change what you see? Does it cause you to see what I see if you are resigned to deny it from the outset? Of course not.
You will only see the other side, when you decide you are interested in understanding the other side. You will never see it when you're only intent is to prove them wrong and yourself right. Thats not your fault.. its the brains fault. It doesn't want to think and you'd be forcing it to think. It wants to conserve energy and focus on running the body and on matters of survival and reproduction. Pointless pontificating is not something your brain wants to do by design.
Until then, you and crocket-science and others are so close minded and simple, that you'd prefer to simply argue that anyone who doesn't see what you see is "crazy" and "dangerous" etc etc... all because you are incapable of and/or unwilling to see what they see, or even in making the slightest effort to understand.
That said, you and crocket-science are necessary as are the Vendzillas of the world... as its the extremes which define the center. If someone like Crocket or Vendzilla started to think "wow, i'm really extreme and narrow minded and incapable of accepting any view that challenges my own or even changing my views completely", they would do a lot of soul searching and likely cease being who they are and society as a whole (from an evolutionary standpoint) would suffer.